HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2005-01-20 PM 1
LNIB Minutes
Thursday, January 20, 2005
1:30 PM
Present: Mark Adcock , CA ; Marlin Goebel, CO ; Beth McKinnon, ES ; Judy Ervin,
GL ; Chris Jordan, LO ; Mike Swanson, MI ; Gene Greene, MO ; Scott Archer, OC ;
George Hoyt, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL ; Pat Duke, WV.
Alternates, Staff and Guests: ; Cynthia Sturgis, Joe Sandfort, MI ; Doris Grolbert, CO ;
Beth Saul, CA ; Beth Scarth, SA ; Scott Lazenby, SA ; Catherine Powers, GL ; Jan
Erickson, LO ; David Donaldson, WV (asst. city manager) Joanna Rood,Jeff Ring, NT
Mike Swanson, chair, called the meeting to order at 1:34. Introductions were made
around the table. Judy/Gene M/S to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried.
05-06 mid-year formula changes - Mike asked Joanna to review the 05-06 distribution
options in the spreadsheets in the packet. Some PLC members, concerned about decline
in circulation after anticipated cutbacks January 1, requested consideration of a mid-year
formula change. Joanna presented two options: leaving the formula unchanged or
changing the formula mid year to use calendar-year 2004 circulations and net ILL stats.
Speaking in favor of no changes to the formula, Julia suggested that changing to an even
more confusing calendar-year model would not be easy to explain to city officials. Chris
noted that the figures are only marginally different, so why bother changing? Speaking
in favor of the 2004 calendar year change, Beth M. reminded LNIB that we would be
working with actual circs if we used 2004.calendar instead of 04-05 projections.
As there was no motion to make any changes to the formula, it will remain unchanged for
2005-2006. The payments will be based on the complete 04-05 circulation stats.
MIX IGA -Joanna reported on the results of the recent MIX study we conducted. We
defined exactly the information we wanted from MCL and from WCCLS, which was a
report of the geographical locations of library patrons who had checked out any items
from other counties in the last 6 months.Not surprisingly the majority of these patrons
live in"border-areas of the county such as Boring, Lake Oswego and Milwaukie. We
determined that only 111 Clackamas County citizens could be called"heavy"users
having checked out more than 5,000 items from other libraries. We also asked for a
snapshot of all the items checked out to our citizens by other libraries on one day and
analyzed the results. We discovered that LINCC libraries owned the majority of these
items (with the exception of some specialized non-fiction) and so patrons did not seem to
be using MCL out of necessity, but more from convenience.
Jeff read the motion from PLC that recommended to LNIB that MIX be removed from
the Library Network budget, but also that LNIB should pursue other methods for funding
MIX. This motion was passed at PLC by a margin of 9-2 with LO and WV voting no.
i
Beth S. pointed out that if we froze the distribution for 06-07 in the event of MIX
cancellation, then libraries would have a"grace period". After that time, we'll have to
look at circulation again,taking into account the actual impact of the changed/reduced
circ patterns based on fewer open hours. Chris doesn't understand why we would cut
something that gives us 11% of our circulation yet only cost 2%of operating budget?
Jan added that there are other measurements of citizen use of MCL libraries other than
circulation—for example, we have no numbers about people who use their MCL cards to
access the MCL online databases. Scott asked whether we were actually cutting people
off or if we were simply not paying for it anymore. Joanna clarified that people can still
purchase cards for$75/year.
Joanna reported that WCCLS and FVRL had already agreed informally that they would
exchange reciprocal circulation with LINCC without charging because our levels of
usage are fairly small and fairly level. Joe said that the money MI would lose from the
lost MIX circs would be much greater than the money they would save by canceling
MIX, so MI would need the formula changed in 06-07 to not be worse off.
Doris said that canceling MIX will create a hardship at border libraries where circ will
drop and they'll have to deal with angry patrons. But, she also can't see sending away
the equivalent of one library's annual budget for a few citizens' convenience.
Mike reflected on the history of the MIX agreement. It was supposed to be part of a new
regional initiative. The MIX contract was one of the first times that representatives from
Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties sat down together to work out a
regional effort. Mike's concern is that we'd be sending a message that runs counter to
what the governing bodies in the Metro area have been trying to change over the last
decades. Mike doesn't think that LINCC is at the point of severe enough financial pain
yet to cut the MIX program.
Beth M. and Beth S. both said that explaining to their city councils/citizens why we're
paying so much for MIX is very hard in their situations with severe budget cuts looming.
Beth S. stated that with what they pay for their share of MIX, they could be open another
day, especially considering that very few of their patrons even use the service.
Joanna reported that the MCL Library Director indicated that she might be willing to re-
negotiate the cost and so that will be the next step in the process. Mike suggested that we
table the MIX discussion for a month. Mike and Joanna will meet with MCL to let them
know that the agreement is in danger. They will push to see how far MCL is willing to
negotiate. They'll try to bring that info back next month to LNIB for further discussion.
NT BUDGET -Joanna presented the NT budget. She reported that PLC has approved
the budget, with the notation that MIX is still under consideration. Joanna reported that
the budget is very level. The biggest change is the conversion of a number of part-time
temps into one regular full-time position.
I
Doris wondered about the perception problem of adding a full-time NT position just after
losing a levy and when many libraries will be laying off staff. Beth S. pointed out that NT
is not overstaffed by any means. It's painful that they're going to be laying off people,
but let's not shortchange ourselves. Beth M. agreed and suggested that if the libraries are
cutting, then if NT can add one person to make everyone's lives easier, it's worth it. Judy
told the group to keep the big picture in mind—if this is going to help all the libraries,
then it's worth it. Chris/Judy M/S "to approve the NT budget pending the outcome of the
MIX negotiation." Motion carried.
PROCESS COMMITTEE - Mike reported on the activities of Process Committee. The
first meeting was about posing the questions we need to answer. With the defeat of the
levy, we're in an interesting financial situation. Mike reviewed the draft LNIB survey
contained on the yellow pages of the packet. He asked everyone to respond by e-mail to
Joanna to each question. LNIB would like at least two responses from each jurisdiction,
one from the library and one from the city/county. It's not designed to be scientific, and
we're not going to count"votes"to decide"what wins". It's just to get some ideas. Jan
added she learned a lot as a member of the Process Committee. She was pleased that the
committee had made progress from being a very diverse group to a narrowed down focus.
The deadline for responses to the survey was Feb 11th.
LNIB agreed to combine the March 3rd PLC with a special LNIB meeting. The combined
group will meet at 1:30 and try to resolve the MIX issue and review the results of the
survey.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA
Thursday,April 21,2005
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, ORI
I. Call to Order
II. Introductions
III. Minutes- Previous Action items
IV. Library Network Report
A. Green sheet- 05- 06 distribution projections through March 31. -Joanna
B. Report on missing/stolen library materials: "internal controls" review process Joanna
V. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. MIX issue—results of other(not Network budget) revenue for MIX payment-Mike
li G".44- 14.4.-
4r '-e
&B. County-wide Library Assessment Study-Nancy N. �td
4644-e.. !tem'j[�. tib(!- �n vidoc.N Jre4v4 1 . 0w
C.Annual General meeting with BCC—ideas for presentation/discussion;4te w +bM+ I•c[,-
D. Other IK. 7 e- *sem-l.s....c 4- f.r,.,may, .
VI. Other comments —sharing news of your library
VII. Adjournment- Next regular meeting—Annual General meeting—DATE?
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send your
alternate.
�' 4,1644 C.t..I� ed�7
r 6
U� - •, 1s1-epi,
s(,t,4"/(17 ddb
Public Library Council
Library Network Intergovernmental Board
Joint meeting
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Present: Beth Saul, Mark Adcock, CA ; Marlin Goebel, Doris Grolbert, CO ; Beth McKinnon,
ES ; Judy Ervin, Catherine Powers, GL ; Chris Jordan, Jan Erickson, LO ; Mike Swanson,Joe
Sandfort, MI ; Eldon Lampson, MO ; Scott Archer, Debbie Dodd, OC ; Beth Scarth, Scott
Lazenby, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL ; Pat Duke, WV.
Staff and Guests: Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring, NT ; Pat Lynn, Sue Trotter, MI
Call to order and Introductions: Chair Mike Swanson called the meeting to order at 1:36 pm.
Introductions were made around the table. Mike encouraged contributions from all attending.
Minutes: Judy/Pat M/S to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried.
Network Report:
Joanna reported that the total cost for the Library Levy to be on the ballot Nov 4 was ($56,254).
We paid$30,000 (the amount we had budgeted)and the rest was paid from the fund that the
County had set aside for the informational campaign. Once again it was noted how strange it is
for the County to charge its own departments for election costs, but not to charge cities.
Joanna presented the most recent green sheet, through Feb 28. It includes the final NT budget
amount and the final updated pop. The only variable left is circ over the next few months. It was
clearly noted that the final NT budget does not include MIX.
Joanna presented the final NT budget. She reviewed the line item summary spreadsheet and
footnotes that illustrated significant increases or decreases. The budget was approved.
Joanna reminded LNIB that the group decided not to freeze the 04-05 statistics formula in the
middle of the year so that the 05-06 distribution will be based on the full year of 04-05 circs and
Net ILL transactions. Then LNIB began a discussion about the 06-07 distribution and whether it
made sense to freeze the 05-06 statistics at 04-05 numbers since so many libraries were
experiencing cut-backs. After considerable discussion of formula options, it was decided that we
need more information about our revenue in 06-07 before we decide. This decision does not have
to be made until December 2005. Mike suggested that we delay the discussion about the
distribution formula for now and he will ask Jon for some official confirmation of projected GF
revenue for county-wide library operations over the next several years.
MIX
Joanna read a letter from Molly Raphael, Director of the Multnomah County Libraries. It
proposed eliminating the $60,000 reference payment and increasing the percentage increase
toward payment for full reciprocal circ. This proposal leaves $101,000 to pay in December 2005.
This is a staff proposal, and has not been approved by the Multnomah Co Commissioners.
Mike agreed to try to get in contact with other city managers and with Jon Mantay to see if
additional revenue is available to keep the Mix agreement alive. Mike believes that the BCC
will want to continue to participate in MIX, as it helps Clackamas County show that they can
play on the regional level. Also, Mike reminded LNIB again that MDC is an agreement between
the BCC and the Multnomah Commissioners, and that only the Clackamas County Board can
take action to continue or discontinue the program.
LNIB survey
Joanna reported on the LNIB survey results. There was at least one response from each
jurisdiction and many submitted several responses. Joanna highlighted the general trends and
variety of opinions about library services in Clackamas County as they were revealed by the
study. She pointed out that in many cases those responding had quite different viewpoints from
each other. But, in general there seemed to be a willingness to look at making some changes, if
change could bring about a permanent, stable library funding solution. There was a widespread
unwillingness to just"wait and see" what happens to library funding over the next several years
and significant fears were expressed about cuts to library hours and services. There was some
interest in trying to consolidate some technical services functions at Library Network, if that
would improve efficiency and reduce duplication of effort.
Scott L. wondered if it might be possible to get a levy onto the 2006 ballot by some sort of
initiative process. He suggested that voters may be more ready to approve it after they have seen
the results of library cutbacks in 05-06 and 06-07. Scott will look into this.
Mike asked LNIB to read the survey and begin to think about how we can use this information
for future planning. We need to decide where to take it from here.
Grants, Donations and Marketing Committee
Joanna talked about the GDM (Grants, Donations, Marketing) Committee. Mike agreed that
these are three issues that need to be front-and-center. LNIB agreed that it should stay as a PLC
Committee, but can turn to LNIB if help is needed. GDM may propose reactivating the PICCL
and it would be helpful to have LNIB/city support for that.
News of our libraries:
WL is starting Music in the Stacks again with the "Kung Pow Chickens".
PLC was rescheduled to April 14`h because of a conflict with OLA on the 7`h.
The next LNIB will be on Thursday, April 21st'at 1:30, at NT.
Action Items:
* Mike will contact Jon to request at least preliminary revenue projections from the GF for the
next several years
* Mike will contact City Managers and Jon Mantay to request supplemental funding to keep the
MIX agreement in order.
* Scott L. will find out if it is possible to petition to put a county-wide levy on the ballot(say in
2006) without BCC approval.
* LNIB will read the survey and develop ideas about how to process the information.
111 :i
�
I ioMN�'FTPO°j)
oOOoVO 12,„oOrnN� —oIiI111111111111 d! U ! P�MN(t
fA IA M fA In M
1111111 1
mmP0NNnH11 XU m
11111111 IIIHIIAH ird
0
o
1111 1111111111 0 __
0ON 'IggC NV ! < C 101 IHIIiH
I
111
11
11111111111
I
I U Q
i � E
Q
111
NWT"1-11111
ill!
oC
.0
>
coo° zza — aS 3 3
M P
IIiHHl
W NIN M N N D
ENEM
u u �°' °' � �— II Hi v maCi �' E � giF O ` d HN Z �a w U cid �° o
j C
UOUwc� 2 � � � Ov� r �
U I
Jordan, Chris
From: Deardorff, Janice
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:13 AM
To: Jordan, Chris; Seals,Richard
Subject: FW: Oh, book thief detective....
FYI since it goes with many themes in the news.
JD
----Original Message----
From: Erickson,Jan
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:16 PM
To: Rose,Jackie; Ainslie, Donna; Baars, Bill; Glazer, Cyndie; Deardorff,Janice
Subject: FW: Oh, book thief detective....
FYI
Jan
Original Message----
From: Joanna Rood [mailto:joannar@lincc.lib.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:43 PM
To: Eva Calcagno; PLC
Subject: Re: Oh, book thief detective....
Hi Eva
At this point, there are no plans in Clackamas County to try and recover the materials from the
Amazon customers. We figured there would be $$compensation for these lost materials either from
court-ordered restitution from the thief himself (we hope) or compensation from library insurance.
My guess is that the staff cost of trying to recover the materials from so many different customers (for
whom we only have e-mail addresses-no actual personal id) would far outweigh the financial gain.
And could we expect realistically these customers to PAY to mail the items back to us, on top of the
loss they have already suffered by having to return the item? They would certainly not be due a
refund because the items they purchased were stolen property. I wonder if many people would just
delete any e-mails we might send to them requesting the return of our "property."
Plus, remember that all of these items will have been thoroughly defaced before being sold; no book
or video jackets, no barcodes, no call numbers or other stickers, all ownership info blacked out and in
many cases, no title pages- so how valuable would they really be to us??
Re-processing them and getting them back to their rightful library would be a nightmare. As it is, we
have probably spent over four thousand dollars in staff time here just to prepare evidence, prepare
written statements, verify and process the recovered items and provide estimates of their
replacement value to the deputies- and the recovered items had barcodes and ownership stamps
1
intact!
I am really hoping this whole thing comes to a close one day soon. I heard through the grapevine that
on Tuesday our ex-employee was the object of an entire afternoon CPA training session in downtown
Portland on employee theft! We are in the midst of studying our vulnerability to various aspects of
employee misbehavior and how improved internal controls might help prevent problems in the
future. I'll send you a copy of the procedures we come up with, if you think there might be interest at
WCCLS...
Let me know if you have any other questions. Give Barb Kesel our thanks for her help.
Cheers
joanna
Eva Calcagno wrote:
> Hi Joanna,
> Staff here are about done processing all those boxes of books! They
> only ended up with about a half dozen that will require shelf checks
> to figure out.
> I had a question from one of the directors about whether or not anyone
> was going to try to retrieve the books that the thief had already sold
> -- like get them back from the buyers. Were you going to do that? Is
> it even possible? Would someone have to refund their money?
> Weird question, but I thought I'd ask...
> Eva Calcagno, Manager
> Washington County Cooperative Library Services
> 111 NE Lincoln St., MS58
> Hillsboro, OR 97124-3036
> (503)846-3233, FAX 846-3220
> http://www.WILInet.wccls.lib.or.us
Joanna Rood, Manager
Library Information Network of Clackamas County
16239 S.E. McLoughlin Blvd. St 208
Oak Grove, Oregon 97267
joannar@lincc.org
Voice: 503.723.4889
Fax: 503.794.8238
2
Public Library Council
Library Network Intergovernmental Board
Joint meeting
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Present: Beth Saul,Mark Adcock, CA ; Marlin Goebel, Doris Grolbert, CO ; Beth McKinnon,
ES ; Judy Ervin, Catherine Powers, GL ; Chris Jordan, Jan Erickson, LO ; Mike Swanson, Joe
Sandfort, MI ; Eldon Lampson, MO ; Scott Archer, Debbie Dodd, OC ; Beth Scarth, Scott
Lazenby, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL ; Pat Duke, WV.
Staff and Guests: Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring,NT ; Pat Lynn, Sue Trotter, MI
Call to order and Introductions: Chair Mike Swanson called the meeting to order at 1:36 pm.
Introductions were made around the table. Mike encouraged contributions from all attending.
Minutes: Judy/Pat M/S to approve minutes as submitted. Motion carried.
Network Report:
Joanna reported that the total cost for the Library Levy to be on the ballot Nov 4 was ($56,254).
We paid $30,000 (the amount we had budgeted) and the rest was paid from the fund that the
County had set aside for the informational campaign. Once again it was noted how strange it is
for the County to charge its own departments for election costs, but not to charge cities.
Joanna presented the most recent green sheet, through Feb 28. It includes the final NT budget
amount and the final updated pop. The only variable left is circ over the next few months. It was
clearly noted that the final NT budget does not include MIX.
Joanna presented the final NT budget. She reviewed the line item summary spreadsheet and
footnotes that illustrated significant increases or decreases. The budget was approved.
Joanna reminded LNIB that the group decided not to freeze the 04-05 statistics formula in the
middle of the year so that the 05-06 distribution will be based on the full year of 04-05 circs and
Net ILL transactions. Then LNIB began a discussion about the 06-07 distribution and whether it
made sense to freeze the 05-06 statistics at 04-05 numbers since so many libraries were
experiencing cut-backs. After considerable discussion of formula options, it was decided that we
need more information about our revenue in 06-07 before we decide. This decision does not have
to be made until December 2005. Mike suggested that we delay the discussion about the
distribution formula for now and he will ask Jon for some official confirmation of projected GF
revenue for county-wide library operations over the next several years.
MIX
Joanna read a letter from Molly Raphael, Director of the Multnomah County Libraries. It
proposed eliminating the $60,000 reference payment and increasing the percentage increase
toward payment for full reciprocal circ. This proposal leaves $101,000 to pay in December 2005.
This is a staff proposal, and has not been approved by the Multnomah Co Commissioners.
Mike agreed to try to get in contact with other city managers and with Jon Mantay to see if
additional revenue is available to keep the Mix agreement alive. Mike believes that the BCC
will want to continue to participate in MIX, as it helps Clackamas County show that they can
play on the regional level. Also, Mike reminded LNIB again that MIX is an agreement between
the BCC and the Multnomah Commissioners, and that only the Clackamas County Board can
take action to continue or discontinue the program.
LNIB survey
Joanna reported on the LNIB survey results. There was at least one response from each
jurisdiction and many submitted several responses. Joanna highlighted the general trends and
variety of opinions about library services in Clackamas County as they were revealed by the
study. She pointed out that in many cases those responding had quite different viewpoints from
each other. But, in general there seemed to be a willingness to look at making some changes, if
change could bring about a permanent, stable library funding solution. There was a widespread
unwillingness to just"wait and see" what happens to library funding over the next several years
and significant fears were expressed about cuts to library hours and services. There was some
interest in trying to consolidate some technical services functions at Library Network, if that
would improve efficiency and reduce duplication of effort.
Scott L. wondered if it might be possible to get a levy onto the 2006 ballot by some sort of
initiative process. He suggested that voters may be more ready to approve it after they have seen
the results of library cutbacks in 05-06 and 06-07. Scott will look into this.
Mike asked LNIB to read the survey and begin to think about how we can use this information
SII.
for future planning. We need to decide where to take it from here.
Grants, Donations and Marketing Committee
Joanna talked about the GDM (Grants, Donations, Marketing) Committee. Mike agreed that
these are three issues that need to be front-and-center. LNIB agreed that it should stay as a PLC
Committee, but can turn to LNIB if help is needed. GDM may propose reactivating the PICCL
and it would be helpful to have LNIB/city support for that.
News of our libraries:
WL is starting Music in the Stacks again with the "Kung Pow Chickens".
PLC was rescheduled to April 14th because of a conflict with OLA on the 7th
The next LNIB will be on Thursday, April 21St.at 1:30, at NT.
Action Items:
* Mike will contact Jon to request at least preliminary revenue projections from the GF for the
next several years
* Mike will contact City Managers and Jon Mantay to request supplemental funding to keep the
MIX agreement in order.
* Scott L. will find out if it is possible to petition to put a county-wide levy on the ballot(say in
2006)without BCC approval.
* LNIB will read the survey and develop ideas about how to process the information.
Circulation= 85%.
Population 15%; i -
Transfer from fund 100 }$ 6,385,000 I - Formula NORMAL - -
Carry-over/delinquencie $ 50,000 NO MIX payout
Misc revenue I$ 7,730 --
Total revenue $ 6,442,730 06-07 85% 15%
less NT Bucget Needs= $ 975,000 -- ( -
Distrib.*mount $ 5,467,730 - -
NO MIX payout _
- - Cot, 1 Col.2 Col 3 Col,4 Co, 5 Col.6 Col.7 Col.8 - Col.9 Cot 10 Col 11 Col 12 Col 15 Col 16 Col 17 Col 18
Pop. %of _ Total k Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% _ 15% Gross %of Lib Network 06-07 05-06 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. -Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC elm. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,522 6.02% 294,054 270,541 344 270,885 5.49% $ 300,885 $ 58,211 $ 359,096 5.57% $ 54,343 $ 304,753 $ 288,749 5.5% $ 16,005 CA
CO 26,323 7.37% 349,112 311,834 14,717 326,551 6.62% $ 362,716 $ 71,196 $ 433,913 6.73% $ 65,665 $ 368,247 $ 356,075 3.4% $ 12,172 CO
ES 18,235 5.10% 281,655 261,241 48,476 309,717 6.28% $ 344,018 $ 49,321 $ 393,339 6.11% $ 59,525 $ 333,814 $ 318,010 5.0% $ 15,803 ES
GL 19,891 5.57% 271,113 253,335 3,451 256,786 5.21% $ 285,225 $ 53.799 $ 339,024 5.26% $ 51,306 $ 287,719 $ 277,172 3.8% $ 10,546 GL
HO 5,559 1.56% 128,203 128,203 -7,000 121,203 2.46% $ 134,626 $ 15,036 $ 149,662 2.32% $ 22,649 $ 127,013 $ 123,767 2.6% $ 3,246 HO
LO 42,904 12.01% 1,149,207 911,905 -10,000 901,905 18.29% $ 1,001,792 $ 116,044 $ 1,117,836 17.35% $ 169,166 $ 948,670 $ 1,010,334 -6.1% $ (61,664) LO
MI 30,201 8.45% 433,866 375,400 5,000 380,400 7.72% $ 422,529 $ 81,685 $ 504,214 7.83% $ 76,304 $ 427,910 $ 458,786 -6.7% S (30,876) MI
MO 19,486 5.45% 261.023 245,767 -22,000 223,767 4.54% $ 248,549 $ 52,704 $ 301,253 4.68% $ 45,590 $ 255,664 $ 250,867 1.9% $ 4,797 MO
OC 52,320 14.64% 573,279 479.959 -27,000 452,959 9.19% $ 503,125 $ 141,510 $ 644,635 10.01% $ 97,555 $ 547,080 $ 542,632 0.8% $ 4,448 OC
SA 21,592 6.04% 412,875 359,656 -11,000 348,656 7.07% $ 387,270 $ 58,399 $ 445,669 6.92% $ 67,445 $ 378,225 $ 341,416 10.8% $ 36,808 SA
TC 49,502 13.85% 513,493 435,120 -35,000 400,120 8.12% $ 444,433 $ 133,888 $ 578,322 8.98% $ 87,519 $ 490,802 $ 544,235 -9.8% $ (53,433) TC
WL 26,041 7.29% 649,722 537.291 17,000 554,291 11.24% $ 615,679 $ 70,4341$ 686,114 10.65% $ 103,832 $ 582,282 $ 526,233 10.7% $ 56,049 WL
WV 23,729 6.64% 410,732 358,049 25,000 383,049 7.77% $ 425,472 $ 64,181 $ 489,652 7.60% 8 74,101 $ 415,552 $ 450,420 -7.7% $ (34,868) WV
357,305 ' 77.22%i, 6,053,211 4,589,908 4,930,288 82.80% $ 5,476,321 $ 966,410 $ 6,442,730 81.97% $ 975,0001$ 5,467,730 $ 5,488,698 -0.4%
County 81,384 22.78% 990,808 875,157 -27,283 847,874 17.20%I$ 941,776 $ 220,120 $ 1,161,896 18.03% $ 175,834 $ 986,063 1$ 1,024,077 -3.7% $ (38,014)
100.00% 100.00% o 1
100.0010
12/15/05 i _ 06-07 05-06 up/dn .
POP.SrV Cires are linked to 05.08 projectbns,(minus estimated mix cires),end w pl-go to 05-06 actuals July 1 2005 Total cities $ 4,481,667 $ 4,464,620 0.4% _
celt.date Pop served will be updated Dec 15 2005 from PSU figures Total county $ 986,063 $ 1.024,077 -3.7%
11/19/04 Net Ills are 04-05 actuals,but will go to 05-06 actuals,Mr 1 2005 Library distib. $ 5.467,730 1$ 5,488,698 -0.4%
jkr i NT budget is an estimate NT expense $ 975,000 $ 975,329 0.0%
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. $ 6,442,730 I$ 6,464,026 -0.39%
2nd week March 20%
2nd week May 5% - -
operating cost $ 945,000 $ 935,329 1.0%
Mix $
I Capital expend $ -
Contingency $ 30.000 $ 40,000 -25.0%
5 975,000 1$ 975,329 I 0.0%
Projected Financial Impact of Library Levy Failure
J i NO MIX 1
Estm. 04-05 Estm. 04-05 Estm 05-06 Estm 05-06 % loss from Estm?? 05-06 GF Total Library budget % loss from
Service i Projected I County I Amount 1 CountyCity/County County+City ; total Library
Population Circulation " Contribution Lost Contribution! Contribution Contribution I budget
Canby Public Library 21,522 286,703 $ 289,154 $ (42,500) -15% $ 40,000 $ 329,154 -13%
County - Oak Lodge 26,323 350,780 $ 356,574_ $ (86,344) -24% $ 150,000 $ 506,574 -17%
Estacada Public Library 18,235 277,025 $ 318,457 $ 898,
65
( ) -21% $ 318,457 -21
Gladstone Public Library 19,891 270,994 $ 277,561 $ (51,464) -19% $ 200,000 $ 477,561 -11%
County- Hoodland 5,559 129,657 S 123,941 $ (23,893) -19% $ 20,000 $ 143,941 -17%
Lake Oswego Public Library 42,904 1,305,013 $ 1,011,752 $ (228,048) -23% $ 1,640,000 $ 2,651,752 -9%
Ledding Library of Milwaukie 30,201 499,733 $ 459,430 $ (114,715) -25% $ 700,000 5 1,159,430 -10%
Molalla Public Library 19,486 263,659 $ 251,219 S (46,425) -18% S 251,219 -18%
Oregon City Public Library 52,320 583,727 $ 543,394 $ (111,354) -20% $ 400,000 $ 943,394 -12%
Sandy Public Library 21,592 385,756 $ 341,895 $ (45,097) -13% $ 341,895 -13%
County-Clackamas Corner 49,502 607,109 S 544,999 $ (112,433) -21% $ 130,000 $ 674,999 -17%
West Linn Public Library 26,041 605,185 $ 526,971 $ (88,784) -17% $ 500,000 S 1,026,971 -9%
Wilsonville Public Library 23,729 487,868 $ 451,052 + S (80,821) -18% $ 230,000 $ 681,052 -12%
Total 357,305 6,053,211 $ 5,342,661 $ (1,097,776) -21% $ 4,010,000 $ 9,506,398 -12%
11/17/04 jkr - J-
Estm.04-05 ' Estm.04-05 Estm 05-06 Estm 05-06_ I% loss from !Estm 05-06 GFTotal Library budget% loss from _
Service 1 Projected County Amount County City/County } County+ City_ total Library
Clackamas County Libraries Population Circulation Contribution Lost Contribution Contribution Contribution budget _
County - Oak Lodge 26,323 350,780 $ 356,574 $ (86,344) -24% $ 150,000 $ 506,574 -17%
County- Hoodland 5,559 129,657 S 123,941 $ (23,893) -19% $ 20,000 $ 143.941 -17%
County-Clackamas Corner 49,502 607,109 $ 544.999 $ (112,433) -21% S 130,000 $ 674,999 -17%
Total 81,384 1,087,547 $ 1,025,514 $ (222,671) -22% $ 300,000 $ 1,325,514 -17%
I
A
Cirp)anon= 15% Y•
PoA _1 �
PoQulatlon= 15% � - -�--
jr
Transfer from fund $100 � 6,385,000 I .,C ,
Formula NORMAL "A�`Vt1�
Carr�r overldelinquencie: $ 50,000 _•� E 0� NO MIX payout - b �"1
Misc revenue $ 7,730 S 4V lex r„
Total revenue $ 6,442,730 ,p% k La' 0847 85% 15% J J" `r
less NT Budget Needs= $ _ 975,000 1% ) Vit _ _ ) t,o V ''ss\ro
Distrib.amount $ 5,487,790 r `V �� _ J -
W - .
NO MIX payout
Col. 1 Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col.5 Cot 6 Cot 7 _ Col.8 Cd.9 Cot. 10 Col 11 Col.12 Col 15 Col 16 Col 17 Col 18
P.. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% 15% _ Gross %of Ub Network 06-07 05-06 % $ _
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC etre. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,522 6.02% 294,054 270,541 -5,898 264,643 5.91% $ 323,453 $ 58,211 $ 381,664 5.92% $ 57,758 $ 323,905 $ 288,749 12.2% $ 35,15741.‘CA
CO 26,323 7.37% 349,112 311,834 -910 310,924 6.94% $ 380,018 $ 71,196 $ 451,215 7.00% $ 68,284 $ 382,931 $ 356,075 7.5% $ 26,856 CO 1 y
ES 18,235 5.10% 281,655 261,241 45,075 306,316 6.84% $ 374,387 $ 49,321 $ 423,708 6.58% $ 64,121 $ 359,586 $ 318,010 13.1% $ 41,576 ES L6
GL 19,891 5.57% 271,113 253,335 -3,843 249,492 5.57% $ 304,935 $ 53,799 $ 358,734 5.57% $ 54,288 $ 304,446 $ 277,172 9.8% $ 27,273 GL 0
HO 5,559 1.56% 128,203 128,203 -10,748 117,455 2.62% $ 143,556 $ 15,036 $ 158,592 2.46% $ 24,000 $ 134,592 $ 123,767 8.7% $ 10,825 HO 1
LO 42,904 12.01% 1,149,207 911,905 -237,090 674,815 15.06% $ 824,775 $ 116,044 $ 940,820 14.60% $ 142,377 $ 798,442 $ 1,010,334 -21.0% $ (211,892) LO -tsio'
MI 30,201 8.45% 433,866 375,400 -62,054 313,346 6.99% $ 382,978 $ 81,685 $ 464,664 7.21% $ 70,319 $ 394,345 $ 458,786 -14.0% $ (64,442) MI '311
MO 19,486 5.45% 261,023 245,767 -24,343 221,424 4.94% $ 270,630 $ 52,704 $ 323,334 5.02% $ 48,931 $ 274,403 $ 250,867 9.4% $ 23,536 MO 14
OC 52,320 14.64% 573,279 479,959 -36,945 443,014 9.89% $ 541,462 $ 141,510 $ 682,973 10.60% $ 103,357 $ 579,616 $ 542,632 6.8% $ 36,984 OC 3a.
SA 21,592 6.04% 412,875 359,656 -20,185 339,471 7.58% $ 414,910 $ 58,399 $ 473,309 7.35% $ 71,627 $ 401,682 $ 341,416 17.7% $ 60,265 SA BA
TC 49,502 13.85%. 513,493 435,120 -43,835 391,285 8.73% $ 478,238 $ 133,888 $ 612,126 9.50% $ 92,635 $ 519,491 $ 544,235 -4.5% $ (24,744) TC to
WL , 26,041 7.29%. 649,722 537,291 -1,299 535,992 11.96% $ 655,103 $ 70,434 $ 725,537 11.26% $ 109,798 $ 615,739 $ 526.233 17.0% $ 89,506 WL Is
WV 23,729 6.64% 410,732 358,049 -45,606 312,443 6.97% $ 381,875_$ 64,181 $ 446,056 6.92% $ 67,503 $ 378,553 $ 450,420 -16.0% $ (71,867) WV 41~
357,305 77.22% 6,053,211 4,589,908 4,480,619 81.71% $ 5,476,321 $ 966,410 S 6,442,730 81.03% $ 975,000 $ 5,467,730 $ 5,488,698 -0.4% L.-0
1
County1 81,384 I 22.78% 990,808 875,1571-163,703 819,664) 18.29%1$ 1,001,813 $ 220,120 $ 1,221,933 18.97/ $ 184,919 $ 1,037,014 I $ 1,024,077 1.3% $ 12,937
100.00% _ _ 100.00% _ _ _ 100.00%j
-) 12/15/05 _ I -I 06-07 05-06 up/dn
_pop.sry _ _ _ Circs are linked to 05-06 projections,(minus estimated mix kirks),and will go to 05-06 actuals July 1 2005 _ Total cities $ 4,430,716 $ 4,464,620 -0.8%
cert date -r-Pop served will be updated Dec 15 2005 from PSU figures i Total county $ 1,037,014 $ 1,024,077 1.3%
1.1/19/04 Net Ills are 04-05 actuals,but will go to 05-06 actuals July 1 2005 _ _ Library distib. $ 5,467,730 S 5,488,698 -0.4% _
jkr NT budge)is an estimate NT expense $ 975,000 $ 975,329 0.0%
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. S 6,442,730 I$ 6,464,026 -0.3%
2nd week March 20% -
2nd week May 5% operatingcost $ 945,000 $ 935,329 1.0%
--,_ Mix $ -
_ Capital expend $ -
Contingency $ 30,000 $ 40,000 -25.0% L
$ 975,000 I$ 975,329 I 0.0% I
I
AW- - - - - -- - - --- -
Circulation= 85%
Population= 15% -
Transfer horn fund 100 I$ 6,365,000 ( Formula NORMAL -=
I
---_
Carry-0vet/delinquencies, $ _ 50,000 NO MIX payor _ ----_
Misc revenue $ 7,730-
-----
Total revenue 56,442,7300641� 85% ---=
less NT B .• a $Heeds S 9975,000 ild
111161.1.111.�-
Distrib.amount $ 5,467,730
=NOMIX.-
Col 1 Col.2 Col.3 Cot 4 Col 5 Cot 6 Cot.7 Col.8 Col.9 Col.10 Co/11 Col.12 Co/15 Cof 16 Cot 17 COl 18
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted_ %of 85% 15% Gross %of Ub Network 06.07 05-06 % :
Served P0..srvd Circ. Circ. ILLS Circ. LINCC ctrc. Circ.Distrib Po•.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrtb. Distrib, EMI u•tin
r,
CA 21,522 6.02% 294,054 270,541 344 270,885 5.49% $ 300,885 $ 58,211 $ 359,096 5.57% $ 54,343 $ 304,753 $ 288,749 5.5% $ 16,005 CA
CO 26,323 7.37% 349,1121 311,834 14,717 326,551 6.62% $ 362,716 $ 71,196 $ 433,913 6.73% $ 65,665 $ 368,247 $ 356,075 3.4% $ 12,172 CO
ES 18,235 5.10% 281,655 261,241 48,476 309,717 6.28% $ 344,018 $ 49,321 $ 393,339 6.11% $ 59,525 $ 333,814 $ 318,010 5.0% $ 15,803 ES
GL 19,891 5.57% 271,113 253,335 3,451 256,786 5.21% $ 285,225 $ 53,799 $ 339,024 5.26% $ 51,306 $ 287,719 $ 277,172 3.8% $ 10,546 GL
HO 5,559 1.56% 128,203 128,203 -7,000 121,203 2.46% $ 134,626 $ 15,036 $ 149,662 2.32% $ 22.649 $ 127,013 $ 123,767 2.6% $ 3,246 HO
LO 42,904 12.01% 1,149,207 911,905 -10,000 901,905 18.29% $ 1,001,792 $ 116,044 $ 1,117,836 17.35% $ 169,166 $ 948,670 $ 1,010,334 -6.1% $ (61,664) LO
MI 30,201 8.45% 433,866 375,400 5,000 380,400 7.72% $ 422,529 $ 81,685 $ 504,214 7.83% $ 76,304 $ 427,910 $ 458,786 -6.7% $ (30,876) MI
MO 19,486 5.45% 261,023 245,767 -22,000 223,767 4.54% $ 248,549 $ 52,704 $ 301,253 4.68% $ 45,590 $ 255,664 $ 250,867 1.9% $ 4,797 MO
OC 52,320 14.64% 573,279 479,959 -27,000 452,959 9.19% $ 503,125 $ 141,510 $ 644,635 10.01% $ 97.555 $ 547,080 $ 542,632 0.8% $ 4,448 OC
SA 21,592 6.04% 412,875 359,656 -11,000 348,656 7.07% $ 387,270 $ 58,399 $ 445,669 6.92% $ 67,445 $ 378,225 $ 341,416 10.8% $ 36,808 SA
TC 49,502 13.85% 513,493 435,120 -35,000 400,120 8.12% $ 444,433 $ 133,888 $ 578,322 8.98% $ 87,519 $ 490,802 $ 544,235 -9.8% $ (53,433) TC
WL 26.041 f 7.29% 649,722 537,291 17,000 554,291 11.24% $ 615,679 $ 70,434 $ 686,114 10.65% $ 103,832 $ 582,282 $ 526,233 10.7% $ 56,049 WL
WV 23,729 6.64% 410,732 358,049 25,000 383,049 7.77% $ 425,472 $ 64,181 $ 489,652 7.60% $ 74,101 $ 415,552 $ 450,420 -7.7% $ (34,868) WV
357,305 77.22% 6,053,211 4,589,908 4,930,288 82.80% $ 5,476,321 $ 966,410 $ 6,442,730 81.97% $ 975,000 !$ 5,467,730 $ 5,488,698 -0.4%
I
County 81,384 22,78% 990,808 875,157 -27,283 847,87 17.20% $ 941,776 I$ 220,120 I$ 1,161,896 + 18.03% $ 175,834 $ 988,'• $ 1,024,077 -3.7% $ (38,014)
100.00% -r 100.00% 100.00%
12/15/05 I - - 06.07 05-06 u,do
pop.sry - Oros are linked to 05-06 projectbns,(minus estimated mix circs),and well r•to 05-08 actuals July 1 2005 Total cities $ 4,481,667 $ 4,464,620 (14% '
cert.date Pop served will be updated Dec 15 2005 from PSU figures ---Total county $ 986,063 $ 1,024,077 -3.7%
11/19/04 Net Ills are 04-05 actuals,but will go to 05-06 actuals J 1 2005Library distib. $ 5,467,730 1$ 5,488,698 -0.4%
1 -- NT budget is an estimate -III.IIIIII NT expense $ 975,000 $ 975.329 0.0% -
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% - Total Expend. $ 6,442,730 $ 8,464,026 -0.3%
2nd week March 20% � I -
2nd week May 5% -
---operating cost $ 945.000 $ 935,329 1.0%
Mix
Ca. rle ._ . $ -
Contingency $ 30,000 $ 40,000 -25.0%
$ 975,000 I$ 975,329 I 0.0%
Saving realized per library NI,If MIX is cancelled — —
_ %of distrib. Budget year - TOTAL 5-year
(05-06) r 2005-2006 ! 2006-2007 ' 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 money saved
Canby Public Library 5.03% $ 7,560 j _ 5.03%, $ 8,695 5.67%,. $ 11,493 5.62% $ 13,521 5.55% $ 15,970 $ 57,239
County-Oak Lodge 6.72% $ 10,096 I_ 6.72%$_ 11,613 1 6.47% $ 13,124 6.11% $ 14,689 5.95% $ 17,120 $ ____ 66,642
Estacada Public Library 5.83% $ 8,761 5.83% $ 10,077 6.15% $ 12,474 6.66% $ 16,008 6.76% $ 19,451 $ 66,771
Gladstone Public Library 4.99% $ 7,500 4.99% $ 8,627 5.09% $ 10,326 5.08% $ 12,214 5.01% $ 14,416 $ __ 53,082
County-Hoodland 2.24% $ 3,370 2/4% $ _ 3,876 2.20% $ 4,472 2.20% $ 5,302 2.21%$ 6,351 $ _ 23,370
Lake Oswego Public Library 18.80% $ 28,261 1 18.80% $ 32,506 17.49% $ 35,481 17.86% $ 42,955 18.27% $ 52,567 $ 191,769
Ledding Library of Miiwaukie 8.71% $ 13,0878.71% $ 15,053 7.81% $ 15,830 7.64% $ 18,388 7.55% $ 21,737 $ 84,096
Molalla Public Library 4.51% $ 6,785 1 4.51% $ 7,804 4.66% $ 9,451 4.50% $ 10,829 4.36% $ 12,541 $ 47,409
Oregon City Public Library 9.93% $ 14,925 L 9.93% $ 17,166 9-83% $ 19,929 9.65% $ 23214 9A9%—t 27,325 $ 102,5_59
Sandy Public Library 5.87% $ 8,821 j 5.87% $ 10,146 7.18% $ 14,565 7.3.i1)-%-"--$-- 17,563 7.50% $ 21,571 $ 72,666
County-Clackamas Corner 9.97% $ 14,986 I _9.97% $ 17,237 8.82% $ 17,882 8.60% $ 20,693 8.41% $ 24,198 $ 94,996
West Linn Public Library 9.34% $ 14,036 9.34% $ 16,144 11.07% $ 22,446 11.17% $ 26,862 11.29% $ 32,499 $ 111,986
Wilsonville Public Library 8.07% $ 12,124 8.07% $ 13,9457.57% $ 15,350 7.61% $ 18,293 7.66% $ 22,040 $ 81,751$ 240,528
(A-B)net cost of the MIX agreement $ 150,311 $ 172,888 I $ 202,823
(A) Total payment to MCL $ 161,443 $ 186,8041
$218,505 $ 258,131 $ 307,664 $ _ 1,113$ 287,786 $ 1,054,336
2,547
(B)totalrevenue(WCCLS8Ft.Van) $ 11,132 $ 13,916 $ 15,682 $ 17,603 $ 19,878 $ /8211
Clackamas County Libraries - -
Oak Lodge Branch 6.72% $ 10,096.09 6.72% $ 11,612.60 6.47% $ 13,124 6.11% $ 14,689 5.95% $ 17,120 $ 66,642
Hoodland Branch 2.24% $ 3,369.79 2.24% $ 3,875.97 2.20% $ 4,472 2.20% $ 5,302 2.21% $ _ 6,351 $ 23,370
Clackamas Corner Branch 9.97% $ 14,985.80 9.97% $ 17,236.80 8.82% $ 17,882 8.60% $ 20,693 8.41% $ 24,198 $ 94,996-
Total!
4,996Total 18.93%I $ 28,451.68 I 18.93%) $ 32,725.36 1 17.49% $ 35,479 I 16.91%1 $ 40,683 16.56%1 $ 47,670 $ 185,009
Money spent on MIX per library
____4 t - -
if MIX contract is modified --- L
— - - L-
ref payment gone and we stop 25%incr.in 08 %of distrib. Budget year %of distrib %of distrib) %of distrib %of distrib TOTAL 5-year _
(05-06) 2005-2006 06-07 2006-2007 07-08 2007-2008 08-09 2008-2009 09-10 I 2009-2010 money saved
Canby Public Library 5.03% $ 4,426 5.03% $ 5,774 5.67% $ 8,278 5.62%0 $ 10,456 5.55% $ 10,433 $ 39,367
County-Oak Lodge 6.72% $ 5,911 6.72% $ 7,711 6.47% $ 9,453 6.11% $ 11,359 5.95% $ 11,184 $ 45,618
Estacada Public Library 5.83% $ 5,129 5.83% $ 6,692 6.15% $ 8,985 6.66% $ 12,379 6.76% $ 12,707 $ 45,891
Gladstone Public Library 4.99% $ 4,391 4.99% $ 5,728 5.09% $ 7,438 5.08% $ 9,445 5.01% $ 9,417 $ 36,419
County-Hoodland 2.24% $ 1,973 2.24% $ 2,574 2.20% $ 3,221 2.20% $ 4,100 2.21% $ 4,149 $ 16,016
Lake Oswego Public Library 18.80% $ 16,545 18.80% $ 21,585 17.49% $ 25,556 17.86% $ 33,217 18.27% $ 34,340 $ 131,243
Ledding Library of Milwaukle 8.71% $ 7,662 8.71% $ 9,996 7.81% $ 11,402 7.64% $ 14,219 7.55% $ 14,200 $ 57,479
Molalla Public Library _ 4.51% $ 3,972 4.51% $ 5,182 4.66% $ 6,807 4.50% $ 8,374 4.36% $ 8,193 $ 32,527
Oregon City Public Library 9.93% $ 8,738 9.93% $ 11,399 9.83% $ 14,354_ 9.65% $ 17,951 9.49% $ 17,850 $ 70,293
Sandy Public Library 5.87% $ 5,164 5.87% $ 6,738 7.18% $ 10,491 7.30% $ 13,581 7.50% $ 14,091 $ 50,065
County-Clackamas Corner 9.97% $ 8,774 9.97% $ 11,446 8.82% $ 12,880 8.60% $ 16,002 8.41% $ 15,808 $ _ __64,909
West Linn Public Library 9.34% $ 8,217 9.34% $ 10,720 11.07% $ 16,168 11.17% $ 20,772 11.290/0 $ — 21,230 $ 77,107
Wilsonville Public Library 8.07% $ 7,098 8.07% $ 9,260 7.57% $ 11,056 7.61% $ 14,146 7.66% $ 14,398 $ 55,958
(A-B)net cost of the MIX agreement _ $ 88,000 $ 114,804 1 $ 146,090 I $ 186,000 $ 188,000 $ 722,894.00
(A) Total payment to MCL _ _ $ 100,000 $ 126,804 $ 158,090 $ 198,000 $ 2.00,000
(B)total revenue(WCCLS 8 Ft.Van) $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 _ $ 12,000 $ 60,000
Clackamas County Libraries • — —I
Oak Lodge Branch 7% $ 5,910.80 6.72% $ 7,711.18 6.47% $ 9,453.22 6.11% $ 11,358.83 5.95% $ 11,184.06 $ 45,618.07
Hoodland Branch _ 224% $ 1,972.86 2.24% $ 2,573.78 2.20% $ 3,221.22 2.20% $ 4,099.67 2.21% $ 4,148.90 $ 16,016.43
Clackamas Corner Branch 9.97% $ 8,773.51 9.97% $ 11,445.84 8.82% $12,880.24 8.60% $ 16,001.89 8.41% $ 15,807.93 $ 64,909.40
Total 18.93%! $ 16,657.17 18.93%! $ 21,730.79 17.49%! $25,554.67 1 16.91%1 $ 31,460.39 1 16.56%! $ 31,140.89 II$ 126,543.90
Summary of out-of- county library use by Clackamas County residents in2004
Multnomah County Library Washington County Libraries I Fort Vancouver Regional Library -
clack Co citizens using MCL %of total Clack Co citizens using WCCLS %of total Clack Co citizens using FVRL %of total
MCL cards _ WCCLS cards FVRL cards
Some Boring residents _ _ 613 8.56% - _ Some Boring residents 4 1.63%
Brightwood residents 35 0.49% Brightwood residents 10.41%
Clackamas residents 725 10.12% Clackamas residents 18 5.75% Clackamas residents 31 12.65%
Damascus residents 14 0.20%
Government Camp residents 4 0.06%
-- -
Happy Valley residents 14 0.20% - - --- '
Oak Grove residents 21 0.29% Oak Grove residents - 1 _ 0.41%
_
Rhododendron residents 38 0.53% _ Rhododendron residents __ 1 0.41%_
Welches_ residents 66� 0.92% Welches residents 1 0.32%
Zig Zag residents 8 0.11% - --
Total County service areas 1538 21_47% Total County service areas 19 6.07% Total County service areas 38 15.51%
•
Canby residents 123 1.72% Canby residents 8 2.56% Canby residents 14 5.71%
Estacada+Eagle Creek res. 198 2.76% Estacada+ Eagle Creek res. 3 0.96% Estacada+Eagle Creek res. 9 3.67%
Gladstone residents 164 2.29% Gladstone residents 4 1.28% Gladstone residents 16 6.53%
Lake 0+ Lake Gr.+Marylhurst 1321 (1_8.44°/) Lake 0+Lake Gr.+Marylhurst 185 59.11% Lake 0+ Lake Gr.+Marylhurst 25 _ 10.20%
Milwaukee residents 1350 18.85% Milwaukie residents 16 5.11% Milwaukee residents 52 21.22%
Molalla+Colton+ Mulino res. 961.34% Molalla+Colton+ Mulino res. 6 1.92% Molalla+Colton+ Mulino res. 9 3.67%
Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 552 7.71% Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 13 4.15% Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 39 15.92%
Sandy+some Boring residents 1248 17.42% Sandy+some Boring residents 2 0.64% Sandy+some Boring residents 18 7.35%
West Linn residents 453 6.32% West Linn residents 33 10.54% West Linn residents 2.2 8.98%
Wilsonville residents 120 1.68% Wilsonville residents 24 7.67% Wilsonville residents 3 1.22%
Total Clack.City service areas 5625 78.53% Total Clack.City service areas 294 93.93% Total Clack. City service areas 207 84.49%
1538 19 38
Total MCL library cards 7,163 100.00% `Total WCCLS library cards I 3131 100.00% Total FVRL library cards 245 100.00%
i
NB: total library cards=total out-of-county library cards I used by Clack Co residents in calendar 2004 at least once -
1106/06 jkr � ----- -- -
by s 'A '
+ > o
O > �,.� O o e c
O Cy N 0 O O O O r 0 0 M V — M N N N y- 07 LO M r in T
U � = r r ,-
r r
4— O 1..
0 00 R3 e c e
in in ti O O
� O N N 0 Co N Co Co N N ,- N N O O O CO N CO LO ,- C9 'ct
a) ce
Ln r r r
O 7 to Co h. _ co
c COc
N N O CON CN CO 7-- CO O N N O r `7 O CO N M 07 O In CO r
(� O N L') N N CO (") L!7 ct C,.) N T CO CO M N Lf)
Q) in 0 Co r N N O
Z N N
0
CD Qy o \ CO
CO Ln L CO r f O ti a) (D co <t co co co L() co O N (')
fCf tom- N Lf) Co co .-- (,,) r (O ti 0 0 N N L j CO CO r O N 00 In
�^ O Ix CO 1' 7- CO Co CO N CO (0 CO p cv
V N-
N co to
D
N j
Q) i co D -
CL (13
Q)
U Y o c_ co
d 0 0 C)
rz y
(13
U + Q)
(n ` E C) C) C) + N U <( R
(10 N 0 C N @ > O m F-
U �. o Y LU L + a) 0 m
C C) 0 > Ln C7
1:1-
CD -CI >+ 0 E O E > 0 ) n O ,�, C0 o Ycu + U +•� 9 J d
L Q)13 Lb p 3 -Y @ O d U` U L C0' (i—r,
,Sc .� J @ O T J 0 V Cy CC 73
CO -t o - E > a � O N rs -O + co a) -0 W `m
Et o `O C6 as O ( co L 0 O, o c`y cu p o a) �' o m > >
J mmUoc� = O � � N }- n. UwC� J � O (0551- 0- 00
What Clackamas borrowers check out from Multnomah County Library (snapshot)
Adult FIC Adult NON Adult AV Juv FIC Juv NON Juv AV
FIC LP For. NON LP For. CASS CD VID DVD FIC LP For. GN NON For. CASS CD VID DVD
CA checked out 10 1
owned 5
CO checked out 21 1 45 1 2 7 7 8 5 29 1 8 2 5 7 2
owned 161 28 4 4 6 4 28 1 8 1 2 6 2
ES checked out 1 15 2 1 3
owned 1 8 2 1 3
GL checked out 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
owned 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
HO checked out 3 1 1 1 1
owned 2 1 1 1 1
LO checked out 12 72 5 14 7 1 18 1 7 2 3 2 2
owned 9 35 4 4 3 1 17 5 2 2
MI checked out 11 3 71 1 2 25 15 3 24 1 7 1 2 2 5
owned 11 3 44 15 10 2 19 7 1 2 2 3
MO checked out 16 1 7 1 4 3 1
owned 10 1 2 1 4
OC checked out 10 46 1 5 4 5 5 1 1 1
owned 8 18 3 3 2 3 1 1
SA checked out 4 18 1 1 5 2 1 8 10 1 1
owned 4 9 3 2 8 9 1
TC checked out 10 29 2 2 7 4 2 15 1 3 3 1
owned 8 16 2 5 4 2 13 1 1 1 1
WL checked out 4 14 4 1 3 1
owned 4 5 2
3
WV checked out 2 7 3 2 1 1 1
owned 2 3 2 1 1 1 1
Adult FIC Adult NON Adult AV Juv FIC Juv NON Juv AV
FIC LP For. NON LP For.—CASS CD VID DVD FIC LP For. GN NON For. CASS CD VID DVD Totals
checked out 76 4 0 351 1 7 22 77 45 20 109 1 0 9 42 2 7 12 14 10 809
64 4 0 185 0 0 14 41 31 14 98 1 0 2 35 0 4 5 12 8 518
TOTAL owned
84% 100% 0% 53% 0% 0% 64% 53% 69% 70% 90% 100% 0% 22% 83% 0% 57% 42% 86% 80% 64%
%of total 9% 0% 0% 43% 0% 1% 3% 10% 6% 2% 13% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 100%
•
•
suopsanb;a,pue su.ilo levo;.mo;o slenbe
°L; %II %E; suoiedJnF-- esn unoa e
1 �t W;no ley;/.
..........)
0O9`OSZ 599`814`9 4S8'l l l`S
suazj;jo sewevelo Jo; suaznla sewerelo q suezl;h sewevelO,(q
salnwgll 33N11)e pamaMsue salre.igll 3ON11;eIno pe pogo setae-Kill OONI 1 le Ino palaago
suonsenb eaueia;ai 90.60•w;s3 swe3 Sail•w;s3 swat!6o-£0 lelol
096'8Z 000t09 09Z`1.89
006`9 000'89 69Z'OL •03•gseM;e;no paloay3
055'ZZ 000'9E5 966'999 •o3 yewouunW le)no pa�laaq�
suaznlo sewevel0.1o; sueznla sewnploe10 Aq suazl;la sewmloelo Aq
salaemgll AINflOO-NON)e paJeMsue sapeJgil M.Nloo-NON le Ino pa)laags sal,esglp ALNflO3-NON in;no pa,Payo
suonsenb aouaJa;a'90-60'wis3 mei!SO-60'wls3 swat!60-EO Ie)o1 sluaplsei o0 sewepoeio Aq a6esn XIVI
14 roam i
%L6'ZZ
E8£'960L OLZ`801 veto/
%ZY51. 890'9L5 5E8'88 ypue.18 iawo0 sewere10
%90'E 669'ZZL 86L'E youei8 PUeIPOOH
%66'6 91L'L6E LZ9`51. (JOuw8 a6Pol le()
se Jemgll+(;uno3 sewmloel3
LOS'1.69'9 L69`6Z9 MO./
"/ol8'6L 88Z'9SE 909`01. tieJq!l allgnd ell!nuosl!M
%EiZ.E 18E'L99 66Z'81• tiel n uu
l;sem
%Z6.51• 890'9L9 5£ ` 8 JauloO seweae10-Aunoo
%0L'Z 019`6££ 981.'6 tiemgq allgnd Apues
%6L_L 860`999 566`6tieigll ongnd 43 uoBemo
%86'0 686`6EZ '
pj
%60'61. 999'LLP 690'L9 a nemnw to A qn ellpp O1
%0L'il• Z6£'£8Z`L 060`LZZ 1 J I!WI n o6aMsu'ape-i
--- g!l !Iq d O � l
%90'E 668'ZZL 86L'£ puelpooH-A;uno3
%L8'Z Nan 66Z'L Aeagll 011gnd auo)spe10
%6Z-I, 1.£6`69Z 1.06`£ Amqn ollgnd epees
`Yo66'tp_ 9LL'L6£ LZ9`91. a6 0
%ZE'Z P l lei)-II)unoO
LZL`L9Z OZZ'9 Aeagll allgnd i(que3
_. POO?£ooZ 600Z EOOZ KW-COW
s;uoplsem Aunoo wino Aq (suoneingleo Jaw pus 6uneq ea oiojeq) s;ueplsem A;unoa;o-;no o; _ sseulsnq ii)uno-a;o;no;o ssol woil
pe)emeueB aJlo(Mel)Iso)jo% uonelnoIla Mei 1501 - pa;eln3JP swam le)ol enuenaa uonnglgslp uo pedes!legualod
uolle11aouea )(IN }o }aedwI lelaueu!j papefoid
- •
Circulation= 85%
-
Population= 1590_
Transfer from fund 100 1 S 6,385,000
Carry-over/delinquenciet $ 69,369_
Misc revenue $ 8,230
Total revenue $ 6,462,688 05-00 85% 15%
less NT Bud et Needs= $ 988,216 i -
Distrib.amount $ 5,4.74,3.83 .I �
1
Col. 1 Cot 2 Col.3 Col.4 Col.5 Col.6 COI 7 0. Co! 10 Co111 Col. 12 !b� CO!18 Col 17 COI 18
Served Po srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. LINCC circ. Circ. 0 �_ 15% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05std96
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted_ Net Adjusted %of 5/o
_ P• �Sry distrb. Distrib. distHbutlon b��� Oistrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,422 6.01% 299,284 274,463 1,027 275,490 5.31% $ 291,550 $ 58,291 $ 349,842 5.41% $ 53,495 $ 296,346 $ 332,425 -10.9% $ (36,079)CA
CO 26,473 7.43% 340,185 305,139 18,590 323,729 6.24% $ 342,602 $ 72,036 $ 414,637 6.42% $ 63,403 $ 351,234 $ 443,950 -20.9% $ (92,716)CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 275,136 256,352 46,117 302,469 5.83% $ 320,102 $ 48,449 $ 368,551 5.70% $ 56,356 $ 312,195 $ 385,249 -19.0% $ (73,054) ES
GL 20,159 5.66% 261,316 245,987 4,226 250,213 4.82% $ 264,800 $ 54,855 $ 319,655 4.95% $ 48,879 $ 270,775 $ 329,791 -17.9% $ (59,016)GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 122,927 122,927 -7,085 115,842 2.23% $ 122,596 $ 15,094 $ 137,690 2.13% $ 21,055 $ 116,635 $ 148,178 -21.3% $ (31,543)HO
LO 42,953 12.06% 1,283,139 1,012,354 -20,515 991,839 19.11% $ 1,049,661 $ 116,879 $ 1,166,540 18.05% $ 178,379 $ 988,161 $ 1,242,686 -20.5% $ (254,524) LO
MI 29,925 8.40% 527,333 445,500 6,163 451,663 8.70% $ 477,993 $ 81,429 $ 559,422 8.66% $ 85,543 $ 473,879 $ 575,481 -17.7% $ (101,602) MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 280,617 260,463 -17,665 242,798 4.68% $ 256,952 $ 53,086 $ 310,038 4.80% $ 47,409 $ 262,629 $ 298,337 -12.0% $ (35,708) MO
OC 51,698 14.51% 605,395 504,046 -16,756 487,290 9.39% $ 515,698 $ 140,675 $ 656,373 10.16% $ 100,368 $ 556,005 $ 656,272 -15.3% (100,267)OC
SA 21,287 5.98% 381,650 336,237 -16,592 319,645 6.16% $ 338,280 $ 57,924 $ 396,204 6.13% $ 60,585 $ 335,619 $ 387,893 $ (52,274) SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 611,732 508,799 -32,194 476,605 9.18% $ 504,390 $ 135,870 $ 640,259 9.91% $ 97,904 $ 542,355 $ 658,962 -17.7% $ (116,607) TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 604,737 503,553 15,622 519,175 10.00% $ 549,441 $ 70,085 $ 619,526 9.59% $ 94,734 $ 524,792 $ 617,188 -15.0% $ (92,396)WL
WV 23,784 6.68% 481,074 410,805 23,046 433,851 8.36% $ 459,144 $ 64,719 $ 523,862 8.11% $ 80,105 $ 443.757 $ 533,110 -16.8% $ (89,353)WV
356,250 77.00% 6,074.525 4,605,894 5,190,610 82.35% $ 5,493.209 $ 969,390 $ 6,462,599 81.55% $ 988,216 $ 5,474,383 $ 6.609,523 -17.2%
County 81,952 23.00%1 1,074,8441 936,8651 -20,689* 916,176 17.6594 $ 969,587 I$ 222,999 1 $ 1,192,586 ' 18.45% $ 182,362 $ 1,010,224 $ 1,251,090 -19.3% $ (240,866)
100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
12/15/04 05-06 04-05 - up/dn
pop.sry Circs are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly 'Total cities $ 4,464,159 $ 5,358,433 -16.7%
_ cert.date Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures $ 1,015,000 _ Total county $ 1,010,224 $ 1,251,090 -19.3%
_311105 Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly _ County number Library distib. $ 5,474,383 $ 6,609,523 -17.2%
jkr NT budget is an estimate
for budget NT expense $ 988.216 $ 1,121,354 -11.9%
-- IDtstrdlution 2nd wk Jan 75% _ Total Expend. $ 6,462,599 I$ 7,730,877 46.4%
2nd week March 20% 11
2nd week May 5%.
operating cosi $ 941,216 $ 926,439 1.6%
----- - - - Mix S 141,000 100.0%
Capital expend $ -
- _ Contingency $ 47,000 $ 53,915 -12 8%
6 988,216 1$ 1,121,354'-11 9%
• <+�'`of L ARE os sit
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
oReaox
TO: Doug Schmitz, City Manager
FROM: Chris Jordan, Assistant City Managerq/
SUBJECT: Draft 2004-2009 Capital Improvement PIan
DATE: March 3,2005
Purpose
Enclosed separately for your consideration and review is the draft 2004-2009
• Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Lake Oswego. The draft CIP
anticipates over$30 million of projects covering this 5-year period. It also lists a
significant number of projects that are currently described as "unfunded".
Background
Highlights of the document include:
• Completing the park projects and land acquisition funded by the voter-
approved bonds of 1998 and 2002 (pgs. 4, 5, 7 and 8).
• Construction of Foothills Park (pg. 2).
• Continuing to expand and improve public spaces in the City's east end
(pgs. 6 and 10).
• The Pavement Management Program is now funded by the Street
Maintenance Fee to protect the City's investment in its transportation
system. (pg. 30)
• The Green streets initiative is funded as a tool to assist in the management
of storm water and to beautify the city (pg. 58).
•
41
With the Council's approval of Ordinance 2414 and Resolution 05-10, the City is •
now able to sell revenue bonds to assist in funding various Surface Water
Management projects. Beyond those projects identified in the document will be
additional improvements which will be identified and prioritized in a new
Surface Water Master Plan that will be developed during the next year.
There are also several other significant projects listed in the document as
"unfunded." These projects may need to be considered for funding over the next
several years pending decisions by other governing bodies, as well as by the City
Council and the Lake Oswego community. These projects include potential
public infrastructure improvements in the Stafford area, Lake Grove, and
Foothills. Also included are other public amenities such as a community center
and branch library.
Board and Commission Review
The draft CIP has been circulated for consideration and comment to the Historic
Resources Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Natural
Resources Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning
Commission. TAB was concerned about geographic equity and also wanted to
support the McVey/Lakefront/Erickson improvement as being worthwhile. All
other questions of these groups were responded to by staff at their respective •
meetings.
Conclusion
Staff is requesting Council review of the draft CIP and will incorporate any
Council comments in the final version of the CIP, which is scheduled for Council
consideration and adoption on March 15. Following its adoption, the projects
listed for 2005-07 funding will be included in the Proposed Budget for the 2005-
07 Biennium to be considered by the Citizens Budget Committee beginning in
April.
11111
42
alQ)"..4
6f G `
LNIB1- • ary Planning Survey, February 2005 -4( "
Summa
This questionnaire is the culmination of the work of the LNIB Process Committee, a working
sub-group of LNIB established at the January 2005 meeting. Subcommittee members include:
• Jan Erickson, Lake Oswego Library Director
• George Hoyt, Sandy LNIB representative
• Jon Mantay, Clackamas County CEO
• Larry Patterson, Oregon City City Manager
• Joanna Rood, Library Network Manager
• Mike Swanson, Milwaukie City Manager and LNIB Chair
This group's charge was to identify the key questions in need of resolution before LNIB can
move forward with funding and governance recommendations to Clackamas County's Board of
County Commissioners. The group identified several key issues facing them. They submitted
their key questions to LNIB in the form of a survey and asked for a minimum of one response
from each library director and one from a city/county representative. Some additional responses
from staff and elected officials were received. Responses were purposely kept anonymous,
unless the response itself specified information about their agency.
This document summarizes the results of that survey. 25 total responses were received.
Survey results include comments about the originally-posed questions, as well as new questions
that respondents believe are also crucial to successfully moving forward in the planning process.
The Questions Posed
A. Currently, LINCC is a loosely knit confederation of local libraries with some level of
funding from Clackamas County. Can we ever become a more unified library system
that has joint responsibility to provide library service county-wide?
B. In your opinion, as members of LNIB, should we be primarily advancing the interests
of the library system in Clackamas County, or should we be primarily advocating for
formulas and strategies that benefit our own libraries?
C. Is a County Library one with cis funded and operated by Clackamas County, or does it
include those libraries whose funding is 100%derived from the County?
D. Do we have the right number of libraries to serve the users effectively and efficiently?
Do we have the libraries located in the right places?
E. Given the crisis in available library funding, do we still have the right number of
libraries, and are those libraries located in the right places?
F. Should Fiscal maintenance of effort from cities be a requirement for obtaining county
funds for libraries? If so, how should it be defined and set?
LNIB Page 1 3/2/2005
Political & Financial Realities — this info was received from the County to be
shared as an FYI V
for survey responders.
.
s
• Projections for FY 2005-06 may, with some comfort, assume $6,385,000 in County
funds. However, no certain amount is guaranteed beyond that date, and the ongoing
amount will depend on the County's overall demands and priorities. The only
"guarantee" is that the amount will not increase.
A The question of creating a county service district will not be placed on the ballot.
A It is unlikely that we will see another countywide library levy on the ballot before 2010,
as there are other County priorities that will now be given a chance at the ballot.
(Remember that every election costs the county approximately$100,000.)
> It is not safe to assume that funds saved from closing a County branch library would be
added to the amount available for distribution.
> There are almost an infinite number of"solutions" for providing library service in
Clackamas County that may be defined by changing governance, structure, and/or the
allocation of funds.
Strategies & Solutions — sample options developed by the Process Committee
aa. Do nothing and see what kind of library network, library service providers, or county-
wide library service evolves over the next five-to-seven years.
bb. Do nothing now, aim for a 2010 vote, and then see what kind of library network, library
service providers, or county-wide library service emerges.
cc. Create a county library service district on the east side (although at this point it seems •
unlikely to be placed on a county-wide ballot).
dd. Define an affordable "standard" library for Clackamas County, determine how many of
these standard libraries can survive in the current funding crisis and where they should
be located, and then fund only these from County funds.
ee. Define a minimal level of service that can be supported with available funds and fund
each library at that level, leaving any enhancement of that minimal level to local
city/county funding. County-wide funding to specific libraries would continue only as
long as the minimum level of service was being met.
ff. Close the County libraries, apportion the available County funds to each remaining city
library(based on either population served or assessed value), and then reimburse cities
for circs to unincorporated areas. Alternatively, the funds realized from closing County
libraries could be used only to reimburse those libraries that actually began providing
services/circs to residents of the unincorporated areas. (Remember, however, that there
is no guarantee that the funds currently used to fund County libraries would become
part of the county-wide library funds.)
gg. Leave the "west side"(Lake Oswego, West Linn, and Wilsonville) as is in terms of
local governance,but attempt to create a centralized governance authority for the east
side, and distribute existing funds equitably.
LNIB Page 3 3/2/2005
11
fl
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES
What questions—in addition to those listed (A-F) above—do you believe require
resolution or at least discussion by LNIB in order to chart a reasonable future
course?
Summary: Additional questions offered fell into the five categories outlined below. A number
of questions were directed at the Board of County Commissioners and seemed to be pleas for
policy direction and ongoing funding clarification.
Category#1: Requests for policy clarification from the BCC about future funding levels,
and their intentions about library service. (10 responses)
• Is it not necessary to get some kind of 3-5 year funding commitment from the BCC so
that strategic plans can be made? Dollars do not have to be exact, but at least can we limit
future cuts to a percentage range? Otherwise, LNIB is almost forced into a "do nothing"
scenario.
• Since the county funding of libraries is now insufficient to provide even basic library
services, should city-owned libraries be liberated to pursue other revenue and use
policies?
• My top question is, does the County wish to remain involved in providing library services
to Clackamas County citizens? Others are:
• If we have to wait until 2010 for a ballot measure, is the County willing to ensure enough
funding to keep us from going out of business before then, or is that our problem?
• Will the county restore at least some of the funding? While the libraries are not as
popular as we hoped, (the levy lost), they have a lot of supporters and with a specific plan
the county could be asked to restore funding with some hope of success. (Marlin Goebel)
• As long as the County is collecting revenue (from unincorporated and incorporated areas)
that was originally directed to libraries, how can the County do anything other than
support libraries with those funds unless the County is honest enough to go back to the
taxpayers and ask them whether they want those funds used for other purposes at the
expense of the libraries?
• Certain strategic questions seem to beg the underlying question - does this County
believe that it should provide library services to its unincorporated residents at all?
• Based on what we know today, we need three, five year projections of revenue: BEST
CASE ($6.385m) for each year, WORST CASE (decline to $4.000m) over five years,
and a MIDDLE COURSE between the two. Each library can then see the impact on their
operation.
• Cities cannot effectively do long-range budget planning, including potential "backfill"of
money from other general fund services by reducing police, fire, parks, etc., until the
County gives long-term assurance of the ultimate amount of funds that will be available
from the former County-wide library levy. A significant portion of the money Clackamas
County uses to fund libraries comes from taxpayers who reside in cities. Residents of
LNIB Page 4 3/2/2005
cities oftenpaytaxes to both their cityand their countyfor library services (when library
funding is not 100% derived from the former County-wide library levy), while those
living in unincorporated areas pay only the county. In the last 1970s, cities convinced the
county to submit to voters the former county-wide library levy. Any further
consideration by Clackamas County of reallocating funds specifically earmarked by
voters for libraries would be a further violation of trust and the County's commitment to
mitigate tax inequity via the former county-wide library levy.
• How do we address the issue of tax inequity, as the County now takes the position that
money derived from the former county-wide library levy is legally part of its general fund
and apparently believes that it is no longer obligated to resolve tax inequity relating to
libraries? We need serious consideration of this very important policy matter, including
where and why the County is reallocating the money previously committed to libraries
and how this affects tax inequity relating to law enforcement, etc. (Tax inequity probably
totals about $10,000,000 a year presently, and is a primary reason why the County should
aggressively assist cities in efforts to incorporate urban/unincorporated areas rather than
protecting special districts from withdrawal upon annexation, such as encouraging water
and sanitary authorities.)
Category #2: Questions relating to the distribution formula or reorganizing Network-type
programs and services (6 responses)
• Should funding of Local Libraries be based on Basic Services and Base Staff Levels by
the County and"Extras"(to be defined)be supported by Local Governance?
• What are we going to do about the MIX agreement?
• What should be the role of the Library Network? Should they be part of the county?
Should they be a separate non-profit agency? Should they be "member owned?"
• Can the efficiency of LINCC member libraries be improved significantly by
consolidating services such as ordering, cataloging, and staff training?
• We have some large libraries, Lake Oswego and West Linn and Wilsonville on a smaller
scale. Has there been any discussion of those libraries contracting their services to the
smaller libraries for the sake of economy, or perhaps mentoring them?
• Is the current formula for funding distribution appropriate, given the current scenarios
facing individual libraries?
Category#3: General questions/ideas about strategic planning/governance, and requests
for more information (5 responses)
• Because of unstable funding in all three counties, should a unified tri-county(Multnomah
Clackamas Washington) library system be investigated?
• Recognize that it cannot be determined by officials of either libraries or government
committees sitting in a room, what the citizens of this county wish to have in library
services and what they wish to pay for. This will require a survey of more than 500
people to represent the desires of the whole as well as a questionnaire that gives them
choices beyond"raise the hell out of your taxes or slash services to less than you had
when you were a kid."People want options—one of which might logically be"keep
things the same and I'll be willing to pay for that."
LMB Page 5 3/2/2005
• I don't see other questions, but I do see that certain of these are the most significant. Most
important, I think that we need to determine what we are. If we are a loose confederation
of individual libraries,that determines one course of action (probably the one we are on).
If we are one system, we have changes to make in the way we operate.
• The future governance of the libraries in our network is perhaps the central question in
the current crisis. (Whose libraries are they anyway?)The brilliant solution that came
about in 1977 (a county-wide levy) to provide for equitable library funding in Clackamas
County is no longer viable. We must find a new way that will give dedicated funds to
library services. Some sort of library district with a base rate of its own may be one of the
better options.
• Are there alternatives to public funding? Foundation/endowments; direct sales of
services or goods; other ideas where the immediate gut reaction is, `that'll never work.'
Why did people vote no on the levy? Is there something LINCC and associated
libraries/groups can do about perceived and real value?
Category #4: Questions about future election possibilities (2 responses)
• What about a citizen initiative to put libraries on the ballot before 2010?
• Does the County have to approve if we decide to try for a Special Library District as
allowed by State law? (not a County Service District)
Category#5: No further questions offered (2 responses)
• A-F are great, thoughtful questions. I have no additions to the list.
• There is probably no end to the number of questions that could be asked at this time, and,
as this process unfolds, there are more that will be developed. However, these questions
seem to be adequate for now.
LNIB Page 6 3/2/2005
Please provide brief answers (to the best of your knowledge) to questions A-F
Question A: Currently LINCC is a loosely knit confederation of local libraries
with some level of funding from Clackamas County. Can we ever become a more
unified library system that has joint responsibility to provide library service
county-wide?
Summary: Question A responses fell into three categories: Yes, Yes/No, and No
Yes (13 responses)we can become more unified
• Yes, but there will probably be a great deal of resistance.
• Yes, with effort. If each library is willing to sacrifice some autonomy for the sake of the
whole i.e. central cataloging could be a benefit as could central ordering and perhaps
even processing of items. Each library could retain some type of input for its collection
development. A unified library system would depend most directly on a stable long-term
funding solution.
• Preferably a unified system–not two systems in one county.
• If the County is not willing to put a measure on the ballot to create a County Service
District before 2010, most of the east side risks going out of business----but a library
district under State Law could be proposed and voted upon, and the provincialism that
has kept us from forming a district in the past has been significantly weakened in the face
of a"no funding at all" scenario. It doesn't matter if some of the west side libraries don't
want to join—we can have IGA's to handle that.
• LINCC is a great improvement over unconnected local libraries. The ability of any
Clackamas County resident to access the collection of all the libraries is a powerful tool.
If a more unified library system could create a permanent tax base not subject to going
out for local levies and create a governance structure that would consider the needs of all
citizens,both inside and outside of cities, then we should work towards that goal. (Marlin
Goebel)
• Yes, form a joint city, county library system with the county supplying the funding for
the area outside of the cities.
• Yes, it would be ideal if libraries could become more united and the level of service
provided to each resident of the county was equal, including those in cities. To provide a
unified system, governance would have to change to eliminate cities having most of the
responsibility for service provision and the County having authority for determining
funding and service levels. Responsibility and authority should not be bifurcated. In our
judgment, LNIB should be the policy and decision-making body for the Library Network,
with the County only serving as fiscal agent as intended when voters approved the first
county-wide library levy.
• Yes (I'm the eternal optimist)
• I think this is the best plan for the future, as it assures equitable access, but even with a
more equitable distribution of funds, it may be a tough sell to libraries used to enhancing
LNIB Page 7 3/2/2005
the basic services through add-ons funded by their cities and to libraries whose"pride in
place" overrides considerations of unified service levels.
• Unification can only really happen if libraries/jurisdictions in the consortium think that it
is a good idea and benefits them. With limited success we have encouraged libraries to
look past the boundaries of their jurisdiction by dividing the County into service
populations. When times get bad instead of pulling together we seem to revert back to "I
can do whatever I want at my library and it does not matter how it impacts others."
• The more consistent or unified we are throughout the County the better customer service
we can provide. Library users are often confused by our differences.
• Yes, we should work towards forming a unified library system with fair and equitable
service to every resident. Imagine a continuum between a system whose units are wholly
autonomous (city only) and a unified county system under a single administration(county
only). LNICC has been a hybrid somewhere in the middle of these two approaches. The
autonomy has had many benefits but I believe that we can no longer afford this luxury.
Many county library systems have preserved their local feel, collections and library
advisory boards while centralizing administration.
•
LINCC is suffering from growing pains right now. Many of the libraries are growing
into modem organizations and a lot of education needs to go along with that growth,we
all need to recognize the importance of consistency in some of our county services.
There are things that could be given up for the sake of efficiency and cost effectiveness
and sometimes just plain customer service. Purchasing of materials (supplies) and
services would be cheaper done centrally. We could all agree to give up our own
"peculiar" local ways of processing materials for the sake of uniformity and consistency
and it could all be done centrally. Our cataloging could all be done centrally also so it
could be consistent1 l I I I It would be great if patrons could check out the same book from
multiple libraries and be able to have them all look the same! Patrons just don't
understand why the same item can have a multitude of different call numbers.
Yes/No — Yes it is desirable to become more of a unified system, but No without
permanent stable funding /or some other combination of mixed message answer(8
responses)
• We cannot become a more unified system with"joint service area responsibility"without
permanent stable funding such as a library district. Very low levels of unreliable funding
do not allow for much attention toward"joint responsibility"when the survival of a
number of libraries in the confederation is in jeopardy.
• As long as each city has the freedom to whack funding or to provide no funding at all but
still maintain local control, there will be little incentive to be "cooperative" in ways that
may cost other local libraries portions of their"historical" funding. One almost feels the
need to start from zero and build back local libraries based upon the population and use
patterns and forget about what "used to be."
• We already are a unified library system that has joint responsibility to provide library
services county-wide. I don't think that the entire group of Clackamas County libraries
are conducive to becoming a county-wide system like Multnomah, therefore there would
be less unification instead of more if we formed an east-side, west-side scenario.
LNIB Page 8 3/2/2005
• It's possible—but maybe not desirable
• We will only if we can create a structure that accepts some local degree of autonomy but
also some central control/authority/standards. Prospects are not good.
• In order for us to become more unified cities would need to be willing to give up some of
their autonomy. Looking at the "rules"that have been agreed on over the years and the
patterns of behavior, I don't know if that is possible. I also see a lot of pride and
ownership in local libraries. Why would Lake Oswego, Wilsonville or West Linn give
up ownership of their library to a system? What kind of an offer could be made to them
to have that happen? I think that LINCC is suffering from growing pains right now,
also. Many of the libraries are growing into modern organizations and a lot of education
needs to go along with that
• Only if the distribution of funding approach changes. As it is currently, the individual
libraries are forced to "compete"for available funding. The only way the system can
ever be more of a unified network with all working towards the greatest level of
cooperation, is to change the funding formula so that it does not create a competition for
funding. The current system causes each agency to protect its own best interests first.
• I'm thinking that the first question really is, `should we be more unified?' What would
that accomplish? Don't we already have responsibility to provide service county-wide?
More direct answer: I feel that there should at least be look and feel elements to the
libraries that allow a patron to associate a given location with the other LINCC libraries.
No (6 responses)
• No, we should not/need not become more unified
• No, the city libraries should be serving their taxpaying populations. The county should
have only two responsibilities: 1. to pay the cities for serving unincorporated citizens and
2. to coordinate cooperation and ensure service levels throughout the county(via the
Library Network?).
• Yes, it is possible to become more unified,but why? Local governance better meets the
needs of those people using their local library. This allows the local library to be flexible
under the current system
• Why do we need to be more unified? The current loose confederation is fine. The
structure is not the problem. The lack of commitment to fund it is the problem.
• Lake Oswego is not likely to support a system that may jeopardize the independence of
the Lake Oswego library. We believe residents are best served by having a loosely knit
confederation of local libraries because the individual libraries are free to tailor their
collections and services to meet the needs of their community—these vary widely in this
county. This arrangement allows libraries to first meet the needs of their individual
communities and secondly to serve as regional resources making their collections
accessible to the rest of the county. This arrangement allows us to centralize services and
functions needed by all libraries such as an automated catalog, uniform cataloging,
courier service and interlibrary loan.
• No; the current structure is the most efficient way to provide library services. Tinkering
with the structure is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; the current problem is
simply one of insufficient funding.
LNIB Page 9 3/2/2005
Question B: In your opinion, as members of LNIB should we be primarily
advancing the interests of the library system in Clackamas County, or should we
be primarily advocating for formulas and strategies that benefit our own
libraries?
Summary: Question B responses strongly favored advocating for the group's general interest
first. Other responses favored advocating for both the group and the local library; advocating for
citizens; advocating for their own library first; and don't know/can't decide.
LNIB should advocate for the general interest above own library interests (11 responses)
• One system,but strongly advocating equitable treatment for all members.
• Members of LNIB should be primarily advancing the interests of the library system
rather than advocating solely for their own library. However, we still need to represent
our population I order to garner their continued support. Again, in order to support"the
system"rather than individual libraries,there must be county-wide source of stable funds.
• LNIB should be advocating for what's best for everyone. It's like Mike said about MIX:
it's a region-wide effort that's been successful in a number of areas. Well, in Clackamas
County, LNIB has been a countywide effort that's been successful in a number of areas.
The success stems from doing what's best for the whole county, not just what's in the
short-term best interests of one city's citizens.
• LNIB, as defined, should be considering countywide library system first
• LNIB should be the policy and decision making body for county-wide library services.
City management and/or city councils should advocate for their local library benefit.
• By advancing the interests of the library system in Clackamas County, I believe that
LNIB is also advancing the interests of their own libraries. I would not like to see that
group become so partisan that they argued over formulas and strategies that benefited
their own libraries. I believe that that would ultimately lead to divisiveness. LNIB needs
to be a big-picture group and work together to ensure that all libraries are able to survive.
• LNIB should primarily advance the interests of the library system county-wide. The PLC
and local library boards or city councils are ideal advocates to insure that formulas and
strategies benefit their individual libraries.
• Yes, advocate for the system, and let cities augment beyond that.
• I think we already have vision statements that answer this question. PLC vision
statement: "The public libraries in Clackamas County work together to provide excellent
library resources and services throughout the county in a spirit of cooperation that
transcends boundaries and encourages those elements of local diversity and collective
unity that strengthen all members."And it states in the original LNIB charter:"As an
advisory body to the Board of County of County Commissioners in all countywide
library financial and policy matters,the LNIB is charged with determining the direction
and further evolution of the library Network. In the interest of providing the best possible
library service to all citizens of the County, the LNIB balances retention of local
autonomy and local control of libraries along with the need for coordination of library
services and planning."
• LNIB should be looking after the best interest of the whole not the individual.
LNIB Page 10 3/2/2005
• I would like to see LNIB advance the interests of the entire library system. How would
we do that? Currently each representative represents a city or specific unincorporated
area. Could we perhaps draw LNIB representatives from the entire county(not specific
areas that they would be required to represent) and give them the direction to represent
the entire system. That would be an improvement. (Marlin Goebel)
LNIB should advocate for both the group and for their local library (6 responses)
• Both. LNIB should aim for the well-being of the whole Clackamas County library system
(the big picture,but members will continue to advocate for their own individual libraries
as long as the current conditions exist.
• Both, but LNIB as an advisory board only works properly when there is sufficient shared
revenue to enable most libraries to look beyond their own survival to advancing the
interests of the confederation and the shared citizen user base. When money gets very
tight and new options that threaten a governance change are discussed, LNIB members
must know and represent the intentions of their elected councils primarily. But LNIB
members also have an obligation to inform and counsel their elected officials if and when
consolidation into a library system becomes the best strategy for their own library.
• Both.
• The whole idea of the library network originally was to deliver service to the whole
county using the resources (city and county libraries) already in place. LNIB was both a
way to represent the interests of the member libraries and to advance the interests of the
entire service area, Clackamas County. In good times, it was easy for us to cooperate
with some give and take to deliver service countywide. In hard times, there has always
been a tendency to look out for"our own" library. I would say that the group has overall
done a good job of taking a big picture approach, but lately there seems to be some
members who are bigger who seem quite unconcerned with the plight of the smaller
libraries, even somewhat blaming them for being in the state they are in. On the other
hand, some of the smaller libraries are pretty self focused these days.
• I don't think this is either/or. Of course we focus on our local community,but that does
not deny the importance of service in the rest of the County. Difficult decisions are
coming. They will not be improved by a Balkanized process.
• LNIB should take on the responsibility to do both, unlike the current Congress of the US.
There will need to be compromise to resolve these sticky issues.
LNIB should advocate for their own library first, then general interest (3 responses)
• The current distribution system forces individual libraries to compete for available funds,
thus advocating for their own best interests first, and the overall LINCC system second.
• There is no doubt that all the libraries benefit by a strong county system as it provides
additional opportunities for our customers to have access to materials and services.
However, in this day of financial constraints, LNIB members must always ensure that
their actions provide the best opportunity for their own library to be successful first.
Because Lake Oswego's circumstances are so different from many of the other
communities and agencies, it often creates a sense of Lake Oswego being disenfranchised
when at the table with the rest of LNIB.
• I don't think it is entirely possible to think globally, although LNIB members do hold the
whole system in great respect and treat it as objectively as humanly possible.
LNIB Page 11 3/2/2005
LNIB should advocate for the citizens primarily (2 responses)
• LNIB as a group should be working to benefit the "citizens"by providing the
mechanisms to give as many as possible access to quality local libraries.
• Why are these mutually exclusive propositions? In general keeping each individual
library strong ultimately serves the interests of all. Certainly LNIB should advocate for
adequate library services for all county residents, with the assistance of the cities.
Don't know/can't decide (1 response)
• I am never sure. I know when I am occupying one or the other role, but in order to
consistently occupy one, everyone will have to accept the same role.
LNIB Page 12 3/2/2005
C. Is a County Library one which is funded and operated by Clackamas County,
or does it include those libraries whose funding is 100% derived from the
County?
Summary: Question C responses were fairly evenly divided among three options: 1)A County
Library is both funded and operated by the County; 2) A County Library should include libraries
which receive virtually 100% of their funding from the County; and 3) Cannot answer, as the
issues are too complex.
County library should only be defined as one both funded and operated by the county —
all others are city libraries. (9 responses)
• Every city still provides at least administrative services and/or a building, so city libraries
are not county libraries.
• Libraries whose operating funds are almost entirely funded by the former levy(now
rolled into general fund) seem like"de-facto county"libraries now,but isn't it likely that
this labeling started because the levy was rolled into the GF? Pre Measure 47-50, the
same libraries received little or no city funding,but they were funded by a county-wide
dedicated library levy and so were thought of as city libraries. As long as the city
provides the facility and all administrative support, then they are city libraries.
• County library is one funded and operated by the county.
• Libraries operated by CO are CO libraries (funding is not an issue of governance)
• The County Library is that which is directly funded by the BCC The Clackamas County
Library Network is all the libraries that receive county funding, City Library's and the
County Branches.
• A county library is one which is"funded and operated by Clackamas County". Even
cities with libraries whose operating funds are entirely derived from the former county-
wide library levy probably own the buildings and land on which their libraries are
located.
• This question gets into what the organization expects from cities that are members of the
cooperative. Do we want the contract re-written to say that cities need to provide a
certain amount of funding from the General Fund to be considered members? Do we
want to consider other kinds of support like providing a building or paying for the
services of the building? I believe that as it stands a County Library is one that is funded
and operated by Clackamas County and located in an unincorporated area and that if we
get into funding expectations from cities that we are getting into dangerous areas.
• A County Library is operated by the County. If a City continues to operate the library
itself, yet only does so with LINCC funding, I think it is still a city library.
• The important word here is "operated"The ten city libraries are owned and operated by
their respective cities. The buildings, the land and the employees are all part of the cities'
financial commitment to the provision of library service. The operating funds come
through Clackamas County only because the former levy was set up with the county as
the fiscal agent.
LNIB Page 13 3/2/2005
Can't answer this question specifically—issues are too complex (8 responses)
• There's history here. All the libraries started out as funded by the cities. Over time,
some cities have had to reduce funding gradually, ending up at 0 funding eventually. At
that point, the county should have insisted on taking over administration of the library
service in those towns, but they didn't. So now we have a mixed up mess that nobody
knows what to do with, and nobody's willing to make the hard decisions.
• A very valid question. I don't know of any library that is 100% funded by the County
levy. In our case, the building is provided by the city,but we often wonder whether we
should be a county entity since we serve so many county patrons.
• All the libraries in Clackamas County are county libraries. The question probably refers
to the issue of whether library buildings should be located in unincorporated areas.
• This distinction only makes a difference if LNIB is going to treat"county libraries"
differently from city libraries. They should not be treated differently. If the county is
going to fund library services, all county residents must be served.(Marlin Goebel)
• As long as the County collects income from all residents, whether in unincorporated or
incorporated areas, the County is obligated to support all libraries that reach and serve the
whole.
• We are all county libraries.
• If our goal is to serve all the residents in Clackamas County, does this matter? Is this a
question of maintenance of effort? Control? Who is better at providing library service?
This is a large County with diverse communities: rural/urban,rich/poor,
incorporated/unincorporated,highly educated/less educated, high wages/low wages,
northwest/southeast. Is one part of the County more important than another? Is one
community more deserving than another?
• To answer this question, we have to look at the reason why we want to designate a library
as "County"or"non-County." If the issue is defining the County's role, then only those
libraries run by the County are County libraries. If we are looking at the cost of and
investment in libraries, it is more useful to look at a category of those who operate solely
on County funds and a category of those who invest local dollars in addition to the
County money.
"County Library" should include those libraries whose operating funds come 100% from
the County's general fund (6 responses)
• Any library funded entirely by county funds should be a county library. Cities that do not
provide any monetary support to the library in their community are stealing a portion of
the county funding from all of us.
• A county library should include those 100% funded by the county and the county should
have a say in their governance.
• In truth, once some of the smaller libraries become totally dependent on the "library
levy", they became County libraries. But provincialism kept us from ever admitting that.
Possibly it was also cheaper to let the cities continue to run them because city wages are
less in many cases. The real question now is whether we want to look at library services
as a regional service or keep on thinking they are local city services. If we are honest
LNIB Page 14 3/2/2005
with ourselves, we have been offering regional service for a long time, and the fact that
many cities reduced or quit giving funding for local libraries in favor of utilizing county
funding is further proof that these services are not really"city" services anymore, except
in the largest libraries (possibly).
• The county has full control of the library revenue because of measure 50. The system was
independent before that time. Now they assume that the funding is all theirs to do as they
see fit, irrespective of how this amount got into the general fund. The cities' libraries
were part of the funding base in the original funding levy before 50. This looks like a
county grab to me.
• If 100% of funding is from county, then city should consider giving over operation to the
county
• From a management and operational standpoint, the city still maintains control of the
library. Under the circumstances, it would seem that a library that receives 100% of its
operating resources from the County is, essentially, a county library. If the City owns the
physical plant, then the City has a vested interest in the service being provided, but
perhaps the day-to-day services should be governed by the County under a lease
agreement with the City.
LNIB Page 15 3/2/2005
D. Do we have the right number of libraries to serve the users effectively and
efficiently? Do we have the libraries located in the right places?
Summary: Question D responses were divided among four choices: 1) Neither correct
numbers nor correct locations; 2) Right numbers but wrong locations; 3) Cannot answer;
4) Both numbers and locations are correct.
Neither correct numbers nor correct locations (8 responses)
• I feel as if there is too high a concentration both east and west of the River in the
urbanized areas.
• If money was no problem, we should reduce our 13 libraries to 12: we should re-locate
Town Center to the Boring/Damascus area and consolidate Oak Lodge with Gladstone
into a large regional library located between Oak Lodge and Gladstone on McLoughlin.
• The County library in Oak Lodge is redundant with Milwaukie and Gladstone so close
by. Yes, many people use it, but the funds funneled to it for so many years is sucked from
those other two libraries to their detriment.
• No to both. The east side of the county is underserved, especially Happy Valley and
Damascus. We need to address those growth areas around Molalla and Sunnyside.
Perhaps even closing the Oak Lodge branch and expanding the Gladstone library—do
something to consolidate the McLoughlin area branches.
• No to both. Can everybody just admit that the County branches are in the wrong
locations? Oak Lodge cuts into Gladstone's and Milwaukie's population, Clackamas
Corner also cuts into Milwaukie's population, and Hoodland should be run by Sandy.
What makes Oak Grove and Jennings Lodge more"worthy"of their own library than
other unincorporated areas? Libraries are a city service, and the county's role should be
limited to supporting the city libraries and providing equal access to unincorporated
citizens.
• No. No.
• I think we need more in the Damascus/Happy Valley/Boring area and possibly fewer in
the Gladstone/Milwaukee/Oak Lodge area(or look at relocating them)
• No. As has been proposed for years, a library is needed much further out towards the east
side of Clackamas County. Town Center current serves a large number of Multnomah
County residents (as does WV, LO and MI but they cannot be relocated easily). It seems
that we should locate libraries to maximize service to Clackamas County residents Also,
there are currently too many libraries clustered along the McLoughlin corridor.
Right number of libraries but wrong locations (7 responses)
• Not in the right places—the 2 county libraries clustered in the N Clackamas area should
offer service in growth areas such as Sunnyside corridor instead.
• Right number of libraries=maybe. Right locations=no.
LNIB Page 16 3/2/2005
• Oak Lodge is not in a good place, otherwise, I don't know
• Part one-yes, probably. Part two-no, library buildings shouldn't be provided in
unincorporated areas, but this is an equity and governance issue, not an efficiency issue.
• We have the right number of Libraries; they are not located in the right places.
• Some county libraries are out of place in relation to the movement of population in the
last 15 years. Oak Lodge is the most flagrant followed by Hoodland.
• The degree in which the number of libraries effectively serves users depends on funding.
As discussed for years, the location of libraries is not optimum, especially in North
Clackamas County, where there are too many libraries near the McLoughlin corridor.
The Town Center branch should be located further to the east.
Don't know / can't answer/ more questions than answers (4 responses)
• This is the $100,000 question. How can this be answered in some kind of rational way?
• We don't know and we would need more information to feel comfortable making that
determination.
• Perhaps Oak Lodge, Milwaukie, and Gladstone could combine resources. How does this
happen if the community or jurisdiction is unwilling to give up its local community
library? If combined, where should the library be located? Centrally? Does that mean the
new joint library is located in unincorporated Clackamas County? What happens to the
contributions currently given to each library from each jurisdiction? We've been here
before but I'm willing to go there again. Clackamas Corner could be relocated east of
205 to better serve the Clackamas/Sunnyside/Damascus patrons. What about Damascus?
They want a library of their own. Do we plan to fund Damascus? Do we encourage a
joint Happy Valley/Damascus Library?
• Interesting question; we have the whole McLoughlin Blvd corridor of Gladstone,
Milwaukie and Oak Grove, not to mention Oregon City and West Linn close by; it would
appear that those libraries are too close, but how do you tell a city that they must give up
their library? Then, of course there are Happy Valley and the newly incorporated
Damascus, plus the area east of I 205 where there is all of that growth. This is an area
where we should have a strategic plan for the future and look at where there is going to
be future growth in the county. And how can you justify funding all of those libraries
that are so close together while not providing equitable library service to the rest of the
east county area?
Yes, in general, both numbers of libraries and locations are correct (3 responses)
• To answer this question, we have to get over the political question of whether or not the
County should have put Oak Lodge in between Gladstone and Milwaukie. The real
question is how far apart should libraries be in order to adequately serve the citizens of
Clackamas County? I have read data that says library branches should be no more than
two miles drive for users. That would be a lot more libraries than we have now. I do not
think we have too many libraries or that they are too close together. If we were to
abandon the circ model for distribution and remove the competitive nature of our
LNIB Page 17 3/2/2005
funding, it would not matter at all how close the libraries were. It is because we are
competing for the same circs that we are upset. Let's look at libraries as a regional
service. It seems good and natural that each city should have a library in it, and also that
some unincorporated areas should also have branches conveniently located near
shopping, etc. If money were no object I feel confident we could have a lot more
libraries and a lot of happy customers! Since we do have a money problem, it would
seem better to look for a regional funding solution than to close a few libraries in an
attempt to better spread the services around. The way things seem to be going it is only a
matter of a few years until most of the east side libraries close anyway.
• Looking at a map two clusters of our libraries jump out at me. One is the Milwaukie/Oak
Grove/Gladstone cluster on or near the area's major highway, and the other is the
Gladstone/West Linn/Oregon City cluster made possible by having two bridges between
West Linn and Oregon City and all three libraries close enough to the bridges. With the
exception of West Linn(because of it's proximity to its sister libraries on the east side)
the west side libraries are more at a greater distance from each other. If closing libraries
is necessary due to funding then it should be those in a cluster and the decision should be
entirely based on the needs of all residents of the county. It should make no difference if
it is a city library or county library. However, at funding of$6,385,000 all the current
libraries should be kept open. Closing libraries should be considered until funding drops
well below $6,000,000.( Marlin Goebel)
• Yes, I believe there are enough (right number of) libraries in the county. They are
probably appropriately located under the current system of city operated facilities. If
there is ever a move to a truly regional approach, then I believe some of the current
libraries could be closed and consolidated into larger, regional locations. These ideal
locations would need to be determined.
1 NII'' Page 18 3/2/2005
E. Given the crisis in available library funding, do we still have the right number
of libraries, and are those libraries located in the right places?
Summary: Question E responses were similar to those of Question D, although the number of
respondents shifted to more heavily suggest having the right number of libraries but in the wrong
locations.
Still yes to number and no to location—same answer as above (9 responses)
• Yes, except I believe the Oak Lodge Library should go.
• Right number: maybe. Right location: no.
• No - see answer to D above
• Oak lodge in wrong place—otherwise don't know
• Same answer- See above
• Same answer as D above
• Same answer as above
• No, we do not believe that we have the right number of libraries nor are they in the right
places.
• NO—see answer above
Still no and no —same answer as above (5 responses)
• No. We need a larger County facility in the Sunnyside corridor and to close Oak Lodge
and Town Center
• Perhaps not, but closing entire city libraries and keeping their collections locked up
seems ludicrous. Maybe branches could be open on a rotating basis... the crisis will
eventually pass and we don't want to lose ground. Other options are fewer small libraries
consolidated into larger BIG BOX type operations. We prefer smaller community
libraries, but are open to looking at other options.
• No. No
• There are too many for available funds.
• No. Another thought is that the number of libraries depends in part on the amount of
funding available. We could have a larger number of smaller, neighborhood libraries if
we had lots of money. What is our definition of good service?
Can't answer/too many questions to pose first (4 responses)
• In a severe fiscal crisis, the question should not be "do we have too many libraries", but
instead do we have too many jurisdictions operating libraries? A consolidated entity
could certainly operate small branches in many if not all of the areas currently served
more economically. Also centralized control would allow decisions about what libraries
LNIB Page 19 3/2/2005
are located where to be the result of effective long-range planning rather than individual
fiscal prosperity of our different jurisdictions.
• If the county was to pull funding for county libraries if one or more were closed, the
whole question is academic. If the county were to pull funding for county libraries, then
the cities would be forced to charge county residents for the services. If, in the future,the
county were to cut the $6,385 million, then the cities should begin to charge county
residents for the loss of county support that the county pulled back.
• I feel we should be working towards some consolidation of libraries where the effect on
the communities can be minimized such as traveling long distances to a library. I believe
funding will continue to decrease. This should be considered if we are to provide any
kind of on-going services to the citizens.
• Given the funding crisis, we think the only way this answer differs from the response to
D above is to re-define "effective and efficient" library services. Still, however, the
response is the same as above—we don't know.
Still yes and yes—same answer as above (2 responses)
• The answer above assumes funding of$6,385,000. I will have to reconsider this if
funding falls well below that amount.
• Yes if no governance changes are made. But if a more regional approach were considered
for Clackamas County, then I believe consolidation of existing locations could be
considered.
LNIB Page 20 3/2/2005
F. Should fiscal maintenance of effort from cities be a requirement for obtaining
county funds for libraries?If so, how should it be defined and set?
Summary: Question F responses were divided among the choices Yes, No, and Can't Decide.
Yes, maintenance of effort should be a requirement for county funding (10 responses)
• Yes to maintenance of effort—perhaps based on population.
• I believe fiscal maintenance should be required for a city to maintain control of their
library. If the county puts in all of the funds, then it should be a county library and under
their control.
• Yes, fiscal maintenance of effort should be required of cities in order to obtain county
funds. One possible way to enforce this would be to require cities to maintain current
levels of funding (or a certain small percentage of growth) year to year. If the funding is
decreased, the library would lose their county funds as well.
• Yes definitely. The amount should be defined and set by an elected or appointed
committee of city managers, library directors and county representatives.
• Yes, maintenance of effort should be required, or we'll end up with more libraries
entirely subsidized by the county. If the citizens of each city aren't willing to fund their
local library, then they have spoken. If it's not a high enough local priority, why should
the county divert tax money to something that the local voters apparently don't want?
• Another way to state this is, "should city taxpayers be forced to subsidize residents of
unincorporated areas?"The answer is "no."A better question would be, "Should libraries
be expected to maintain a minimum level of service (e.g., hours of operation) in order to
receive funds from the countywide levy?"My answer would be, yes, as long as the
minimum level could be supported with the countywide levy as the sole means of
support.
• Yes. Any entity(including the County) that wants support for libraries should provide
the building and its maintenance for free. County revenues from taxes should go to
support employment/collections/technology. The facility should be provided out of
separate budgets. If a City chooses to supplement the operational budget, that should be
their choice, but not their obligation.
• Possibly in proportion to the number of city residents served. I see that it is not the
responsibility of the cities to serve the county residents.
• As long as we are a consortium and not a county system, yes. Defined and set by LNIB —
too complex to detail here Yes, to some extent. I believe all of the funding received from
LINCC should be directed only towards the library operations, as that is its intended use.
However, under the current system I think the LINCC is limited as to how it can control
this. Our system now creates autonomy in each jurisdiction to operate their libraries as
they choose (within reason). Unless the system is changed, further control of funding
beyond this will be difficult to justify.
• Yes. If the city libraries are going to continue to operate independently from the county
system and continue to have a vote in LNIB and receive county funds, then the City
LNIB Page 21 3/2/2005
should have an ongoing financial investment in its library services, meaning it must
maintain a certain level of effort.
No, maintenance of effort should not be required (7 responses)
• No, the time for this option has passed. It should have been implemented in 1977 when
the first levy was approved and cities still supported their libraries with their own general
fund. If the county general funding support continues to dwindle, this source of funds
will become less important to well-funded libraries that will be gradually liberating
themselves anyway from county funding via local option levies and city general fund. If
maintenance of effort is required now,poor libraries will just be forced into closure
sooner.
• No. We can't even provide fiscal maintenance of effort from the county to State
programs in these troubled times, let alone ask the cities who face even more difficult
cuts and decisions. Didn't we just plead our case to the State to drop maintenance of
effort and heaved a great sigh of relief when the state looked favorably on that request? It
would be cumbersome to require it and then take the requirement away when reality hits.
• No, it is beside the point
• No, local funds should not be used as a criteria for County funding. Funds should be
based on basic services and staffing levels being provided to the citizens.
• City funding should not be any kind of requirement. Our library system is largely
financed by the county. All county residents should have access to these services. It
should not matter if libraries are inside or outside of cities. (Marlin Goebel)
• No. As indicated before, a significant amount of"County funds" for libraries is derived
from taxpayers who reside in cities. The term "maintenance of effort"probably refers to
library funding in addition to that derived from the former county-wide library levy.
Clackamas County should be under the same obligations as cities. Presently, Clackamas
County does not provide any"maintenance of effort"since its libraries are entirely
funded by the former county-wide library levy. Part of the problem is a lack of common
perception of circumstances, such as "maintenance of effort".
• No, this does not make sense.
Can't decide/too many questions to answer first or suggests alternate concept (6 responses)
• First, I want to know if the County wants to stay in the library business. If the County's
goal is to get out of the library business, this question is moot. If the County wants to
stay in the business of delivering regional library services, then it should form a service
district and get appropriate funding. At that point, I believe that cities should consider
giving up control of their libraries to the district. If this is not to happen, and the County
still wants to stay in the library business, then it should be acknowledged that the
taxpayers of Clackamas County are paying some level of their tax dollar to fund library
service, and if the city libraries are still autonomous, then the County should make an
attempt to determine some per capita amount that citizens are paying for services and
allocate that amount to each city and to itself. Then the cities (or the County) can
LNIB Page 22 3/2/2005
augment that amount to better serve their own area if they want to. Keep in mind that, if
the County is staying in the library business, the centralized Network services must be
paid for first. If the county gets out of the library business, then a decision needs to be
made about how the centralized services will be funded.
• The County funds should be set to pay for one, basic level of service at each recipient
library. Any enhancement to the County contribution is the responsibility of the city or
(in the case of the County) citizens requesting the enhancement.
• This is a difficult question to answer. Yes, if maintenance of effort can be defined as
providing buildings and utilities rather than funding from the city's General Fund? If we
were to require fiscal maintenance of effort by cities we would be effectively excluding
some of our members that are really suffering financially right now.
• Given the financial state of many jurisdictions, I feel the minimum that should be
provided to a library (without billed back cost) should include: a building(leased or
owned), maintenance of the building, and jurisdictional administrative services. If all this
is provided then it counts as maintenance of effort.
• If a jurisdiction provides a building administrative services and building up keep but then
bills the library back for them via cost allocations, it is at best a shell game(give a library
city funds and then bill them back for half of it!) and at worst a drain on the library
funding provided by the county. Only if these services are supplied at no bill-back cost
can they count as true maintenance of effort.
• The"maintenance of effort" idea pits the larger libraries/larger cities against the smaller
ones. I believe that more attention should be paid to the idea of county-wide tax equity.
City residents should not have to pay twice for library service.
LNIB Page 23 3/2/2005
Upon review of the strategies listed (aa-gg) please list the strategy(ies) you
would prefer and why.
Summary: Responses ee and ff formed the top tier. Responses gg and dd formed the middle
tier. All other responses formed the bottom tier. One respondent did not like any of the
suggested strategies.
ee. Define a minimal level of service that can be supported with available funds and fund
each library at that level, leaving any enhancement of that minimal level to local
city/county funding. County-wide funding to specific libraries would continue only as
long as the minimum level of service was being met. (15 responses)
• Prefer this. It is basically what we are doing now but without a real definition of
"minimal level of service"
• This sounds reasonable at first, but there are problems. This option would have the effect
of diverting funds from west-side well-supported libraries over to the east side, since
west-side libraries would surely receive less money in a"minimal level"payment than
they do currently. Once the minimal level of service is paid for by the county funds, what
happens to the rest of the funds? Do they go back to the county general fund? If so, what
is the incentive for any library to prefer this option? If the funds go to improve the
funding base of the east side libraries, then how can we say they are receiving"minimal
level" funding. Or is this just a new distribution formula—essentially a new way of
calculating how low the county general fund support can be reduced before libraries start
to close...
• Prefer this and ff below— they meet the standards I referred to in the above questions.
• We prefer strategy ee. We feel this is the most equitable solution and the most likely to be
accepted by the group as a whole.
• We favor strategy ee, again, with the input of city managers, library directors and county
representation.
• Service levels should be determined by city not county(see dd.)
• Broken record: this would assume that the County wants to stay in the library business.
Then the question is, would the larger libraries be willing to reduce their income from the
"available funds" in order to spread it out amongst the rest of the libraries to ensure the
"minimum level of service" is equally available throughout the county99299
• Second choice, like this concept as well similar to the first but maybe harder to identify
and then "police"once instated.
• This concept would work only if the concept of"available funds"were acceptable. The
idea of establishing a"minimal level of service required"to receive funds is a good idea
—but I would guess that all libraries would probably meet such a criteria now.
• The County money should fund a basic level, and any enhancement should come from
the city or citizens requesting it. (In the case of the County libraries, the general fund
should not enhance the basic level. That should come from the area defined as its service
area. Use of County general funds to supplement the service would raise the "double
taxation"issue.)
LNIB Page 24 3/2/2005
• I prefer ee. I think there should be a minimal level of service that would be base- funded
according to population served. A percentage of the funding must be for materials and
staffing respectively.
• Anything that serves to disenfranchise residents of certain areas such as ee or ff is
unacceptable.
• I prefer something like a combination of ee and dd. The County could give everyone a
base amount of funding for library service with some kind of incentive to merge. If the
base did not increase a bit each year, the base would not cover the cost of keeping the
doors open after a few years. This brings into play the need to combine or merge
libraries to keep others open. Whatever we do, library service should be available
throughout the County, not just in one or two geographic areas.
• Seems like ee is a reasonable way to go. Possibly also define a standard as in dd. We will
need to look at the difference between the two, maybe, in order to see a direction. I'm not
sure governance changes will make any difference unless they save money by eliminating
management level positions—is that implied by the strategy?
• Probably a combination of dd and ee, so that some control remains at the local libraries,
while moving towards a better solution to the regional library approach.
ff. Close the County libraries, apportion the available County funds to each remaining city
library (based on either population served or assessed value), and then reimburse cities
for circs to unincorporated areas. Alternatively, the funds realized from closing county
libraries could be used only to reimburse those libraries that actually began providing
services/circs to residents of the unincorporated areas. (Remember, however, that there
is no guarantee that the funds currently used to fund County libraries would become
part of the county-wide library funds) (12 responses)
• No to actually closing entire county library, but yes to consolidate it and move to an area
that would more effectively serve citizens in unincorporated areas—the Sunnyside
corridor
• Remember that the "no guarantee of redistribution of funds after closing a library" is not
official policy enacted by the BCC. I wonder if this is more of a negotiating position of
the county administrator meant to take the heat off the county library for a year or two. I
wonder if this "policy"would stand up to challenge (perhaps by our elected officials??)
to the BCC itself.
• Prefer this and ee—they meet the standards referred to in the questions above.
• cc, ff and gg seem like the best options right now. The west side citizens won't want to
give up local control of their libraries, and they support them at a high level now. The
east side doesn't support their libraries to the same extent, so they need to be dealt with in
a different way. Creating a district would centralize some services to make it more
efficient. It would be more effective and have more flexibility to improve and
standardize library services in the rest of the county.
• To close all the County libraries is not a good choice for the citizens of the county, but
closing the Oak Lodge branch, which is a duplication of effort being so close to
Gladstone and Milwaukie, is a consideration which has been tiptoed around for years and
is a very viable choice.
LNIB Page 25 3/2/2005
• Not going to happen, so why discuss this option.
• Prefer strategy ff, but only with an intergovernmental agreement that provides continued
funding of use of city libraries by all residents of the county.
• I do not understand the second part of this question. Which libraries are they that
actually began providing services to residents of the unincorporated areas? Don't we all?
But anyway, this question again presumes that the County still wants to be involved in
library funding. By the way, the base refund/equalization formula does have some merit.
And closing the County libraries may make sense in terms of the competitive nature of
our circ formula,but does not make sense from a customer service perspective.
• My third choice, outcome possibly outside of scope of LNIB authority.
• I don't understand the statement: "to reimburse those libraries that actually began
providing services...."— every library supports unincorporated patrons, to some extent,
through couriered books, as well as by contributing to the purchase of databases &
DYNIX.
• Anything that serves to disenfranchise residents of certain areas such as ee or ff is
unacceptable.
• Distribution of funds based on assessed value (Base refund) in (ff) appeals to me coupled
with an amount for each circulation to an unincorporated area resident. But the base
refund must be tied to the rate that rolled into the county general fund when Measure 50
made the Clackamas County Library Levy an"historic levy". Whether it was $.29 or$.35
or somewhere in between,whatever is still being collected for library service should
come back to the service providers IF we continue with the present system of
governance.
gg. Leave the"west side"(Lake Oswego,West Linn,and Wilsonville) as is in terms of local
governance,but attempt to create a centralized governance authority for the east side,
and distribute existing funds equitably. (9 responses)
• Prefer this option. Create a special library district rather than a county service district and
thus keep the county from being drawn in deeper to the provision of library services. This
would unfortunately create an overlap in Estacada since a county service district already
exists, so that area would have to be left out of the boundary. Follow the Lincoln County
model and initially limit the district to only unincorporated areas and leave out all
incorporated cities and the Estacada L.D. If it passed, funds would be raised to reimburse
our city library for serving unincorporated residents. Most of our city libraries will likely
have passed (or tried to pass)local option library levies by 2010 when this district could
go on the ballot and will need financial incentive to keep serving unincorporated
residents if the county GF amount is greatly reduced. Otherwise, we may be back to 1977
when unincorporated residents had to purchase cards to use a city library(disastrous!)
Cities could eventually ask to have their boundaries included in the district or could
petition to opt in later, as several have done in Lincoln County. The district could decide
to limit its service to paying city libraries for service, or could also take on the Library
Network administration.
• Solution gg is of interest to me along with bb above.
• Interesting... but I don't know.
LNIB Page 26 3/2/2005
• I do have some interest in an east side district, but if the County will not put it onto the
ballot before 2010 I have real concerns that many libraries will close. Unless the County
will commit to continuing at least the level of funding they are offering for 05-06 for the
full five years. I wonder if trying to unite the whole east side would be too far flung for
the voters, and have thought about just combining the south side(Canby, Gladstone,
Oregon City, and Molalla) and then the East side (Milwaukie, Estacada, Sandy, County
libraries) into two districts. Would the Network services be funded by the district(s)?
• Why are we segregating east side from west side—is the County splitting?
• We prefer this option leaving the"west side" as is in terms of local governance, but
creating a long-range plan for east-side libraries, especially given the rapid urbanization
that will occur in the Clackamas and Damascus areas.
• Prefer cc or better, gg but would the libraries on the west side need to run local option
levies themselves in order to maintain their funding?
• Prefer cc or gg—not sure I see the difference.
• If we choose to move towards a more centralized system, I favor gg with long range
planning for creating an east side library district.
dd. Define an affordable"standard" library for Clackamas County, determine how many
of these standard libraries can survive in the current funding crisis and where they
should be located and then fund only these from county funds. (8 responses)
• This option could only work if the BCC guaranteed a stable revenue amount. If revenue
is a constantly moving/ever-decreasing target, how can we determine how many
"standard" libraries could survive?
• Is a very similar scenario to a recommendation that Jon Mantay made a couple of years
ago and is interesting to me, as is gg.
• Perhaps, but city library funding should not be messed with
• This would assume that the county wants to stay in the library business. Would this
mean LO, OC, MI, WL, and WV? And maybe keep either SA or ES for the far-flung
eastern residents? Of course, the SA people could all just start going to Gresham if we
keep MIX. Will the definition of standard include some level of city funding? Would
the County commit to ongoing funding for these, including cost of living adjustments?
Otherwise, it would be better to just go after a long term stable funding mechanism that
doesn't shortchange the smaller communities and outer edges of Clackamas County. If I
lived in Colton, I would already think my tax dollars for libraries weren't benefiting me
much.
• First choice, like the concept. It will be a challenge for this group to decide what that
"standard is"however.
• Conceptually OK but its success is dependent on the availability of a stable and sufficient
pool of funds, and all these ideas beg the question of whether the county is committed to
raising funds for libraries
• Seems like ee is a reasonable way to go. Possibly also define a standard as in dd. We will
need to look at the difference between the two,maybe, in order to see a direction. I'm not
sure governance changes will make any difference unless they save money by eliminating
management level positions—is that implied by the strategy?
LNIB Page 27 3/2/2005
• Probably a combination of dd and ee, so that some control remains at the local libraries,
while moving towards a better solution to the regional library approach.
aa. Do nothing and see what kind of library network, library service providers or county-.
wide library service evolves over the next 5-7 years. (5 responses)
• This is certainly the least politically stressful option and does allow for unexpected
salvation to come along and stabilize the system It avoids drastic pre-emptive action but
also stymies strategic planning. This is truly the classic hand-to-mouth wait-and-see
strategy.
• Wait and see? We'd better be planning something.
• If we do nothing, many libraries will close, not because people don't like them, but
because we are doing nothing to offer the people alternatives to funding them.
• To do nothing is totally irresponsible and the allow the libraries to deteriorate into
oblivion
• Because there are no easy solutions to this problem, it would seem that the most sensible
strategy would be to do nothing. On the assumption that County funding will continue to
decrease, it would make the most sense for each library to determine for itself its future
funding requirements and attempt to resolve its own funding issue. In the long run, more
local control of each individual library's finances is the most likely scenario. Therefore,
any strategy that disrupts the status quo (altering the formula, attempting to "save"
libraries that are not willing to save themselves, etc.) may only create more problems for
all the libraries.
bb. Do nothing now, aim for a 2010 vote, and then see what kind of library network,
library service providers or county-wide library service emerges. (4 responses)
• This option is no different than aa above.
• Wait and see? We'd better be planning something.
• I would say that most of the smaller libraries cannot afford to stay open that long.
• Same as above. Waiting to 2010 is TOO long. The libraries will be eviscerated by then.
cc. Create a countywide library district on the east side (although at this point it seems
unlikely to be placed on a county-wide ballot). (4 responses)
• I don't know whether this would work
• If the County would like to see a ballot measure on the 2010 vote, then they will have to
keep giving libraries enough money, i.e., no less than the $6.385 million, until then.
Otherwise, it is likely that many of the east side libraries will be closed by then.
• Needless to say I think the county libraries should not be closed. We should do nothing
now and work to create a county-wide library district the formation of which would
include the citing of libraries. (Marlin Goebel)
LNIB Page 28 3/2/2005
• Prefer cc or better, gg but would the libraries on the west side need to run local option
levies themselves in order to maintain their funding?
Prefer none of the offered strategies (I response)
• I prefer none of these. I think we have to start to think outside of the box.
LNIB Page 29 3/2/2005
Please share any strategy or solution not listed above (aa-gg) that you feel should
be considered.
Summary: While each strategysuggested gg was unique in and of itself, certain themes did
emerge. Those strategies are grouped together below.
Something new and different! (6 responses)
• Could we, at least as an exercise, think about what kind of library service we might
design from scratch with the $6.4M (and City funds)? What would be our priorities? How
might we do some things differently? When looking at a new catalog, how does it
function to save staff time—reduce the number of bodies in the building? Are there
library sacred cows that should be slaughtered and sold by the pound?
• Have Happy Valley& Damascus collectively pick up the cost of housing the TC
collection.
• Segregate the Library tax from the general fund by being a dedicated tax (can this be
done without actually forming a library district and creating another level of
bureaucracy?)
• The city libraries start to charge county residents if county cuts the $6.385m in future
• I think the formula should be changed (again maybe to reflect population served) so that
libraries are cooperating and not in competition for circs.
• A full countywide system, such as Multnomah has, that absorbs existing city libraries
(and their funding—i.e., the cities are contracting with the county for services). Then a
foundation and/or Friends' group could serve all libraries.
Put pressure on BCC to put a measure on the ballot sooner that 2010 and/or maintain
current funding levels with no reductions (5 responses)
• Organize and work with city Library Boards and Friends groups to pressure the Board of
County Commissioners to maintain support because the taxes rolled over into the county
general fund were approved by voters for library purposes
• The public puts another funding levy on the 2006 ballot by initiative. It would only take
8000 signatures for a Clackamas County initiative. There are interesting up and down
sides to this strategy; blackmail might be one, the other might be which levy might have
the most appeal to voters, keeping libraries open or a new courthouse? On the down side
it could piss off the commissars and they could force the closure of all libraries by pulling
back all of the $6.385. But that might really whip up the populace on a positive vote.
• Special election?? (merits discussion)
• A levy ballot measure in 2006—or since county funding is now only partial funding of
library service costs, city libraries should be able to charge residents of unincorporated
areas proportional to the city subsidy. For example, if 40% of a library's patrons are from
unincorporated areas, and if the city taxpayers provide$60,000 in support of the library,
the library should be able to charge unincorporated residents up to $40,000.
LNIB Page 30 3/2/2005
• My preferred strategy would be to get the County to either commit to level funding for
the full five years until they are willing to allow another vote, and then go for a district of
some kind, or get the County to say that they want out of the library business and then get
library supporters together to form a state library district and try to get support from the
voters for that option. And, by the way, we need the larger libraries to weigh in on
whether or not they want to help the smaller libraries remain viable , or do they want to
focus on serving their own communities? In other words, do we still have that regional
feeling, or are we going back to city by city? During the interim period of three to five
years, let's find a formula for the remaining money that will help the smaller libraries
survive, even if it means taking a little more from the larger libraries. I say this in hopes
that the larger libraries are still thinking in a regional way. Ten or Twenty thousand
dollars can make the difference for many of the smaller libraries, and while that much
will be missed by the larger libraries, they have more capacity to endure it until a stable
funding solution is found. This will mean we define the minimum level at which the
smaller libraries can survive financially. Just as we cannot be sure that the County would
be able to give us the money from closing any of their libraries, we also cannot be sure
that the cities can afford to give any more funding to their city libraries than they already
do, although we will certainly ask them to do what they can.
Combination of several of the above strategies (2 responses)
• Combination of dd, ee and ff have an active dialog with the Happy Valley and Damascus
area to locally fund a Library building for these residents, then close the County Library
Branches and redistribute funds based on current formula. Redistribution of service
delivery areas will have to re-calculated to all areas affected; must have solid
commitment from BCC to allocate money from County Library closures to Library
Network in order to be successful.
• Depending upon how the dust settles, each library may have to look out for its own best
interests. This may include an east side district, and it may also include forming a west
side district.
Re-statement (basically) of one of the strategies listed above (2 responses)
• Close Oak Lodge(due to the proximity of other libraries); distribute those funds system
wide.
• Close Hoodland unless the County pays for that space out of non-library funds.
Otherwise, it is a waste of rent dollars to have a library open only three days or fewer
days a week.
LNIB Page 31 3/2/2005
Centralize more services under Network to save money and improve efficiency (2 responses)
• Centralize as many as possible of the functions as the libraries perform, such as ordering
materials, processing, and even providing reference service, so that library personnel can
devote more time to better serving patrons.
• Centralize more services. A new Acquisitions system could facilitate centralized ordering
and processing at least for the east side libraries. Space for this could be created at a new
east side regional library which could also house the network offices. Centralized
children's services could ease the staff time devoted to creating individual programs,
brochures and other products at each library. Look at every area where we are duplicating
effort.
Can't think of anything productive to contribute (2 responses)
• Befriend millionaires and play the lottery(haha)
• Those solutions were well thought out. I can't think of any alternatives.
Hire a consultant (1 response)
• Hire a respected outside library consultant to impartially study our options and
recommend future actions.
Conduct better, in-depth user surveys (1 response)
• As I stated earlier, I think we need to hear from the people what they want and how much
they are willing to fund. They need a clear message of how much their money will buy in
order to make intelligent decisions. Decisions on our part cannot be made based upon
what we hear across the counter as this is a closed sample. There are a lot of people out
there who do not use the library(why?) and have no interest in funding it, especially if
we cannot tell them how the money is being used.
fI
II
it
LNIB Page 32 3/2/2005
Assuming an eventual solution that would provide some level of library stability
and predictability, what would you be willing to give up in your jurisdiction, and
what would you absolutely need to retain in exchange for a solution?
Summary: Responses fell into four categories: 1) Would give up some local control to maintain
a library in my area; 2) Would give up other things besides local control; 3) Would not give up
anything; 4) Cannot answer.
Would give up governance and/or some degree of local control (15 responses)
• If a unified system proved to be the vehicle for providing greater financial stability, it
would still be necessary to retain a strong community base for each library by providing
the materials, services and hours dictated by that community.
• We would carefully consider giving up autonomy, if the tradeoff was stable permanent
funding and a centralized regional library that is run pretty much like LINCC today, with
a voice for each"branch."We would strongly prefer a library located in the community.
• We would give up local control if we had to, if it meant keeping a library in our
community. If there was no other choice, to keep a library open, we'd join up in a larger
district.
• I have always been open to our Library being a county agency instead of a city agency,
since we serve so many more county residents than city residents, but I am not in a
position to decide.
• I would be willing to give up the provincial identity of my library and be regarded as a
branch of a larger district or system (in other words, give up governance to another
agency), but I really need to have a library located in my community and not miles away.
• If the solution would create a county wide system that would serve all county residents
then I would hope that all jurisdictions could drop all (or most) of their"requirements",
this includes the Clackamas Country Library Board of Trustees that I represent. (Marlin
Goebel)
• If the solution would create a county wide system that would serve all county residents
then I would hope that all jurisdictions could drop all (or most) of their"requirements",
this includes the Clackamas Country Library Board of Trustees that I represent. (Martin
Goebel)
• If we are to continue to be able provide library services in the long term, I believe that we
should all be ready to risk retaining our current level of funding and/or role in order to
create a County-wide system. That does not necessarily mean a system run by the
County, but it does mean a more regional system. A reasonable level of service delivery
should be defined, and the present system should be tested to see how it should be
modified to achieve the reasonable level. If that means less money or no role, I would
argue for that (probably unsuccessfully), but I would do so only if there were agreement
throughout the system. The cities which operate and fund libraries have an interest in
local control/decisions and identification. A solution would have to balance those
interests to succeed.
LNIB Page 33 3/2/2005
nr
• Gladstone may be willing to give up our current site and perhaps city governance for a
regional Oak Grove-Gladstone library, possibly located on property already owned by
Gladstone.
• It would make sense for our library to be part of the McLoughlin corridor solution by
becoming part of a regional library.
• I enjoy working as part of a cooperative in a small municipal library, but I think a system
is the most effective way to provide effective and efficient library service. I would prefer
that LINCC become a taxing district rather then a County Department like Multnomah
County.
• Cities could still own their building and contract to the taxing district. Thus maintaining
local autonomy and allowing municipalities to still say that they had a local library that
belonged to their City.
• We would give up local control of hiring and personnel issues,willing to participate in
centralized ordering and processing. Must retain local advisory board to determine"feel"
of library—programs offered, some policies, etc. Needs much more discussion that this
allows for.
• Not sure about this—but I think the solution lies in either forming a more true regional
system approach with consolidation of libraries; or changing the existing formula so that
locally operated libraries receive funding based on a true service area formula vs. current
distribution formula.
• Everything is on the table, as long as the goals have been precisely defined. But cost
savings for its own sake is not an acceptable goal.
Would give up other things besides local governance/ or don't understand the intent of the
question (5 responses)
• Don't know. We would have to see the proposal before deciding. There are certainly
some library functions that could be centralized—i.e. cataloging.
• What exactly are we talking about? I would want to retain ILL and courier services, NT
database and computer system. Give up? I don't know.
• I could give up: On-line databases, Internet access (the private sector can provide this
through Internet cafes, Provision of current (new release) DVDs and CDs (private sector
can provide)Need to retain: ability to check out books from any library in the county(I
would support charging patrons for ILL, though).
• Do not understand meaning or context of question.
• I think we should have centralized processing of orders, cataloging and processing.
Then, money could be saved on supplies; better deals could be struck with vendors, and
library staff could be freed to serve patrons and be open more hours.
Can't see giving up any thing at this point (3 responses)
• We need to retain local library directorship, local employment, local collection
development/acquisition. One of the strengths of the current consortium is the wonderful
variety of collections that serve the needs of our varied communities.
LNIB Page 34 3/2/2005
• In our city, I don't think they would be willing to give up jurisdiction entirely. The library
has been a very positive part of the city. They would have to dig deep for some funding,
possibly a local library levy. Of course this would mean a charge for county users.
• Lake Oswego is committed to providing excellent municipal services (including library)
to this community. As demonstrated by the November vote on the library levy, Lake
Oswego citizens have shown a willingness to tax themselves to maintain this level of
service. At this time, it is unlikely that Lake Oswego would be willing to give up
anything in exchange for a solution.
Do not have the authority to answer this question (2 responses)
• Unable to speak for higher-up decision-makers on this issue.
• This is not my decision.
Page 35 3/2/2005
Do you have any other thoughts about how to resolve the issues facing the
libraries in Clackamas County? How would you ensure that your
strategy/solution has a reasonable chance of being implemented? Please feel
free to include any additional comments you might have.
Summary: By far, the favorite "other"solution was to raise additional revenues. The other
choices were fairly evenly split: 1) Need more information/direction from the BCC; 2) Start
strategic planning for a district or consolidation; and 3) Wait and see.
Consider other solution involving raising additional revenue (17 responses)
• Not a grand solution, but some services cost more. Implement fees system-wide for some
of these services. It puts the ball back into the patron's court. We aren't making decisions
for them, but they are seeing the reality of the situation. They choose to pay for the
services or not. An important key to success is that the fees by system wide.
• Other ideas are :State lottery machines in libraries, with same cut that taverns get; Sin
taxes and stupidity taxes (see lottery machines, above); special sales tax on junk food,
fast food, coffee, tabloids, big screen TVs. Operate libraries like video rental shops:
charge people for every item that leaves the building. People seem to be used to paying
for things that they value.
• We may need to impose more fees for services, but that undermines the great cultural
equalizing effects of libraries. To the extent we desert the poor(by limiting services
because they cannot afford to pay for them), we hurt the prospect for an equally
educated/informed society.
• We need to build a box that commissioners see as highly risky for them to either cut the
current level of funding(charge county residents by the cities) or put a competing ballot
measure up on 2006. With the cuts that will take place in the coming year, it is my belief
that the Friends would rise up (like they did not do for the last election).Convince the
County of the seriousness of tax inequity and the need for stable and sufficient long-term
library funding, perhaps in part by hiring a facilitator to help it develop a greater
consensus among cities. Consider dealing with other issues before further consideration
of possible governance changes.
• Take Joanna and Jeff out for a drink. Let LO go the way of Camas in FVRL(i.e. move
out of the cooperative).
• Communication would be the key to ensuring the success of any strategy/solution to the
issues facing libraries in the County. There would need to be an information campaign
and focus groups and surveys and lots and lots of publicity. The new concept would have
to be marketed extensively to the public that already loves what they have.
• Two-way communication—seek info from stakeholders through focus groups, surveys,
community meetings, etc., and then market, market, market.
• Changing the way we work together is going to take planning and concerted effort.
• We probably need a facilitator—a really good one!
• I wish, but no.
LNIB Page 36 3/2/2005
i -
• Over the years, LNIB has attempted to act in a manner that is generally consistent with
the attitude of"one for all, and all for one." It's apparent from the vote on the levy that
the County's voters are no longer willing to support this. Therefore, the only viable
solution would seem to be greater local control and local investment in library services.
Unfortunately, as a system, library services county-wide will probably have to become
weaker before they will become stronger.
• Good luck. We don't envy you the work ahead!
• It is important that we all believe in regional library service and that we study the spring
survey again as we develop our solutions. I cannot state strongly enough how helpful it
would be for the County to at least commit to a schedule of GF reductions ( if that is their
intent) that we can plan for, instead of just leaving it up in the air year to year.
• The physical plant of each library should be the responsibility of the entity running it,
bond payments, lease payments or any other debt service should not be funded with
county general fund dollars. Funding should be based on basic levels of service provided
to the citizens in the service delivery area of each library. Libraries should be operated by
local governance subsidized by funding from the county through a county run network
office providing data, connectivity, interlibrary collaboration, and operational support
services.
• We should revisit the idea of one library district county-wide that would be more easily
understood by patrons who use libraries at multiple locations.
• The future of public libraries is very dynamic at this point, all over the country. The most
successful libraries seem to be the ones who listen to their patrons and offer innovative
new services based on those conversations, such as the music practice rooms at Seattle
Public Library. Yes, this all takes money and yes, old institutions are deeply ingrained,
but we either move forward creatively and responsively as a group or sink back into
territories where service is determined by local interest and income and patrons choose
their place of residence based on the library service available, if that is important to them.
• I keep coming back to—Why did people vote no? Are we drifting out of touch with the
needs and expectations of the community? How is it that Mr. and Mrs. Average
Clackamas County Citizen would rather pay$40/month for cable than$50/year for
library services? Why pay$3 for each cup of coffee and balk at $50? I wonder if our slide
towards give 'em what they want is hurting more than helping. We provide the same
mindless entertainment products that people get from every other commercial outlet, but
we don't do it nearly so conveniently, and Americans love their convenience. Remember
the survey that Multnomah County did. Talk to them about books and kids... books and
kids. What is our value when we focus on getting the most popular material instead of
promoting `better' material? And literacy. And intellectualism? Why spend tax dollars to
support what is ultimately a pretty crappy video store. Do people use and support a
library to feel good about themselves, as much as anything else? Even though they are
really set on getting the latest Grisham novel, do they want to get it from us knowing that
the Library has a higher calling?Are we losing sight of that calling so that we can build
circulation? Somehow, Starbucks figured out how to change the value of a 25 cent cup of
coffee to $3 in people's minds. We can't get people to value our services at a modest
$50/yr. Something is wrong. Yes, people are more conservative. People are focused on
property taxes. Yes. But something is wrong, and no, I don't know what it is.
LNIB Page 37 3/2/2005
it
li
[i
fl Need more info/policy direction/leadership from County, cities and citizens in order to plan
(3 responses)
• Without a realistic estimate of County General fund support for the FY 06-07 through 09-
10 planning cannot easily proceed. LNIB was quite unable to proceed with setting a
library levy rate or most other levy planning and strategy until January 2004 when the
BCC decided how much general fund support it would continue to give if the levy passed
or failed. Likewise LNIB or the BCC cannot expect our city council to make far-reaching
and irrevocable decisions about the fate of our own library without a very clear picture of
our expected revenue from the County. It seems unlikely our council can be pro-active or
make big changes until they know they have no other choice.
• Public in-put leads to public buy-in. Without the BCC committed to long term support to
any system that is put into place libraries in Clackamas County will fail to survive. This
is the key to everything else, a stable funding source will give the foundation that any
plan can then be built on regardless of the size or scope of the final result. The long term
financial support of Libraries is the most important issue here.
• We need stronger and more courageous leadership at the County and City levels.
Leaders must stop pandering to or fearing the"anti-tax"vote; we need to promote
communal goals and shared burdens and the benefits of community. Oregonians have
not always been so stingy or short-sighted. Leadership also needs to educate Oregonians
that they are NOT heavily taxed, compared to the rest of the country; and that community
services require commitment.
Wait and see/not much hope of finding a clear strategy (2 responses)
• None of these strategies except wait and see will likely be approved. Regardless of
who's been in charge, the political will has always been to wait and see. The inertia of
doing nothing is much greater than the will to tackle the tough issues and proactively plan
for the best way to deliver library services to all the citizens of Clackamas County.
Doing nothing means that no one is rocking the boat. Doing nothing also means that
we're slowly letting our libraries starve and die off. Some cities are relegating their
libraries to non-librarians who don't know how to provide library services and who don't
have the experience or vision to know what good library service is. 200,000 people have
library cards in this county. Can you imagine a service that reaches more citizens?
Imagine how happy they would be with local/county government if we undertook a real,
honest planning process that put the right kind of libraries in the right locations, offering
the right services. If we did that,we could pass levies like Multnomah County's.
• Given the decisions that have been made over the past couple of years up to and
including the LNIB meeting last week, I don't have any hope that a strategy/solution that
would help our has any chance of being implemented!
1
LNIB Page 38 3/2/2005
it
ii
Start strategic planning for district or consolidation (2 responses)
• LNIB needs to begin looking at the implications of forming a library district—both in
terms of funding and operations. Finding our common ground is probably the best place
to start. We strongly feel that an east side/west side split should be avoided.
• All I can say is that a regional solution makes the most sense, but it cannot become reality
unless every member of the network is willing to think regionally and not just locally.
We have a good track record for this kind of thinking, and although we are a bit frazzled
and tattered right now, I am hoping that we can rise to the occasion as we often have in
the past.
I
Page 39 3/2/2005
• de- MIX history
MIX Net Circulation I 04-05 03-04 02-03 I 111-02 00-01 99-00 98-99 97-98
MCL to LINCC
UPDATED LINCC to MCL NET NET NET I NET _ NET NET NET NET
JULY 33,956 51,495 (17,539) (23,650) (15,311) (10,962) (9,019) (11,269) (3,436) (5,053)
AUGUST 34,487 47,851 (13,364) (23,010) (16,659) (12,946) (10,506) (8,688) (1.003) (5,877)
SEPT. 32,153 45,884 (13,731) (19,853) (11,673) (11,839) (11,478) (6,023) (2,227) (4,700)
OCT 34,014 48,863 (14,849) (21,297) (17,449) (15,637) (11,538) (10,456) (2,656) (3,814)
NOV 33,122 48,663 (15,541) (16,234) (14,853) (15,154) (11,646) (9,431) (3,195) (3,011)
DEC 32,531 44,801 (12,270) (17,201) (25.780) (16,081) (10,012) (11,201) (9,104) (3,807)
JAN 34,663 43,478 (8,815) (12.314) (17,631) (14,797) (11,056) (12,824) (10,281) (5,891)
FEB 33,611 - 33,611 (10,805) (17,685) (13,458) (9,602) (11,356) (9,073) (4,798)
MARCII - - - (9,752) (19,195) (13,824) (10,033) (12,686) (8600) (5,949)
APR 11, - - - (13.665) (18,615) (18,693) (10,839) (12,171) (9,316) (6,337)
MAY (13,172) (20,591) (18,269) (14,993) (16,467) (10,834) (6,618)
JUNE (13,298) (16,643 __ (13,457) (8,862) (11,230) (8,950) (3,062)
NET CIRCULATED 268,537 331,035 (62,498) (194,251) (212,085) (175,137) (129,584) (133,802) (78,675)' (58,917)
pymnt=25%inc/prior year $ (101,443) S (81,155) $ (64,924) $ (51,939) $ (41,551) S (37,774) $ (34,340) S (31,218)
fixed ref pymt $ (60,000),S (60,000) $ (60,000) S (60,000)1 S (60,000) S (60,000) $ (60,000) S 60,000)
12/05 LINCC will pay MCL S (161,443)1 $ (141,155) $ (124,924) $ (111,939) S (101,551)1_S (97,774) $ (94,340) $ (91,218)
Total non-c $ (122,498)1 $ (254,251) S (272,085) $ (235,1371 $ (189584)11$ 093,802) $ (138,675) $ (118917)
diff hhv un-capped amount $ 38,945 $ (113,096) $ (147,161) S (123,198)' S (88,033) S (96,028) S (44,335) $ (27,699)
diff b/w actual and pure circ $ 98,945 I$ (53,096) $ (87,161) $ (63,198)
04-05 03-04 02-03 01-02 I 00-01 99-00 98-99 97-98
I LINCC to WCCLS WCCIS to LINCC NET NET NET NET I NET NET NET NET
JULY 9,752 5,257 4,495 2,538 (935) 476 1,036 1,081
(1,316) (1,435)
AUGUST 9,817 6,155 3,662 4,306 933 917 948 221
)
SEPT. 9,688 6,150 3,538 3,287 1,371 2,253 1,624 642245) (1,051)
OCT 9,568 5,956 3,612 2,996 1,069 2,025, 787 1,043 (1,245) (1,56
NOV 9,770 5,732 4,038 2.985 1,413 2,1031 1,052 582 (740)
DEC 9,837 5,706 4,131 3,092 (740) (1,419)
(1,569)
(3,171) 1,957 1,075 940 (337) (1,840)
JAN 9,764 5,948 3,816 3,782 595 2,0691 2.289 1,432 845 (1,885)
FEB 9,238 6,002 3,236 4.480 125 1,020 I 2,964 1,489 961 (1,666)
MARCII - - - 4,956 2,473 1,349 2,2781 1.131 1,204 (1,774)
APRIL - - - 3,365 1,832 837 1 1,440 1.041 812 (1,477)
MAY - - - 4,124 1,701 1,223 1,812 1.613 1,102 (990)
JUNE - - __ - 5,134 2,166 1,575 1,282 1,453 1,192 (990)
NET CIRCULATED 77,434 46906 30,528 , 45,045 9572 17,804_ 18,587 I 12,668 _ 1,231_ (17,331)
12/05 LINCC from WCCLS $ 3,636 S 2,909 2,327 S 1,862 $ 1,490 S 1,354 _
di ff b/w un-capped amount 5 (26,892) S (42,136) $ (7,245) 5 (15,942) S (17,097) 5 (11,314)
04-05 I 03-04 02-03 l 01-02 00-01 99-00 98-99 97-98
WCCLS to MCL MCL to WCC1S NET 1 NET NET NET NET NET NET NET
JULY 20,969 45,904 (24,935) (15,340) (17,102) (22,658) (19,797) (13,915) (6,701) (2,225)
AUGUST 21,186 45,129 (23,943) (16,807) (21,135) (25.545) (18,717) (11,922) (7,761) (3,016)
SEPT. 20,652 42,068 (21,416) (16,123) (14,879) (23,033) (17,927) (11,602) (9083) (3,312)
OCT 21,366 45,111 (23,745) (14,474) (17,256) (24,332) (19,476) (16,305) (11,591) (2,752)
NOV 19,127 44,105 (24,978) (16,171) (14,266) (27,019) (/4643) (16.890) (12,777) (3.209)
DEC 20,100 44,673 (24,573) (17,227) (13,229) (24,244) (21,826) (16,930) (10,627) (2,521)
JAN 20,454 47,935 (27,481) (13,014) (13,556) (25,480) (19,878) (/7,798) (13,408) (4,061)
FEB 20,033 - 20,033 (13,164) (12,379) (18,083) (21,822) (17,436) (12,375) (2,195)
MARCH - - - (16,523) (9,870) (18,882) (19,432) (18052) (15,113) (5,259)
APRIL - - - (19,283) (12274) (18,967) (20,299) (18,425) (13,481) (7,030)
MAY - - - (21,560) (11,158) (22,398) (25,674) (19,264) (13,145) (7,958)
JUNE _ - - - (22,967) (12,780) (21.013) (23,491) (20,374) (14,533) (4,105)
NET CIRCULATED 163,887 314,925 (15L038) (202,653) (169,884)' (271,654) (246,984)i (198,913) (140,595) (47,843)
pymnt=25%inc./prior year $ (127,716) S (102,172) 5 (81,738) $ (65.390) $ (52,312)'S (47,557) 5
(43,233) $ (39,303)
fixed ref payment $ (60,000) 5 (60,000) S (60,0(X)) $ (60,000) $ (60,000)1 S (60,000) $ (60,000) $ (60,000)
12/05WCCLS p ysMCL S (187,716) ', (162,1721$ (141,7381 $ (125,390) $ 112,312) $ (107,557) $ (103,233) S (99,303)
difl'b/w un-capped amount S (23,3221 (1008g8 f (88,146) $ (206,264) '• S (151,356) S (97,362) $ (8,540)
diff b/w actual and cure circ $ 36,678 (40,,47 $ (28,146) $ (146,264) S _(134,_672)
MIX history
LINCCto 96-97 95-96 94-95 I 93-94 92-93 91-92 90-91 89-90 88-89 87-88
MCL NET NET NET 1 NET NET NET NET NET NET NET
(1,28 2) (5,314) (8,796) (7,244) (7,442)
252 (5,190) (8,851) (7,544) (6,448)
(996) (5,002) (9,268) (7,336) (5,885)
(381) (5,292) (9,301) (7,963) (7,236)
(2,297) (6,830) (5,104) (6,974) (4592)
(1,875) (5,727) (2,660) (7,430) (7,269)
(4,119) (4,909) (9,279) (8,173) (7,275)
(3,475) (6,087) (9,086) (9,083) (8,520)
3,064 (4,513) (8,006) (1 1,971) (9,325)
(3,866) (2.613) (14,028) (13,137) (9.241)
(7,924) (4,041) (10,285) (11,870) (10,683)
(5,481) (424) (7,551) (8,763) (4 018)
(28,380) (55,942) (102215) (107,488) (91,934) (88,160) (84,372) (13.632) 7,150 1,781
$ (67,497) $ 10,905 $ 5,720 $ 1,424
LINCC to 96-97 93-96 95-9-1 93-94 92-93 91-92 90-91 89-90 88-89 87-88
11CCLS NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET NET
(4,639) (2,872) (3,231) (3,583) (3,680)
(3,691) (3,295) (3,543) (3,282) (2,598)
(3,547) (3,578) (2,856) (3,099) (2.930)
(3,117) (4,012) (3,019) (3,316) (3,344) ,
I (2,979) (3,647) (2,417) (3,327) (2,637)
(2,525) (3,037) (2,906) (2,547) (2,219)
(3,321) (4,467) (3,517) (3,503) (2,940)
(2,367) (3,372) (3,412) (3,003) (3,426)
(3,826) (3,819) (4,125) (3,076) (3,559)
(3,283) (3.573) (3,751) (3,251) (4,108)
(3,779) (4,247) (2,856) (2,846) (3,418)
(3,698) (3,824) (28944 (3,795) (3,691)
_ (40,772) - 143,743)_ (38327) (38,628) (38,550) (46,703) (45,414) (24,882) (11,778) (11,05M
- - $ (36,331) $ (19,905) $ (9,422) $ (8,840)
WCCLSto 96-97 L 95-96 94-95 93-94 92-93 91-92 90-91 89-90 88-89 87-88 -
MCL NET NET NET _ NET NET NET NET NET NET NI:i
(1,454) (2233) (6,614) (5,974) (4,787)
(3,959) (3,098) (6,489) (6,429) (4,300)
(2,35!) (2,387) (6,406) (6,270) (4,329)
(3,168) (1,957) (6,340) (6,800) (5,396)
(3,165) (2,770) (2,177) (7,121) (6,379)
(3,061) (2,744) (641) (6,963) (6,177)
(3,182) (1,585) (3,614) (6,897) (4925)
(2,117) (2,743) (3,363) (6,879) (6232)
4,052 (4,165) (3,452) (7,875) (7,894)
(4,906) (2,215) (4,634) (7,522) (7,652)
(6,674) (3,790) (4,770) (8,396) (7,434)
(5,745) (2,267) (3,122) (7,015) (5,542)
(35,730) (31,954) (31,622) (84,141) (73,047) (53,581) (64252) (38,046) (55,120) (77,194)
Page-2 -- -- - - - -
a • MIX history
04-05 03-04 02-03 I 01-02 I 00-01 99-00 98-99
LINCC to FVRL FVRL to LINCC NET NET NET NE7' 1 NET NET NET
JULY 953 52 901 667 460 5021
AUGUST 728 59 669 531 621 857
SEPT. 719 102 617 441 587 608
OCT 743 55 688 614 840 850
NOV 809 75 734 766 762 605
DEC 616 40 576 553 632 487
JAN 786 - 786 601 711 590
FEB 898 - 898 551 822 546
1I.t,RCH - - - 791 798 441
APRIL - - - 504 729 736
MAY - - - 620 609 564
JUNE - - - 538 461
NF:T CIRCULATED _ 6,252 383 5,869 7,177 7,571 7,247 6,467 6,366 5,589
12/05 FVRL will pay LINCC $ 5,997 $ 4,797 $ 3,838 S 3,070
diff b/w un-cap amount $ (128) S 2,380 S 3,733 $ 4,177
04-05 03-04 02-03 I 01-02 00-01 99-00 98-99
11'CCLS to FVRL FVRL to WCCLS NET NET NET NET NET NET NET
.11 LVV 721 219 502 662 298 176
AUGUST 594 102 492 663 358 108
SEPT. 641 125 516 412 .518 187
OCT 675 107 568 458 606 188
NOV 576 129 447 598 783 287
DEC 563 82 4.81 590 679 303
JAN 738 - 738 651 677 237
FEB 697 - 697 693 456 505
NIARC11 - - - 566 815 398
.1PRIL - - - 626 530 420
MAY - - - 597 670 291
JUNE - - 703 724 351
NET CIRCULATED 5205 764 4,441 7,219 7,114 3,451 1,393 1,399 (1,734)
12/45 FVRL will pay WCCLS S 3,114 $ 2,491 S 1,993
diff b/w un-capped amount S 1,327 $ 4,728 S 5,121
04-05 03-04 02-03 01-02 00-01 99-00 98-99
;MCL to FURL FVRL to MCL NET NE7' NET NET NET NET NET
JULY 12,940 3,100 9,840 6,386 2,234 2,203 '
AUGUST 13,152 3,481 9,671 6,259 2,541 2,452
SEPT. 11,915 3,571 8,344 6,515 2,672 2,385
OCT 13,162 3,716 9,446 6,846 4,031 1,681 .
NOV 12,934 3,738 9,1% 6,581 2,920 2,122
DEC 13,097 3,213 9,884 6,846 4,255 2,382
JAN 14,110 - 14,110 8,003 4,036 2,448
FEB - - - 8,005 4,366 2320
MARCH - - - _ 10,281 4,752 2,068
APRIL - - - 8,862 4,889 2,055
MAY - - - 9,231 4,567 3,046
JUNE - - - 10.180 4,420 2,051
NET CIRCULATED 91,310 20,819 70,491 93,995 i 45,683 27,213 20,939 11,572 .5,017
12/08 FVRL will pay MCL S 12,216 $ 9,773 I S 7,818 S 6,255
diffb'w un-capped amount $ 58,275 S 84,22 S 37,865 S 20,958
Page 3.
MIX history
July 2003 January 2004 Feb 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004
MCL circ to L1NCC 811!2003. 2/5/2004 3/8/2004 4/8/2004 - 3/14!1004 6/15/2004 - 7/1512004_
Admin 170 68 78 84 88 77 67
Albino 244 281 174 136 159 298 76
Belmont 534 462 599 769 983 750 838
Capitol Hill 6,130 4,998 5,083 4,880 5,150 5,197 5,145
Central 8,231 6,940 7,276 8,322 8,913 8,791 8125
Dial up 6,954 4,006 4,506 3,563 2,499 2,833 2.907
Fairview 1,048 477 415 414 481 570 601
Gregory.Hghts 246 261 168 296 144 168 294
Gresham 10,824 9,260 9,631 10,772 9,973 10,556 11,220
Hillsdale 1.224 482 491 1,047 1,899 1,645 2,00!
Holgate 2,713 2,092 2.183 2,648 2,215 2,136 2,702
Hollywood 1,827 838 787 681 827 748 847
Library Outreach 4 106 58 81 35 103 64
Midland 3.245 2,995 3,202 3,178 3,463 3,741 3,661
North Portland 581 295 591 399 309 272 360
Northwest library _ 523 903 801 1.110 975 912 784
Rockwood 1,274 628 861 798 850 831 1,040
St Johns 1.141 271 309 237 70 25 56
Sellwood 6,895 4902 4,334 4,015 4,378 - 4,338 4,604
Ship-(library by mail) 69 81 70 166 76 89 190
Woodstock 3,050 2,676 2,456 2,350 2578 2,667 2,561
56,927 45,022 44,073 45,946 46,065 46,747 48,143'
July 2004 Sept.2004 Oct.2004 Nov.2004 Dec.2004 Jan 2005
Ma circ,LnwCc 8/15/2004 10/25/2004 11/4/2004 1216/2004 1/10/2005 2/7/2005
:Wolin 58 55 56 57 63 65
.111lna 88 265 313 249 469 466
iielmont 1.028 911 598 837 834 628
Capitol Hill 5,614 5,614 5,002 5,300 4,882 5,229
Central 9,166 7,453 7,635 7,579 7,443 7,150
Dlalup 2,809 2,598 2 483 2,384 1,979 1,929
Fairview 465 397 632 620 357 385
Gregory Hghts 336 325 477 581 265 549
Gresham 11,140 9,490 10,036 9,825 8,917 9,398
Hillsdale 1,781 1,564 1,707 1,997 1,753 1,872
Holgate - 2,466 2,381 2,477 2586 2,283 1,862
Hollywood 643 995 1,480 690 1,007 1,378
Library Outreach 47 40 26 16 59 20
Midland 4,638 3,508 3,515 3,463 3,513 2,921
North Portland 303 434 611 620 413 178
Northwest library 895 818 1,306 1,362 4119 1,183
Rockwood 995 1,067 1,474 1.259 1,498 1,277
St Johns 923 23 126 160 168 98
Sellwood 5,702 5,178 5,999 6,017 5,146 4,464
Ship-(library by mail) 55 71 82 65 52 65
Woodstock 2,343 2,697 2,828 2,995 2,580 2,361
51,495 45,884 48,863 48,66.2 - 44,800 43.478
i - -- -- - Page 4
. - MIX history
•
i _
ituc=Tualatin in CLACK Co.
Includes Clackatins'Includes Clackatinsllncludcs ClackatinslIncludes Clackatins Includes Clackatins 2004-2005 2004-2005
LINCC to i WCCLS to 04-05 03-04 02-03 01-02 Inc at WCCLS TUC at LINCC
WCCLS I LINCC NET 1 NET NET NET
JULY 9,752 7,625 2,127 38- (3,924) 2,368 698
AUGUST 9,817 8,338 1,479 2,535 (1,601) 2,183 1,189
SEPT. 9,688 8,258 1,430 1,818 (437) 2,108 998
OCT 9,568 8,205 1,363 98' (929) 2,249 1,147
NOV 9,770 7,863 1,907 1,29/ (529) 2,131 889
DEC 9,837 7,272 2,565 1,416 (4,813) 1,566 864
JAN 9,764 8,006 1,758 1,97,N (1,342) 2,058 1,113
FEB 9,238 8,057 1,181 2,750 125 2,055 1,014
MARCH - - 3,180 541
APRIL - - 1.69(1 (26/i
MAY - - 2,44.1' 74
JUNE - - 3,074 106NET CIRCULATED 77,434 63,624 13,8101 23,557 (12,9901 I
LINCC lMCL projected _ Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 2010
25%inc_/prior year $ (101,413) $ (126,804) $ (158,505) $ (198,131) $ (247,664) S (309,580)
fixed ref pymt $ (60,000)1$ (60,000) $ (60,000),5 (60,000) $ (60x000) $ (60,000)
total capped $ - (161,443) $ (186,804) $ (218,505) $ (258,131) $ (307,664) $ (369,580)
(LINCC pays MCL) •
I
WCCLS/LINCC projected 1 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 2010
25%inc./prior year S 3,636 $ 4,546 $ 5,682 $ 7,103 $ 8,878 $ 11,098
(WCCLS pays LINCC)
FV RIJLINCC projected Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 1ec 2010
lesser of nes circ x SI or 25%mcr. $ 7,4.96 $ 9,370 $ 10,000 $ 10,500 $ 11,000 $ 11,500
(FVRLpays LINCC
ALTERNATE MODEL _ALTERNATE MODEL ALTERNATE MODEL
LINCC/MCI.projected ' Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 2010
NO REF payment _
lesser of nes circ x Dor 25%incr. $ (101,443)1$ (126,804) $ (158,505) $ (198,131) $ (200,000) S (220,000) -
total capped or actual $ (101,443) $ (126,804) $ (158,505) $ (198,131) $ (200,000) $ (220,000)
(LINCC pays MCL) I I j
!-
•
Page 5
MIX history
InrluJc.Clackatins
I.INCC to \t(CLS to 00-01
\VCCIS LINCC NET I
5,170 6,807 (1,637)
5,927 7,085 (1,158)
5,823 5,916 (93)
5,408 6,496 (1,088)
5,349 5960 (611)
5,102 5,606 (504)
7,276 6,934 342
6,959 5,375 1,584
7,959 7,433 526
6,787 6,847 (60)
6,678 6,310 368
6,020 6,682 (662)
74,458 77,451 (2,993)
WCCLS/MCL projected Dec 05 Dec 06 -Dec 07- Dec 08 Dec 09 -
25%inc.lprior year S (127,716) $ (159,644) $ (199,556) $ (249,444) $ (311,806)
fixed ref pymt $ (60,000)1$ (60,000) $ (60,000) $ (60,000) $ (60,000)
total capped $ (187,716) $ (219,644) $ (259,556) $ _(309,444) $ (371,806)
(WCCLS pays MCL)
FVRUMCL projected Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 7tTec 08 Dec09
25%inc./prior yearl S 15,270 $ 19,088 $ 23,860 $ 29.825 S 37,281
(FVRL pays MCL)
FVRL/WCC1S projected Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07 Dec 08 Dec 09
25%inc./prior year[S 3,893 $ 4,866 $ 6,082 $ 7,603 $ 9,503
(FVRL pays WCCLS)
Page 6
Public Library Council
LIBRARY NETWORK I : GOVERNMENTAL BOARD
Joint Mee� _
• - IA
Thursday,March 3, 2005
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, OR.
L Call to Order A
II. Introductions • 6 t �, ,t
•
III. Minutes-Previous Action items1 ` 1.40/.IV. Library Network Report fk(y rir'' , '1
A. Final cost of November election = $56,254.42. 1.
B. Green sheet-05-06 distribution projections through Feb 2 . „�
?( '
C. Final Library Network budget,as submitted to County b dget process x 10.4 -V ,ft?
c),•,”
V. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. 06-07 Distribution formula—process for deciding. X"
1. Do we want to freeze and carry 04-05 circs/Net ILLS forward?
2. Do we want to begin a process to ook at other formulas?
`,1i .1 B. MIX issue— Review of next steps upon receipt of payment reduction proposal from
N Y,/ ki
Molly Raphael, Director of Multnomah County Libraries e
��' C. Presentation of summary results from LNIB/PLC survey T 'S
b 1
1. Executive summary—general trends-Joanna l'k, � (,,r, i
‘e., 2. Discussion/where do we go from here? LI)),, 1, cr ,. i'.4
113 Ju
D. Proposal for Grants, Donations and Marketing Committee "GDM"
E. Other
VI. Other comments —sharing news of your library
f
VII. Adjournment- ext regular meeting—April 21, 2005?
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY
LIBRARY
205 N.E.Russell Street•Portland,OR 97212-3796•PHONE:503.988.5402•FAX:503 988.5441
March 3,2005
Mike Swanson
Chair, Library Network Intergovernmental Board
c/o Joanna Rood, LINCC Manager
16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd, Suite 208
Oak Grove, OR 97267
Dear Mike:
This is in response to your letter of February 15th outlining the budget constraints that
are facing Clackamas County and the libraries within the cooperative network.
We certainly understand the financial pressures that all local jurisdictions are facing,
including Multnomah County. These budget difficulties make it even more critical that we
work together to provide a seamless network of services for the residents of the tri-county
area and southwest Washington. The MIX agreement is an excellent, long-term example of
counties and libraries collaborating so our residents, no matter where they live or work,can
all simply go to "the library"without having to worry about whose library they are accessing.
Our goal is to find a way to allow the MIX agreement to continue with Clackamas
County's full participation. We recognize that circulation use of Multnomah County Library
by Clackamas County residents has increased and reference use has decreased.To reflect that
change in use,the Multnomah County Library proposes:
• Suspension of the $60,000 annual reference payment for FY 05-06; 4 " t- / /o/
odes
• Review of an increase in the net circulation cap for FY 05-06.
This is a preliminary proposal subject to review for compliance with the Multnomah
County Public Contract Review Board rules and possibly subject to approval by the Board of
Multnomah County Commissioners.
[hope this proposal will help provide a way for the libraries of Clackamas County to
continue in the MIX Agreement. I look forward to our continued conversation and our
ongoing partnership in providing excellent library service to all of our residents.
Sincerely,
f".7erAad
Molly Raphael
Director of Libraries
Library Network Budget
March 1, 2005 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed r. Proj.Yr. End Change notes
302001 Fund balance at prior year end $ 183.023 $ 99,605 $ 110,730 $ 98.782 S 65,000 -34.2% $ (33,782) 1
311100 Current year RE taxes and penalties $ - $ - $ - S - $ - S -
311310 Delinquent taxes S 926 S 1,200 5 769 5 769 S 769 0.0% S -
311350 Interest&penalties-property tax $ 572 $ 600 $ 527 $ 600 $ 600 0.0% S -
331310 Western Oregon Severance S - S - S - $ - $ -
341800 Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ _ S
341880 Other Internal County Services $ - $ - S - S - S -
333001 Local Gov't&other agencies S 5.879 $ 8.085 $ 17,951 $ 17,870 5 8.230 -53.9% S (9,640) 2
361000 Interest earned $ 9,228 $ 900 , $ 900 5 3,500 $ 3,000 -14.3% $ (500)
390100 IiF Transfer from Fund 100 S 7.604.257 $ 7.600,000 $ 7,600,000 S 7.600,000 $ 6,385,000 -16.0% S (1,215.000) 3
390250 IIF Transfer from Fund 250 $ - S - $ - $ -
390760 I/F Transfer from Fund 760 S - S - $ - S -
Revenue Total $ 7,803,885 $ 7,710,390 $ 7,730,877 $ 7.721,521 $ 6,462,599 -16.3% $ (1,258,922)
Expenditures 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed r.Proj.Yr.End Change notes
411100 Regular Full-time Employees S 221,000 $ 212,147 $ 234.063 S 234,063 5 262,203 12.0% S 28,140 4
412100 Regular Part-time Employees $ 49.700_ $ 51,880 $ 55,441 S 55,441 S 59,463 7.3% $ 4.022 5
413000 Temporary Workers $ 43,000 5 49,000 $ 57,408 $ 57,408 5 28,761 -49.9% S (28,647) 6
414030 Overtime 5 500 _S 300 S 500 5 500 S 500 0.0% S - _
414050 Vacation Sell-back $ 1,412 _ $ 1,162 S - $ 1,200 5 2,000 66.7% $ 800
415000 Fringe Benefits S 118.794 S 133,000 S 138,698 S 138,698 S 183,045 32.0% $ 44,347 7
415020 Worker Compensation $ 1,472 _ 5 1,424 $ 1,374_$ 1,374 $ 1,410 2.6% $ 36
415030 Unemployment $ 10 _ S 1,842 S 12 5 10 S 12 15.6% S 2
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 435,888 $ 450,755 $ 487,496 $ 488,694 $ 537,394 10.0% $ 48,700
421100 General Office Supplies S 2.282 $ 3.188 $ 1,800 S 3,875 5 4,000 3.2% S 125
421110 Postage $ 1,561 S 1,356 $ 1,740 5 1,227 $ 180 -85.3% $ (1,047) 8
421111 Overdues Postage S 19,965 S 22,688 S 15.600 S 19,066 S 13.200 -30.8% $ (5,866) 9
421200 Computer Supplies S 4.000 $ 8,549 5 - 5 9,862 $ 7,700 -21 9% $ (2,162) 10
422910 Misc.Meeting Expenses S - $ 6 S 200 S 111 S - -100.0% S (111)
422950 Election Supplies S - S - S 30.000 S 30,665 $ - -100.0% $ (30.665) 11
422990 Courier Supplies $ - $ 1,684 S. 1,200 S - $ 1,600 S 1,600
424610 Fuel&Vehicle Rental $ 8,491 5 14.004 S 10.748S 10.817 S 12,232 13.1% S 1.415
425100 Small Tools&Minor Equip. $ 611 $ $ - , $ $ S -
431420 Legal Fees $ 1,278 5 689 5 1,200 S 457 5 600 31.3% S 143
431700 Misc. Professional Services $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 2.980 $ - -100.0% 5 (2,980)
431711 Metaframe user cost S 750 $ 750 5 750 5 750 S 750 0.0% S -
432100 _Telephone(Co. phone bills) $ 3,004 $ 3,588 $ 3.240 S 3.483 S 4,050 16.3% 5 567
432200 Communication Lines $ 65,595 $ 66,623 $ 94.484 S 72,449 S 96,540 33.3% $ 27,861 12
432500 Courier Services $ 6,331 $ 5.938 S 6.000 $ 6,169 5 6.400 3.7% S 231
433100 ^Travel&Mileage $ 300 $ 649 $ 250 $ 250 S 600 140.0% $ 350_
434100 Printing&Duplicating Services S 257 $ - S - $ 718 S 100 -86.1% S (618)
435180 Casualty Insurance $ 2,135 $ 1.746 $ 1,224 $ 1,224 S 1,442 17.8% $ 218
437210 Office Equipment,Repair/Maint. $ 5,624 $ 4,836 $ 5,950 S 5,283 $ 4,180 -20.9% S (1.103)
437230 Computer Equip. Repair/Maint. S 23,270 $ 19,695 $ 21,120 S 25,006 S 23.200 -7.2% $ (1,806),
437231 Software Maintenance 5 150,013 $ 126,330 5 142,484 $ 113,428 S 134,950 19.0% $ 21.523 13
437235 Micro-Computer Syst. Repair/Maint S 500 S - S 2,000 S 2.770 S 500 -81.9% $ (2.270)
437260 Non-capital office Turn/equip. S 70 $ - $ - $ 7.160 $ - -100.0% $ (7,160) 14
438110 Office Rental S 34,680 S 36,000 $ 36,048 S 36.048 S 35,000 -2.9% S (1,048)
439100 ,Dues&Memberships , S 2,030 S 8.090 S 8,245 $ 8,090 S 7.730 -4.4% S (360)
439200 Training&Staff Development S - S 265 $ - $ 590 5 - -100.0% S (590)
439400 Publications&Subscriptions S 772 S 141 $ 130 $ 141 5 _ 150 6.4% S 9
440001 Payments to Other Governments $ 112,000 S 124,924 S 141,000 $ 141,155 $ ,----, _ -' -100.0% S (141,155) 15
MATERIALS/SUPPLIES $ 446,517 $ 451,740 $ 525,413 $ 503,774 $ 355,104 -29.5% $ (148,670)
Expenditures 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed y.Proj.Yr.End Change notes
478101 Accounting Services Allocated S 4.302 $ 4,255 $ 4,157 $ 4,157 $ 5.024 20.9% $ 867
478102 Data Processing Allocated S 1,685 S 1,847 $ 2,362 $ 2,362 $ 2,258 -4.4% $ (104)
478103 Building Maintenance Allocated S 12.761 S 12,540 S 13,540 S 13,540 $ 12,385 -8.5% $ (1,155)
478104 PGR Administration Allocated $ 12,167 $ 11,203 $ 11,241 $ 11,241 $ 12,629 12.3% _ $ 1,388
478105 Records Management Allocated S 262 S 397 S 269 S 269 $ 289 7.4% _ $ 20
478106 Purchasing Services Allocated 5 2,149 $ 2,545 5 1,904 $ 1,904 $ 2,275 19.5% $ 371
478107 County Courier Allocated S 918 S 908 S 970 S 970 5 1.008 3.9% $ 38
478111 Personnel Administration Allocated S 5.209 5 5,605 S 5,052 S 5,052 S 5,571 10.3% $ 519
478112 County Administration Allocated S 2.147 S 1,891 S 1,495 S 1.495 5 1.722 15.2% 5 227
478117 Mailroon cost allocation S 5,557
COST ALLOCATIONS/CO LIB $ 41,600 $ 41,191 $ 40,990 $ 40,990 $ 48,718 18.9% . $ 2,171
485320 Computer Software Purchases S S S $ 5 S -
485330 Computer Hardware 5 - S 7.544 S - $ - $ - S -
485333 Computer Peripherals $ - $ - $ - S - $ _S -
485334 Computer Network Installation $ - S - $ - 5 - S - S -
485510 Light Vehicles $ $ 17,058 $ $ $ - S -
490002 PERS stabilization S 7.000 S 7.000 $ - -100.0% S (7,000)
490003 Health Ins stabilization $ 6,570 $ 6,570 $ - -100.0% 5 (6,570)
CAPITAL PURCHASES/reserve $ - $ 24,602 $ 13,570 $ 13,570 $ - -100.0% $ (13,570)
Lib Net no MIX, not include contingency S 924,005 J$ 968,288 I $ 1,067,469 J $ 1,047,028 $ 941,216 -10.1% J $ (105,812)
499001 Contingency S - $ $ 53,915 $ - $ 44,883
470100 OF Transfer to CO 5 1,316,815 $ 1,274,358 5 1,250,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,015,000 -18.8% 5 (235,000)
444000 Contracts With Cities $ 5,464,185 $ 5,352,914 $ 5,359,493 $ 5,359.493 $ 4,464,159 -16.7% 5 (895,334)
,EXPENDITURE TOTAL $ 7,705,005 $ 7,595,560 $ 7,730,877 $ 7,656,521 _ $ 6,465,258 -15.6% $ (1,191,263)
$ 65,000
Footnotes
1 Decrease as we gradually spend down reserves.
2 Decrease in revenue due to cancel of MIX program
3 Decrease in general fund contribution in 05-06 as per LNIB agreement.
4 Increase due to addition of one FTE LA2 (Cataloging/ILL), COLA and step increases.
5 Increase due 5% step increase and COLA for 2 employees
6 Decrease due to conversion of temp positions to one FTE (above), and therefore reduction in temp support hours.
7 Increase due to benefits for one new LA2 position and general increase, esp. in PERS.
8 Decrease due to cancellation of Library By Mail program.
9 Decrease due to reduction in number of mailed notices because of increase in E-mailed notices and estm. change in county cost allocation.
10 Decrease due to lesser purchase of library cards, barcodes, and overdue mailers.
11 Decrease due to no election in 05-06.
12 Difference due to on-going uncertainty of E-Rate discount revenue and conversion to fiber-optic Internet connection.
13 Difference due to one-time discount in database licensing in 04-05.
14 The $7,160 was an unbudgeted expense for several pieces of equipment/software to convert to fiber-optic Internet connection.
15 Decrease due to cancellation in MIX program
Summary
Cut packages proposed: Determination:
A ILL Program Not feasible to cut
B Weekend courier Not feasible to cut Library Network staffing proposal
C Five computer dial-in lines cut three from budget Convert evening/weekend support to one FTE for Cataloging & ILL
D All computer dial-in lines Not feasible to cut • Surveying indicates very little evening/weekend support activity
E Local reference databases Not feasible to cut • Mandatory conversion to new cataloging and ILL software
F All reference databases Not feasible to cut estimated to be 20-40% slower
G MIX cut from budget • Can't count on reduction in demand for cataloging
H All mailed notices Not feasible to cut Not all libraries going to cut book budgets
I Library by Mail program cut from budget Libraries with cuts soliciting donations
Add packages proposed: Determination: • Continued operation of NT with little reduction in services and
1 Authority control Not feasible to add only 3.8 FTE permanent office staff is difficult to sustain
2 Replacement courier van Not feasible to add • Reduce support hours, convert temp positions into one FTE
3 Temporary tech help Not feasible to add
4 Migration - hardware maint. Not feasible to add temp hrs/salaries cut $ 26,205
5 Migration -thin client maint. Not feasible to add
new LA 2 salary $ 26,000 estm.
new LA2 benefits $ 21,000 estm.
Feb 25, 2005
,/t) ( X
�i &
Circulation= 85%
Population= 15% _
Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000
Carry-overldelinquenciet $ _ 72,296
IMisc revenue $ 7,730 _
(Total revenue j 6,465,026 05-06 85% 15%
less NT Budget Needs= $ 1,134,247
128609634 x 1 --
Distrib.amount $ 5,330,780
Col. 1 Col.2 Col.3 Col.4 Col.5 Cot 6 Col.7 Cor.8 Col.9 Col.10 Co/1/ Cot 12 Col 15 Col 16 Co!17 Cot 18
Pop. %of 1 Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of _I 85% 15% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. LINCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution u -
Distrib. Distrib. upldn pldn
CA 21,422 8.01% 297,334 273,001 1,462 274,463 5.28% $ 290,178 $ 58,313 $ 348,491 5.39% $ 61,140 $ 287,350 $ 332,425 -13.6% $ (45.075)
CO 26,473 7.43% 342.520 306,890 17,680 324,570 6.24% $ 343,154 $ 72,063 $ 415,216 6.42% $ 72,847 $ 342,369 $ 443,950 -229% $ (101,580)
ES 17,805 5.00% 276,316 257,237 46,948 304,185 5.85% $ 321,602 $ 48,467 $ 370,069 5.72% $ 64,926 $ 305,143 $ 385,249 -20.8% $ (80,106)
GL 20,159 5.66% 262,000 246,500 4,129 250,629 4.82% $ 264,980 $ 54.875 $ 319,855 4.95% $ 56.116 $ 263,738 $ 329,791 -20.0% $ (66,053)
HO 5,547 1.56% 123,830 123,830 -6,856 116,974 2.25% $ 123,672 $ 15,100 $ 138,771 2.15% $ 24,347 $ 114,425 $ 148,178 -22.8% $ (33,753)
LO 42,953 12.06% 1,287,315 1,015,486 -20,043 995,443 19.15% $ 1,052,439 $ 116,923 $ 1.169,362 18.09% $ 205,157 $ 964,205. $ 1,242,686 -22.4% $ (278,480)
MI 29,925 8.40% 523,590 442,692 5,877 448,569 8.63% $ 474,253 $ 81,459 $ 555,712 8.60% $ 97,496 $ 458.216 $ 575,481 -20.4% $ (117,265)
MO 19,509 5.48% 278,072 258,554 -18,299 240,255 4.62% $ 254,011 $ 53,106 $ 307,117 4.75% $ 53,882 $ 253,235 $ 298,337 -15.1% $ (45,102)
OC 51,698 14.51% 602,134 501,601 -17,712 483,889 9.31% $ 511,595 $ 140,728 $ 652,322 10.09% $ 114,446 $ 537,877
SA 21,287 5.98% 386,785 340,089 -20,659 319,430 6.15% $ 337,719 $ 387,83 -18.0% $ (( ,65)
$ 57,946 $ 395,685 6.12% $ 69,417 $ 326,248 $ 387,893 -15.9% $ (61,645)
TC 49,932 14.02% 614,381 510,786 -30,652 480,134 9.24%L$ 507,625 $ 135,921 $ 643,546 9.95% $ 112,906 $ 530,640 $ 658,962 -19.5% $ (128,322)
WL 25,756 7.23% 609,508 507,131 14,927 522,058 10.04% $ 551,950 $ 70,111 $ 622,060 9.62% $ 109,136 $ 512.924
$
WV 23,784 6.68% 484,930 413,697 23,373 437,070 8.41% $ 462,096 $ 64,743 $ 526,838 8.15% $ 92,430 $ 434,408 533,110 -18.5% $ ((98,702)'
356,250 77.00% 6,088,715 4,616,536 5,197,669 82.27% $ 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81,48% $ 1,134,247 $ 5,330,780 $ 60$ 6,609,55 9, 23 -19.3/0 3 -18.5% $ (98,702)'
County 1 81,952 23.00% 1,080,732 941,508 -19,828 921,678 17.73% $ 974,451 $ 223,083 $ 1,197,534 18.52% $ 210,099 I $ 987,434 $ 1,251,090 -21.1% $ (263,656)
100.00% 100.00%
100.00%
12)15!04 1 05-06 04-05 up/dn
pop.sry Circs are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly Total cities $ 4,343,345 $ 5,358,433 -18.9%
cert.date Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures Total county $ 987,434 %
2103!05 _Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly $ 1,251,090 -21.1%
kr Library distib. $ 5,330,780 $ 6,609,523 •19.3%
J NT budget is an estimate NT expense $ 1,134.247 $ 1,121,354 1.1%
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. $ 6,465,026 $ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2nd week March 20%
2nd week May 5%
operating costr$ 929,247 $ 926,439 0.3%
Mix $ 161,000 $ 141,000 100.0%
Capital expend $ - --- -
Contingency $ 44,000 $ 53,915 -4.4%
$ 1,134,247 1$ 1,121,354 1 1./% 1
.---
il
/Ii .j 0 fl
A)K
49
Circulation= 85%
Population= 15%
Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000
Carry-over/delin uencie $ 72,296 -
Misc revenue $ 7,730 -
Total revenue $ 6,465,026 05-06 85% 15%
less NT Budget Needs= $ 973,247 -
Distrib.amount $ 5,491,780
Co!. 1 Col.2 Col.3 Col.4 Col.5 Col.6 Col.7 Col.8 Col.9 Col. 10 Co/11 Col. 12 Co/15 Co/16 Col 17 Col 18 _
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% 15% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $ _
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. LINCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrib. Distrib. upldn upldn
CA 21,422 6.01% 297,334 273,001 1,462 274,463 5.28% $ 289,963 $ 58,313 $ 348,276 5.39% $ 52,430 $ 295,846 S 332,425 -11.0% $ (36,579)CA
CO 26,473 7.43% 342,520 306,890 17,680 324,570 6.24% $ 342,900 $ 72,063 $ 414,962 6.42% $ 62,469 $ 352,494 $ 443,950 -20.6% $ (91,456)CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 276,316 257,237 46,948 304,185 5.85% $ 321,363 $ 48,467 $ 369,831 5.72% $ 55,674 $ 314,156 $ 385,249 -18.5% $ (71,093) ES
GL 20,159 5.66% 262,000 246,500 4,129 250,629 4.82% $ 264,783 $ 54,875 $ 319,658 4.94% $ 48,121 $ 271,537 $ 329,791 -17.7% $ (58,254)GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 123,830 123,830 -6,856 116.974 2.25% $ 123,560 $ 15,100 $ 138,680 2.15% $ 20,877 $ 117,803 $ 148,178 -20.5% $ (30,375) HO
LO 42,953 12.06% 1,287,315 1,015,486 -20,043 995,443 19.14% $ 1,051,660 $ 116,923 $ 1,168,583 18.08% $ 175,919 $ 992,664•$ 1,242,686 -20.1% $ (250,021)LO
Ml 29,925 8.40% 523,590 442,692 5,877 446,569 8.62% $ 473,902 $ 81,459 $ 555,361 8.59% $ 83,604 $ 471,757 $ 575,481 -18.0% $ (103,724)MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 278,072 258,554 -18,299 240,255 4.62% $ 253,823 $ 53,106 $ 306,929 4.75% $ 46,205 $ 260,724 $ 298,337 -12.6% $ (37,613) MO
OC 51,698 14.51% 602,134 501,601 -17,712 483,889 9.30% $ 511,216 $ 140,728 $ 651,944 10.08% $ 98,144 $ 553,800 $ 656,272 -15.6% $ (102,472)OC
SA 21,287 5.98% 386,785 340,089 -16,807 323,282 6.22% $ 341,539 $ 57,946 $ 399,484 6.18% $ 60,138 $ 339,346 $ 387,893 -12.5% $ (48,548) SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 614,381 510,786 -30,652 480,134 9.23% $ 507,249 $ 135,921 $ 643,170 9.95% $ 96,823 $ 546,347 $ 658,962 -17.1% $ (112,615)TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 609,508 507,131 14,927 522,058 10.04% $ 551,541 $ 70,111 $ 621,652 9.62% $ 93,584 $ 528,068 $ 617,188 -14.4% $ (89,120)WL
WV 23,784 6.68% 484,930 413,697 23,373 437,070 8.40% $ 461,753 $ 64,743 $ 526,496 8.14% $ 79,259 $ 447,237 $ 533,110 -16.1%_$ (85,873)WV
356,250 77.00% 6,088,715 4,616,536 5,201,521 82.28% $ 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81.49% $ 973,247 $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
County 81,952 23.00% 1,080,732 941,506 -19,828 921,678 17.72%f_$ 973,729 $ 223,083 $ 1,196,812 18.51% $ 180,168 $ 1,016,644 $ 1,251,090 -18.7% $ (234,446)
100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
12/15/04 05-06 04-05 up/dn
pop.sry arcs are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly Total cities $ 4,475,136 $ 5,358,433 -16.5%
cert.date Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures Total county $ 1,016,644 $ 1,251,090 -18.7%
2/03/05 _ Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly _ Library distib. $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
jkr NT budget Is an estimate NT expense $ 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2%
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. $ 6,465,026 $ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2nd week March 20% -
- 2nd week May 5% ---- -
operating cost $ 929,247 $ 926,439 0.3%--
Mix $ 141,000 100.0%
---- Capital expend $ -
Contingency $ 44,000 $ 53,915 -18.4%
$ 973,247 1$ 1,121,354 I -13.2% I• CiQC33J 4upoilA Jam, 3 1
reA 0 de
(„_______.--i
Circulation= 85%
Population= --- - 15%
Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000 ----
Carry-over/deiinquenciet $ 72,296
Misc revenue $ 7,730 -
Total revenue $ 8,465,026 05-06 85% 15% ---------
less NT Budget Needs= $ 1,061,247
1286094 - ----
Distrib.amount $ 5,403,780 -
63
Col 1 Cot 2 Col 3 Cot.4 Cot.5 Col.6 Col.7 Col.8 Col.9 Col. 10 Col 11
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% ross Coe 12w Col 15 C4.18 Co!17 Col 18
Served Pop.srvd Cfrc. Circ. ILLs Circ. LINCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry dlstrb. Dist ib. distribution tion of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 °/, $
Distrib. u Distrib, p/dn upldn _
CA 21.422 6.01% 297,334 273,001 1,462 274.463 5.28% $ 290,178 $ 58,313 $ 348,491 5.39% $ 57,205 $ 291,285
CO 26,473 7.43% 342,520 306,890 17,680 324,570 6.24% $ 343,154 $ 72,063 $ 415,216 6.42% $ 68,159 $ 347,058 $ 443,950 -21.8% $ (96,892)CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 276,316 257,237 48,948 304,185 5.85% $ 321,602 $ 48.467 $ 370,069 5.72% $ 60,748 $ 309,321 $ 385,249 -19.7% $ (75,928) ES_
GL 20,159 5.66% 262,000 246,500 4,129 250,629 4.82% $ 264,980 $ 54,875 $ 319,855 4.95% $ 52,505 $ 267,350 $ 329,791 -18.9% $ (62,441) GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 123,830 123,830 -6,856 116,974 2.25% $ 123,672 $ 15,100 $ 138,771 2.15% $ 22.780
LO 42,953 12.06% 1.287,315 1.015,486 -20,043 995,443 19.15% $ 1,052,439 $ 116,923 $ 1,169,362 18.09% $ 191,953 $ 115,992977,4 $ 148,1781,242,686 -21.7%3 $ (32,186) HO
MI 29,925 8.40% 523,590 442,692 5,877 448,569 8.63% $ 474,253 $ 81,459 $ 555,712 8.60% $ 91,221 $ 464,491 9 $ - .3 $ (265,276)119LO
MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 278,072 258,554 -18,299 240,255 4.62% $ 254,011 $ 53,106 $ 575,481 -19.3%,414 $ 256,703 $ 298,337 % (41,634)
MI
OC 51,698 14.51% 602,134 501,601 -17,712 483,889 9.31% $ 511,595 $ 140,728 $ 652,322 10.09% $ 107,080 $ 545.242 $ 656,272 -16.9% $ (111,029) OC
O
SA 21,287 5.98% 386,785 340,089 -20,659 319,430 6.15% $ 337,719 $ 57,946 $ 395,665 6.12% $ 64,949 $ 330,716 $ 387,893 -14.7% $ (57,178)SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 614,381 510,786 -30,652 480,134 9.24% $ 507,625 $ 135,921 $ 643,546 9.95% $ 105,639 $ 537,907 $ 658,962 -18.4% $ (121,056)TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 609,508 507,131 14,927 522,058 10.04% $ 551,950 $ 70,111
WV 23,784 6.68% 484,930 413,697 23,373 437,070 8.41% $ 462,096 $ 622,060 9.62% $ 102,112 $ 519,948 $ 617,188 -15.8% $ (97,240)WL
356,25023,7877.00% 6,088,715 4,616,536 $ 64,743 $ 526,838 8.15% $ 86,482 $ 440,357 $ 533.110 -17.4% $ (92,754)WV
5,197,669 82.27% 8 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81.48% $ 1,061,247,$ 5,403,780 $ 6,609,523 -18.2%
County 81,9521 23.00% 1,080,732 941,506 -19,828 921,678 17.73%1$ 974,451 $ 223,083 I
100.00% 8 1,197,534 18.52% $ 196,577 $ 1,000,956 $ 1,251,090 -20.0% $ (250,134)
12/15/04
100.00% 100.00%
pop.sry Circa are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly 05-06 04-05 upldn
Cert.dale Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures Total cities $ 4,402,823 $ 5,358,433 -17.8%
Total county $ 1,000,956 $ 1,251,090 -20.0°6
2/03/05 Net Ills are 04-05 protections and will change monthly
fkr NT budget is an estimate - Library dislib. $ 5,403,780 $ 6,609,523 -18.2%
NT expense $ 1,061.247 $ 1,121,354 -5.4% - --
1 Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% _
2nd week March 20% - Total Expend. $ 6,465,026 I$ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2ndweekMay 5% I --- _ -- __ - -
operating cost $ 929,247 $ 926,439 0.3% -.
Mix $ 88,000 $ 141,000 100.0% ------
Capital expend $ _
•
Contingency $ 44,000 $ 53.915 -18.4% -
$ 1,061,2471$ 1,121,354 1 -5.4% �-- ---
-- Cl ILC 5 3/
4
Public Library Council
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
Joint Meeting
AGENDA
Thursday,March 3,2005
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, OR]
L Call to Order
IL Introductions
III. Minutes- Previous Action items
IV. Library Network Report
A. Final cost of November election = $56,254.42.
B. Green sheet- 05-06 distribution projections through Feb 28.
C. Final Library Network budget, as submitted to County budget process.
V. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. 06-07 Distribution formula—process for deciding...
1. Do we want to freeze and carry 04-05 circs/Net ILLS forward?
2. Do we want to begin a process to look at other formulas?
B. MIX issue— Review of next steps upon receipt of payment reduction proposal from
Molly Raphael, Director of Multnomah County Libraries
C. Presentation of summary results from LNIB/PLC survey
1. Executive summary—general trends -Joanna
2. Discussion/where do we go from here?
D. Proposal for Grants, Donations and Marketing Committee "GDM"
E. Other
VL Other comments —sharing news of your library
VIL Adjournment- Next regular meeting—Apri121, 2005?
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate.
Library Network Intergovernmental Board
Molly Raphael
Director, Multnomah County Libraries
205 N.E. Russell St.
Portland, OR 97212-3796
February 15, 2005
Dear Ms Raphael;
As you are aware, Clackamas County has been a participant in the Metropolitan Information
Exchange (MIX)program since its inception in 1987. The MIX intergovernmental agreement
(IGA) has been renewed periodically since then, most recently in June 2002. Under the terms of
this agreement, residents of Clackamas County, Multnomah County, Washington County, and the
Fort Vancouver Regional Library service area(plus Camas and Hood River as non-contract
members)have reciprocal access to library facilities,reference resources and collections.
The four contract partners keep track of the reciprocal use via the circulation counted by their
library automation systems and once a year exchange payments to reimburse net reciprocal
circulation. In addition, Clackamas and Washington County have agreed to pay a fixed annual fee
to Multnomah County Library for access to the Central Library reference resources: personnel,
print and on-line databases.
The 11 public libraries in Clackamas County constitute a cooperative network and have shared
county-wide library funding since 1977. In recent years, a series of property tax limitation
measures and economic downturns have combined to cause a steady decline in county-wide
library operating revenue in Clackamas County. The most recent set-back has been the defeat of
the proposed five- year local option library levy at the November 2004 election. Our libraries are
projected to receive about 20% less funding in 05-06 than in 04-05.
The Library Network Intergovernmental Board, the recognized advisory board to the Clackamas
County Board of Commissioners, has been reviewing all of the county-wide programs and
services funded by money received from the county general fund. Because LNIB anticipates that
Multnomah County Library will be sending LINCC a bill for$161,000 in December 2005, with a
projected future increase of 14%per year, there have been discussions at LNIB about
recommending a withdrawal from the MIX agreement to the Board.
Our librarians and LNIB representatives are mostly in agreement that the MIX IGA is a valuable
cornerstone in regional cooperative efforts in the metropolitan Portland area. But our ongoing
serious revenue reductions have prompted LNIB, in its role as advisor on the Library Network
budget, to initiate a discussion with Multnomah County Library about reducing or re-structuring
the financial terms of the MIX contract. We would like to be able to consider a wider range of
options before we make our recommendation to our Board of Commissioners about continuance
of this program.
I am sure you are aware that the time frame for making a decision about MIX is relatively short.
We will be submitting our 05-06 budget to the Clackamas County Commissioners in mid-March,
and the Board of Commissioners would need to make a policy decision about the MIX agreement
before April 1, 2005. The terms of current IGA specify a 90 day advance notice to withdraw.
Please let me know if we can provide you with any other information or clarification. We are
looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely Yours,
Mike Swanson
Chair, Library Network Intergovernmental Board and
City Manager, City of Milwaukie
cc: Jonathan Mantay, Chief Executive Officer, Clackamas County ;
Library Network Intergovernmental Board
LNIB Minutes
Thursday,January 20, 2005
1:30 PM
Present: Mark Adcock , CA ; Marlin Goebel, CO ; Beth McKinnon, ES ; Judy Ervin,
GL ; Chris Jordan, LO ; Mike Swanson, MI ; Gene Greene, MO ; Scott Archer, OC ;
George Hoyt, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL ; Pat Duke, WV.
Alternates,Staff and Guests: ; Cynthia Sturgis, Joe Sandfort, MI ; Doris Grolbert, CO ;
Beth Saul, CA ; Beth Scarth, SA ; Scott Lazenby, SA ; Catherine Powers, GL ; Jan
Erickson, LO ; David Donaldson, WV(asst. city manager) Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring,NT
Mike Swanson, chair, called the meeting to order at 1:34. Introductions were made
around the table. Judy/Gene M/S to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried.
05-06 mid-year formula changes -Mike asked Joanna to review the 05-06 distribution
options in the spreadsheets in the packet. Some PLC members, concerned about decline
in circulation after anticipated cutbacks January 1, requested consideration of a mid-year
formula change. Joanna presented two options: leaving the formula unchanged or
changing the formula mid year to use calendar-year 2004 circulations and net ILL stats.
Speaking in favor of no changes to the formula, Julia suggested that changing to an even
more confusing calendar-year model would not be easy to explain to city officials. Chris
noted that the figures are only marginally different, so why bother changing? Speaking
in favor of the 2004 calendar year change, Beth M. reminded LNIB that we would be
working with actual circs if we used 2004 calendar instead of 04-05 projections.
As there was no motion to make any changes to the formula, it will remain unchanged for
2005-2006. The payments will be based on the complete 04-05 circulation stats.
MIX IGA - Joanna reported on the results of the recent MIX study we conducted. We
defined exactly the information we wanted from MCL and from WCCLS, which was a
report of the geographical locations of library patrons who had checked out any items
from other counties in the last 6 months. Not surprisingly the majority of these patrons
live in "border" areas of the county such as Boring, Lake,Oswego and Milwaukie. We
determined that only 111 Clackamas County citizens could be called"heavy" users
having checked out more than 5,000 items from other libraries. We also asked for a
snapshot of all the items checked out to our citizens by other libraries on one day and
analyzed the results. We discovered that LINCC libraries owned the majority of these
items (with the exception of some specialized non-fiction) and so patrons did not seem to
be using MCL out of necessity, but more from convenience.
Jeff read the motion from PLC that recommended to LNIB that MIX be removed from
the Library Network budget,but also that LNIB should pursue other methods for funding
MIX. This motion was passed at PLC by a margin of 9-2 with LO and WV voting no.
Beth S. pointed out that if we froze the distribution for 06-07 in the event of MIX
cancellation, then libraries would have a"grace period". After that time, we'll have to
look at circulation again, taking into account the actual impact of the changed/reduced
circ patterns based on fewer open hours. Chris doesn't understand why we would cut
something that gives us 11% of our circulation yet only cost 2% of operating budget?
Jan added that there are other measurements of citizen use of MCL libraries other than
circulation— for example, we have no numbers about people who use their
MCL cards to
access the MCL online databases. Scott asked whether we were actually cutting people
off or if we were simply not paying for it anymore. Joanna clarified that people can still
purchase cards for$75/year.
Joanna reported that WCCLS and FVRL had already agreed informally that they would
exchange reciprocal circulation with LINCC without charging because our levels of
usage are fairly small and fairly level. Joe said that the money MI would lose from the
lost MIX circs would be much greater than the money they would save by canceling
MIX, so MI would need the formula changed in 06-07 to not be worse off.
Doris said that canceling MIX will create a hardship at border libraries where circ will
drop and they'll have to deal with angry patrons. But, she also can't see sending away
the equivalent of one library's annual budget for a few citizens' convenience.
Mike reflected on the history of the MIX agreement. It was supposed to be part of a new
regional initiative. The MIX contract was one of the first times that representatives from
Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties sat down together to work out a
regional effort. Mike's concern is that we'd be sending a message that runs counter to
what the governing bodies in the Metro area have been trying to change over the last
decades. Mike doesn't think that LINCC is at the point of severe enough financial pain
yet to cut the MIX program.
Beth M. and Beth S. both said that explaining to their city councils/citizens why we're
paying so much for MIX is very hard in their situations with severe budget cuts looming.
Beth S. stated that with what they pay for their share of MIX, they could be open another
day, especially considering that very few of their patrons even use the service.
Joanna reported that the MCL Library Director indicated that she might be willing to re-
negotiate the cost and so that will be the next step in the process. Mike suggested that we
table the MIX discussion for a month. Mike and Joanna will meet with MCL to let them
know that the agreement is in danger. They will push to see how far MCL is willing to
negotiate. They'll try to bring that info back next month to LNIB for further discussion.
NT BUDGET-Joanna presented the NT budget. She reported that PLC has approved
the budget,with the notation that MIX is still under consideration. Joanna reported that
the budget is very level. The biggest change is the conversion of a number of part-time
temps into one regular full-time position.
Doris wondered about the perception problem of adding a full-time NT position just after
losing a levy and when many libraries will be laying off staff. Beth S. pointed out that NT
is not overstaffed by any means. It's painful that they're going to be laying off people,
but let's not shortchange ourselves. Beth M. agreed and suggested that if the libraries are
cutting, then if NT can add one person to make everyone's lives easier, it's worth it. Judy
told the group to keep the big picture in mind—if this is going to help all the libraries,
then it's worth it. Chris/Judy MIS "to approve the NT budget pending the outcome of the
MIX negotiation."Motion carried.
PROCESS COMMITTEE -Mike reported on the activities of Process Committee. The
first meeting was about posing the questions we need to answer. With the defeat of the
levy, we're in an interesting financial situation. Mike reviewed the draft LNIB survey
contained on the yellow pages of the packet. He asked everyone to respond by e-mail to
Joanna to each question. LNIB would like at least two responses from each jurisdiction,
one from the library and one from the city/county. It's not designed to be scientific, and
we're not going to count "votes"to decide"what wins". It's just to get some ideas. Jan
added she learned a lot as a member of the Process Committee. She was pleased that the
committee had made progress from being a very diverse group to a narrowed down focus.
The deadline for responses to the survey was Feb 11`h
LNIB agreed to combine the March 3rd PLC with a special LNIB meeting. The combined
group will meet at 1:30 and try to resolve the MIX issue and review the results of the
survey.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA
Thursday,January 20, 2005
• 1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, 0111
I. Call to Order
II. Introductions
III. Minutes- Previous Action items
IV. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. 05-06 budget/distribution
1. PLC recommendation about possible mid-year changes to 05-06 distribution
formula—review comparison between calendar year and fiscal year circs
2. MIX issue—report and statistics from MIX study
3. LNIB recommendation re NT budget
B. Report from LNIB Process Committee—strategic planning after levy defeat
C. Other
V. Other comments —sh a s
VI. Next regular meeting 2005
VII. Adjournment a 1/3 ® I 3-61
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attends and remember to send
your alternate. 4 Go.
ti:1:414fr "
e
At the last LNIB meeting a small group was designated to look into the advisability of new
strategic thinking in light of the defeat of the County-wide Library Levy in November 2004. The
impact of that defeat ranged from a 14.4% to a 23.2% reduction in County funding of local
libraries between the projections for FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. The group looked at a number of
issues. The first was to define the questions that should be answered in order to make
appropriate decisions:
STRATEGIC QUESTIONS
A. Currently LINCC is a loosely knit confederation of local libraries with some level of
funding from Clackamas County. Can we ever become a more unified library system
that has joint responsibility to provide library service county-wide?
B. In your opinion, as members of LNIB should we be primarily advancing the interests of
the library system in Clackamas County, or should we be primarily advocating for
formulas and strategies that benefit our own libraries?
÷-- Is a County Library one which is funded and operated by Clackamas County, or does it
include those libraries whose funding is 100% derived from the County?
D. Do we have the right number of libraries to serve the users effectively and efficiently?
Do we have the libraries located in the right places?
E Given the crisis in available library funding, do we still have the right number of
libraries, and are those libraries located in the right places?
F. Should fiscal maintenance of effort from cities be a requirement for obtaining county
funds for libraries? If so, how should it be defined and set?
The Process Committee learned things that may influence future decisions. They are:
POLITICAL / FINANCIAL REALITIES
• Projections for FY 2005-06 may with some comfort assume $6,385 million in County
funds. However, no certain amount is guaranteed beyond that date, and the on-going
amount will depend on the County's overall demands and priorities. The only
"guarantee" is that the amount will not increase.
The question of creating a countywide district will not be placed on the ballot.
• It is unlikely that we will see another county-wide library levy on the ballot before 2010
as there are other County priorities that will now be given a chance at the ballot.
(Remember that every election costs the County $100,000.)
It is not safe to assume that funds saved from closing a County branch library would
be added to the amount available for distribution.
• There are almost an infinite number of "solutions" for providing library service in
Clackamas County that may be defined by changing governance, structure, and/or the
allocation of funds.
LNIB Page 1 1/20/2005
V '
The questions and the issues facing the libraries in Clackamas County admit to no easy
resolution. The system faces a present shortage of funds, a future in which funding will most
likely further decline, and many users placing demands on the facilities, staff and funding that is
available. In order to meet the challenges facing the system, the LNIB Process Committee
identified a few strategies, some of which were:
STRATEGIES/SOLUTIONS
aa. Do nothing and see what kind of library network, library service providers or county-
wide library service evolves over the next 5-7 years.
bb. Do nothing now, aim for a 2010 vote, and then see what kind of library network,
library service providers or county-wide library service emerges.
cc. Create a countywide library district on the east side (although at this point it seems
unlikely to be placed on a county-wide ballot).
dd. Define an affordable "standard" library for Clackamas County, determine how many
of these standard libraries can survive in the current funding crisis and where they
should be located and then fund only these from county funds.
ee. Define a minimal level of service that can be supported with available funds and fund
each library at that level, leaving any enhancement of that minimal level to local
city/county funding. County-wide funding to specific libraries would continue only as
long as the minimum level of service was being met.
ff. Close the County libraries, apportion the available County funds to each remaining
city library (based on either population served or assessed value), and then
reimburse cities for circs to unincorporated areas. Alternatively, the funds realized
from closing county libraries could be used only to reimburse those libraries that
actually began providing services/circs to residents of the unincorporated areas.
(Remember, however, that there is no guarantee that the funds currently used to
fund County libraries would become part of the county-wide library funds)
gg. Leave the "west side" (Lake Oswego, West Linn, and Wilsonville) as is in terms of
local governance, but attempt to create a centralized governance authority for the
east side, and distribute existing funds equitably.
The group has not defined an ideal strategy yet, or even a process for defining that ideal. In the
hopes of narrowing down some of the above options and clearing the way for future planning,
the Process Committee would be interested in your thoughts on the above issues. To that end,
would you please answer a few questions - unofficially? This is not meant to be a scientific poll,
nor any kind of commitment on behalf of your library or city government so please be as honest
as you can. We would like replies from both a CEO/ City Manager/ Assistant City Manager, and
the Library Director of each LNIB member. Responses from elected officials who are informed
about the issues are also welcome.
LNIB Page 2 1/20/2005
r
LNIB QUESTIONNAIRE
Please reply no later than February 4, 2005. The questions are:
1. What questions—in addition to those listed (A-F) above—do you believe require
resolution or at least discussion by LNIB in order to chart a reasonable future course?
2. Please provide brief answers (to the best of your knowledge) to questions A-F above.
It's OK to say "don't know", but please share your opinions!
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
3. Upon review of the strategies listed above (aa-gg) please list the strategy(ies) you
would prefer and why.
4. Please share any strategy or solution not listed above (aa-gg) that you feel should be
considered.
5. Assuming an eventual solution that would provide some level of library stability and
predictability, what would you be willing to give up in your jurisdiction, and what would
you absolutely need to retain in exchange for a solution?
6. Any other thoughts about how to resolve the issues facing the libraries in Clackamas
County? How would you ensure that your strategy/solution has a reasonable chance of
being implemented?
7. Please feel free to include any additional comments you might have.
LNIB Page 3 1/20/2005
LNIB Minutes
December 9, 2004
1:30 PM
Library Network Office
Present: Beth Saul, CA ; Jon Mantay, CO ; Randy Ealy, ES ; Judy Ervin, GL ; Chris
Jordan, LO; Mike Swanson, Chair, MI ; Gene Green, MO ; Larry Patterson, OC ; George
Hoyt, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL; Pat Duke, WV
Alternates, guests,visitors,staff: Mark Adcock, CA, Doris Grolbert, Marlon Goebel,
Nancy Newton, CO; Joe Sandfort, Cynthia Sturgis, Tom Hogan Sue Trotter, Pat Lynch,
MI ; Eldon Lampson,MO; Jan Erickson, LO; Scott Archer, OC; Beth Scarth, SA ;
Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring NT.
Chair Mike Swanson called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
Minutes of the July 29 meeting were approved with the correction that Chris Jordan had
chaired the July meeting.
A. Review of levy election results:
Joanna reviewed the statistics. 42.3% Yes, 57.7% No. Library levies used to pay with
48,000 Yes votes and this time we got 78,000 yes votes and still lost. Out of 187
precincts, the levy passed in only 27. Only three precincts passed the measure with>
60% Yes votes.
Factors affecting the levy—possibly contributing to the defeat
• All the noise of the presidential election.
• Measure 36 and Measure 37 may have attracted fiscally conservative voters
• Lack of clear-cut message about consequences of no vote
• Confusion about safety net of$6.385 million
• Secretary of State strict guidelines may have discouraged library supporters
• Advocacy campaign only raised$43,000. The consultant told us that we needed at
least $150,000 to run a campaign able to punch through all the other election noise.
• Advice from consultant to base advocacy campaign locally in each community meant
a lack of visible advocacy campaign county-wide and variable results locally
Chris Jordan suggested that other county-wide or state-wide tax measures failed by much
larger margins than our library levy. There is an anti-tax feeling throughout Clackamas
County and throughout the state that is working against us and it makes it much harder to
get tax measures passed. George Hoyt commented that we registered so many new voters
this time and this may have hurt the cause and raised the bar higher for next election in
terms of turnout
B. LNIB priorities and budget - Mike Swanson asked Joanna to go over the NT budget
and highlight any LNIB concerns. Joanna presented the NT budget, clarifying that PLC
had already reviewed it and approved it, with one exception that PLC felt they needed
more information about MIX before deciding whether to continue the program.
Joanna clarified that the proposed NT budget contains little change with one exception.
In the absence of the levy (when NT planned to added 2-3 new full-time people), NT now
proposes to convert three part-time evening weekend support people to one full-time day
person. The combined salaries would cover the new salary cost. Our cataloging and ILL
software is being modified to a web-based interface, and because the software is
estimated to be 30%-40% slower, we cannot keep up with the current work-load. It is
also possible that we may approach the BCC with a request to upgrade our shared
computer system. If this is requested and approved, staff help in the day-time will
support all NT programs,particularly during migration.
After clarifying several questions and confirming that the Library by Mail program will
be the only one cut Joanna discussed the MIX payment. In FY 05-06, the MIX payment
to Multnomah County amount will be $161,000. It goes up every year according to a
25% cap. Judy Ervin asked whether we have any incoming money from MIX. Joanna
said that we will get about $9,000 in FY 05-06 from Washington Co. and Ft. Vancouver.
Joanna quickly reviewed the history of the MIX program. In past years, discussions about
whether the cost of MIX was affordable had caused LNIB to recommend cutting it from
the NT budget. At that time the BCC got involved and saved the program by allowing
libraries to raise the levy amount. Joanna also explained that if the program was
discontinued, those who wished to use other libraries out of county could purchase a card
for$75 annually.
Mike recognized that MIX is a program with a definite geographical bias. Several border
libraries find that it's in their interest to continue the service,the other libraries don't use
it and it's in their interest to not continue the payments. Mike remembers how the Metro
area tried hard to define itself as a region and for that reason there was an impetus to try
to work together on joint projects. There are issues beyond money in the MIX program.
Chris agreed with Mike that we need more information before making any decisions. It
seems like a waste to cut off a service that our citizens are using for a savings of less than
2% of the total library budgets in the county. Joanna will meet with MIX directors and
request printouts that reveal where their Clackamas patrons live and what they check out.
Mike asked if there were other issues besides MIX in the NT budget that people want
Joanna to come back with more information about.
.Joanna suggested that the discussion of the formula might be an on-going issue.
Larry Patterson stated that there will be severe cutbacks in OC and fears that the
circulation model forces OC into a death spiral. He also raised the issue of the number of
libraries we have in the county. He wondered, as did the mayors &managers recently,
whether it makes sense to keep all libraries open as is, or should we look at consolidation
or something else to make our resources go further?
Mike stated that we seem to come back every couple of years and talk about money. We
talk about a library system, but we don't always decide what we want the system to do.
Let's define what we want—serve many small units and only have them open a little?
Mike reminded LNIB that if we go to the voters with a SYSTEM funding message, we're
much better served than if we go with many community messages.
Jon agreed that he thought LNIB should pursue both the funding formula and the library
locations issues over the next year.
Mike appointed an LNIB Process Committee. Larry, Jan, Jon, George, Mike and Joanna
will convene before the next meeting to define the questions and the way we go about
answering those questions. They will try to design a process for getting to the answers of
the questions. Judy Ervin asked if the team will need to look at governance and Mike
confirmed that it should be on the table with everything else.
Joanna clarified that there is some urgency about having the formula discussion, as some
libraries are likely to make changes in January, and those changes could hurt their
circulation. Joanna agreed to make new distribution green sheets that would show
calendar year versus no freeze options.
Mike asked everyone to bring the latest information about their library cuts to the next
LNIB meeting. It still won't be carved in stone, but at least let's have our best guesses at
the next meeting.
There was no news/sharing.
Next LNIB meeting will be Thursday,January 20`h, 1:30 pm at NT.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 pm.
Action:
• Joanna will meet with MIX directors and request printouts that reveal where their
Clackamas CO patrons live and what they check out.
• Joanna will facilitate the LNIB process committee start-up
• LNIB members will bring latest info about Library cuts to next meeting.
• Joanna agreed to make new distribution green sheets that would show calendar
year versus no freeze options.
api di di
N N
O CfCO ` CO ( co
Nor _ .- - -
=
C) O CCC O CCC CCC O LL) 47C') O 000 N. O M OO OOu') O4/ CD OIO 0000 OO N
DI O O O CD O r C) O O LO 0 to O :V r M 0 0 0 N N r C D CO O O Cl O r. M CO 0 0 0 O O O O 1.-
RC ( O O N C' IL) d M O O CD LO C) CV C) N C O C01 OD rp CD CO CO 41 -- N N csi O M O CO C' CD CCO CS O) O 41 CO
U) N
E -c v- r N 0 C) C . CD L() N Cp C) N- C C) M O r 0 CD N CD CO OD N `-'(D Cn C r co Cn r 0 M U) - N
Q V O O to o5 =O C to C• (0 O v 0 r N N I� v r Cp r v r `� r Cp
CD CII N N r N C') N r "' CO
N N E r
Q U
69 Cf) 69 U9 69 69 09 69 69 U3 Cf)69 69 69 W) 69 69 CO 69 09 W)v) 69 Cf)Cf}69 69 69 Cf) Cf)69 GO 69 69 69 Cf)69 Cf)C) Cf)69 Cf)C!) 69 Cf)69 Cf}Cf)61 69 ua
"r0 1:3 It
CI C m C
111111
C W C W o `` `' 0 0 0
L Cb o o Cr CD e! L e CD er r� O O > o p o o o . 0 ° ', v o o p 0 0` o O a O
� ..1".
~
co 6 OD CO N O O 5 N NO p N 0 (.`j O 2g C Ni C CD n O N V 0 O.O O O oO rT
a a
tO 1, 0 0 0 O o o CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o6 0 0
. y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O N O ' r` O O O CO 0 0 0 O ' ' O N ' O ' O O O O O O CD 0 0 0 0 B O O ' O Co
o O O CO N O CO O N - - - O OO O O O M O CD CC) r- O O O ce CD O O O O M C' 41
Cl- N- U) O r. O O O r et N CD r CD r- O r C' N e- r- O C) VD 40 O N r N
2 O r r- CC) U) C' M M r CO) - C CO r -4 M N U) C- 06
D_ n OD CD r r r Cr) N co co L()
M r co
(D CO
C!)C)U)69 C9 U3(A 69111111
9 U3 60 Cf)Cf)69 ua N U)69 69 69 Cf)(f9 69 V) (f)69 Cf)U)U)Cf)d9 Cf) Cl)69 69 69 64 U)
'
D L O O O O O O O 0 0 O O OO O 22 M N O OO M O rM O N CO O M O C` gr.?)
e! O O O O O O OrN
O CO OO 000
4 W O co h O r o r- M Cn O O CX) C' '(D C-) er r 0 ' CD 4O O C) N C) O6 V N CD N O 6 6 0 06 CA (D
O M CO N O Cf) O N CO C• O O O C) N- LC) 6) r r O C) O) OD 4') CO N CD 40 r N CO O CD O N C' C) C) Cl Cf) rp
C6 r- r- Cf) CD C) O OD . O C' C• Cn N (D Cn r N- r r O N CD C7 0- r O r N r- N. M O CO O r O0 CC) e- . R
} O r� 6 O - Cn n r 0:-..Mr r- CD O O N M N (D .-C() C() M N I- CD 0 ,-CD
r O C') M Cf) (1) C`) r M r C- N r CO C' O)
CO r- N r r et
O r r_ r
0`
Cf)U) (f)Cf)69 64 69 Cf)64 69 69 69 69 ea Cf)69(R - - 69 69 CO Cf)69 69 H)69(1)C!)Cf) 69 69 69 69 69 V)V) 69 Cf)69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Cf)u9
u) •O O O O 0 0 0 O C1) 17 CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O ry O O O O O O O O N O - O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
O O) N- O C
O O ' � C- 4 N M O O O B O O O 6 � O B O O VV O O ' C' O O C' O ' CD (n B O O r7
O [T M (D N O LI) O N- O O CD O C' O O co O C' f) of OD O U) N 4) N on O4 V M O r
i, r- N- 4') CT C) O O -D 0 Cb r- CO N O N ti N N- N C' O CV N C) r C' O O N r 0 et
C 0 0:O O C et r r CI) O O r re.;4-CD '7 .-N N CD 6 C!)
m r r 0 Cl CO CO .- CO r C) N C' M C' N
✓ CD r+ N r r Cf)
O r
Cf)69 69 69 U)69 64 69 U)69 Cf)69 VI' 69 69 69(f)U)69 U)V)69 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 Cf)69 69 Cf)CF)(f)69 64 69 ea ea 69 69
▪ s, O O O O O O O O O O - CD - O CD O O C) CO M O O Cn O O M O CD r C) 0 0 0 CD O OD
C O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O N r N- 0 0 0 O O
r
N 0) D oma) o ' c) c) m O D N O r ' O C) CO ' ' O O Cr. COp O O O O 0 0 0 O '- co O Cb ICco O CD rCD N M CD V M CM O CCO N -
<C O N CO O CO O O r a] O CO.. r M OD f) (D Cn ) D IO OD M O O N r- �O
C) r M O U) N r cn M e-N N .-CM CD L -d• O > D O C
e-
C)
r 0 r N C' N r CD r N M N U)
CO r- N r r e
N: 069
69 69 Cl)CO Cf)CH(f)U)Cf)u)u)U) CA Cf)U)Cf) - • 69 Cf)69 69 69 69 69 Cf)69 C19 V) 69 69 69 U)Cn U) GO 69 CO 69 Cf)GO U9 U)69 U4 69 69 U)
r•) i O O O O O O O C') 0 0 0 0 0 OD r C) N C D 0 0 O O OD C) O O O O CO Ul CO O O O O O O C)
O -, O O CD C 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O r CO CD C C N O N- 0 0 0 OD O O CO UP CO Cf) Cn O CD O O O O T-
N V M CD N 6 O) r- N N 0 0 0 O N _ N C' C) r r N O O C' ') r 0 co er co O) N O C D O O N O 0-
CD
Q O 0) U) N Cb N OD O Q O CD N- O CD 41 C' CV N 41 CO) C) el' CD N 0 0 0 M CD CD c0 00 N .- CD N O 4D CO (D O r- O U)
M CP U) C' M (T M N e- C) co OD .- •- M Ch CD N LL) M O C' N N (D
CO O O N C' C' r CD N Cn M r er
✓ co co N r r eS
N-
u)(f)(H u) C1)(f) C1•)ea ea ca Cf)V)CR 69 CA U, C1)V) 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Cf)V9 69 69(A 69 69 69 69 V}69
U
O C_
C co N • CS enC
'O
HhLhCN 0 - geL 5E •oErn Cg U CO O)- - Y- a � r W CI) N W Q) U; a C4 N O ', O J
N 4.a x w (n > LLLLL?ro ~ wu•i V) o (J ° C @_ (n N o a an c y n > yC7a
l� y •� C U) O ' EEE E E °1 C N C Cn Q1 O x to N C [D U O_J N CJ U " .c!
C N ` ❑
'0 io a) ca o >.U -0 o 0 0 o E , o .o ca a) ... W 2 W .� m p c a) > _ m a) .a 12 ` O (n '- 0
= a) C X c CD c m m ? y a co c o a_ N y D o .v a c c O
Cyd a. E _ " ) E 11)G J C E- c a L a (n V m - c N - Li., as•- a o'm E (n w o cn
W (C9 Q) C O O Ca > O C!J C O Q 7 L N w N O .0 N C (D m C J
>. N 06 c U CD o N Cn in LL d (`v n c U o�Z O rn ,- a) u) N m o a) o c E (l7 aS a E - L6 o Q
I- C . c Q N , _ 0 2 E E o a c o rn m a C) a m > > 2 o y > LI_ m 2 G .-CL) °6 ca W e (`°c U m .6 g 6 cs
O O N C Q) C d C C CL' N en Y E 1) CU ca C1 . . at - Q - N .0 = N CD. O U a) N -C ,U W
... N L_ d UO LL LL LL C) CU () > C C O C W CU O > O Cn O O D '^ a) N O O c0 'C CQ 10 0 0 .0 O 1 C I-
N W .� N--.•---c-
,..-.,
+•' N LLU0C5COCJ � � � CC � O > LL52) d CD CLOUB W ULLC9J2rd1- UUF- dC) OOCnLZO0 flD
Q) o
Z ` r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 F = F" O O O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O O 0 0 0 0 o O r U) 0 0 0 0 0
CJ _
O O r Cr) r 0 Co 0 0 0 40 CD .r U O O O M U) O N M O r r O r CC) CO O N O r 0 0 0 0 0 Cb r M CO Cl CD r 0 0 0 CD
O r M CO Cl CO CO O O r N r- CU W r 0 0 O O O O r r r NOD C) C) CO C' N- ti N CO r N N N N N N C' O
CC N M O O D C L ' •- N M C• C Cn U) L') r N N N C CD r N N N 00 er U) h N N- 0. n N C D C) co O
1- G) O r CO V V (D M C) C) C) C C m N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M CO Cl CO M M M Cl M CO M C`) C-
f� M CO M M Cl M CO CO Cl CO M M jIt Q O V' C' C' et C' e! et C' C V 'd' e,• nr er ? ? C' < e}• R C C e! V C' C' C' er R C C C C' -- et -
J❑ Cr w I 1
Expenditures 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed r.Proj.Yr.End Change notes
478101 Accounting Services Allocated $ 4,302.00 $ 4,255.00 $ 4,157.00 $ 4,157,00 $ 4,157.00 0.0% $ -
478102 Data Processing Allocated $ 1,685.00 $ 1,847.00 $ 2,362.00 $ 2,362.00 $ 2,362.00 0.0% $ -
478103 Building Maintenance Allocated $ 12,761.00 $ 12,540.00 $ 13,540.00 $ 13,540.00 $ 13,540.00 0.0% $ -
478104 PGR Administration Allocated $ 12,167.00 $ 11,203.00 $ 11,241.00 $ 11,241.00 $ 11,241.00 0.0% $ -
478105 Records Management Allocated $ 262.00 $ 397.00 $ 269.00 $ 269.00 $ 269.00 0.0% $ -
478106 Purchasing Services Allocated $ 2,149.00 $ 2,545.00 $ 1,904.00 $ 1,904.00 $ 1,904.00 0.0% $ -
478107 County Courier Allocated $ 918.00 $ 908.00 $ 970.00 $ 970.00 $ 970.00 0.0% $ -
478111 Personnel Administration Allocated $ 5,209.00 -$ 5,605.00 $ 5,052.00 $ 5,052.00 $ 5,052.00 0.0% $ -
478112 County Administration Allocated $ 2,147.00 $ 1,891.00 $ 1,495.00 $ 1,495.00 $ 1,495.00 0.0% $ -
COST ALLOCATIONS/CO LIB $ 41,600.00 $ 41,191.00 $ 40,990.00 $ 40,990.00 $ 40,990.00 0.0% $ -
485320 Computer Software Purchases $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
485330 Computer Hardware $ - $ 7,544.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
485333 Computer Peripherals $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
485334 Computer Network Installation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
485510 Light Vehicles $ - $ 17,058.00 $ - $ - $ - $ -
490002 PERS stabilization $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 0.0% $ -
490003 Health Ins stabilization $ 6,570.00 $ 6,570.00 $ 6,570.00 0.0% $ -
CAPITAL PURCHASES/reserve $ - $ 24,602.00 $ 13,570.00 $ 13,570.00 $ 13,570.00 0.0% $ -
[Lib Net no MIX,not include contingency I $ 924,004.85( $ 968,288.18 I $ 1,067,469.00 I $ 1,039,742.12 I $ 929,246.50 I -10.6% 1 $ (110,495.62)
499001 Contingency $ - $ - $ 53,915.00 $ - $ 44,000.00
470100 IIF Transfer to CO $ 1,316,815.00 $ 1,274,357.86 $ 1,250,000.00 $ 1,250,000.00 $ 1,021,964.31 -18.2% $ (228,035.69)
444000 Contracts With Cities $ 5,464,185.00 $ 5,352,914.00 $ 5,359,493.00 $ 5,359,493.00 $ 4,469,815.19 -16.6% $ (889,677.81)
EXPENDITURE TOTAL $ 7,705,004.85 $ 7,595,560.04 $ 7,730,877.00 $ 7,649,235.12 $ 6,465,026.00 -15.5% $ (1,184,209.12)
• r
Footnotes
1 Decrease as we gradually spend down reserves.
2 Decrease in general fund contribution in 05-06 as per LNIB agreement.
3 Increase due to addition of one FTE LA2 (Cataloging/ILL)and small COLA.
4 Increase due 5% step increase and COLA for 2 employees
5 Decrease due to conversion of temp positions to one FTE (above), and therefore reduction in temp support hours.
6 Increase due to benefits for one new LA2 position and 5% general increase.
7 Decrease due to cancellation of Library By Mail program.
8 Decrease due to reduction in number of mailed notices because of increase in E-mailed notices and estm. change in county cost allocation.
9 Increase due to purchase of library cards, barcodes, and overdue mailers.
10 Decrease due to no election in 05-06.
11 Increase due to higher higher gasoline prices and greater anticipated maintenance on older van if van not replaced in 05-06.
12 Difference due to on-going uncertainty of E-Rate discount revenue and conversion to fiber-optic Internet connection.
13 Difference due to one-time discount in database licensing in 04-05.
14 The $7,128 was unbudgeted expense for equipment to convert to fiber-optic Internet connection.
15 Lease renewal could lead to reduction in rent
16 Decrease due to cancellation in MIX program
Summary
Cut packages proposed: Determination:
A ILL Program Not feasible to cut
B Weekend courier Not feasible to cut Library Network staffing proposal
C Five computer dial-in lines Feasible, proposed Convert evening/weekend support to one FTE for Cataloging & ILL
D All computer dial-in lines Not feasible to cut • Surveying indicates very little evening/weekend support activity
E Local reference databases Not feasible to cut • Mandatory conversion to new cataloging and ILL software
F All reference databases Not feasible to cut estimated to be 20-40% slower
G MIX under study-not cut • Can't count on reduction in demand for cataloging
H All mailed notices Not feasible to cut Not all libraries going to cut book budgets
I Library by Mail program feasible, proposed Libraries with cuts soliciting donations
Add packages proposed: Determination: • Continued operation of NT with little reduction in services and
1 Authority control Not feasible to add only 3.8 FTE permanent office staff is difficult to sustain
2 Replacement courier van Not feasible to add • Reduce support hours, convert temp positions into one FTE
3 Temporary tech help Not feasible to add
4 Migration - hardware maint. Not feasible to add temp hrs/salaries cut $ 26,205
5 Migration - thin client maint. Not feasible to add
new LA 2 salary $ 26,000
new LA2 benefits $ 16,200
January 20,2005
5-0-7-- _7)(-6//),
A.0-07. ,/0E PC 51)-Y1D
1 %a-EI- I 45£•LZL'l $I LPZ'EL6 $ I I .
_ –%9-S—Z- 516'£5 $ 000'04 $ LoueBuguo0 -
- – $ Puadxe!el!tle0 _
rillIT
%0'001 000'141 $ x14
__ %L.0%L'0_ 6£4'9317 $ 14319£6 $ lsoo 6ugeiado
--- _ m _- - % 6eryvampuZl
MEI
%691 LLS'O2L'L $ 930'5917'9 $ puadx E 0 %OZ yoieryilaampuZ
--- 31 l 1 %SL uerNmpuz uonnqulsm
— %Z'EL 45£'LZ L'l $ LLZ'EL6 $ esuadxa 1N alewose ue sl la6pnq 1N ii(
—
%6.9/- £ZS'609'9 $ 09L'L617'9 $ 'q!ls!p eiq!l f!yluow°Bueya p!m pue suo!loalwd SO-40 ale sill leN I 5015011
_— — %9191 060'LSZ'L $ 496'1301 l $ Alum*!elol ( sam69 flSdd mil 4002 51�0 Palepdn sem panlas(led a;ep'�a0
%9'91- E£4'95E'S $ 918'6917'4 $ sawImo' !Uluow palepdn aq 11!m pue slenloe Soto Ol paw!!ale Sana nls clod
upidn SO-40 90-50 40151/31
%00'001 I %00'OOL I I %00'004
(931'633) $ %EVt- 060'LSZ't $ 496'130'! $ 1-41'191 $ %19'91 19L0'£0Z'l S I£80'EZZ $I £66'6L6 $I%£e'LL 1996'9Z6 kZSZ'64- 91-Z1906 699'99011 %001£Z Z96'19 Lynn'
I I I I I I I
%6'91- EZE'609'9 $ 09L'16b'9 S L4Z'£L6 $ %6£'18 930'59!''9 $ fSL'696 S ZLZ'S6b'S $ %L1.78 9Z'6'L61'S LSS'Z19'4 304'£90'9 %00-1L 093'991
AM(596'48) S %8'51- 011.'9E9 $ 9Z9'844 $ 905'61 $ %/1'9 LC Ogg $ £41'49 $ 88£'£96 $ %£4'9 41£'9E4 8£L'EZ 9L9'pl4 Z011994 %99"9 48L'£Z AM
®(66L'L9) $ %Z'61- 891'119 $ 69E'6Z9 $ 81-9196 $ %179.6 L0Z'EZ9 $ L L VOL $ 9601999 5 %90'01- 69l'as 369'41 LZ9'909 69/.11.19 %9311 99L'SZ
mai
31 (995'601) $ %9'91- 396'9S9 $ 8L£'619 $ 092'16 $ %O0'01 8£L'949 $ 436'991 $ LI.9'01.S S %0£'6 LLl'£94 392`6Z- 639'3 L9 90L'919 %30 41 Z96'61' MB
VS (686'56) $' %6'l1 £68'182 $ 606'!4£ $ 269'09 $ %93.9 309`Z04 $ 946'L9 $ 953'44E $ %L3'9 3l6'93£ ZLS'91- 1784'ZOC 6L61699 %96-9 LBZ'LZ VS
30 (961'901) it %9'91- ZLZ'959 S SZS'649 $ 982'16 $ %10-01 Z16'9179 $ 9Z1'04l S 491.'909 5 %13'6 9611814 916191- ELL'164 0901L69 %1911 869'15 30
OW (280'014 $ %$,CI- 129'963 $ 402'993 $ 911'54 $ %OL I' L901,02 $ 901'ES $ 916'093 $ %LS"4 962'193 699'91- 493'953 910'913 %94-9 609'61 OW
1W 11.08'90/) $ %9'8/- ISIS $ 089'994 $ 650'£9 $ %£58 621'L99 $ 654'18 $ O83'OL4 $ %99'8 4£8'444 5869 648'8£4 594'915 %04.8 936163 1W
0l (906'963) $ %O'OZ- 989'363'1 $ -181266 Au L11'911. s %01'81 968'6911 $ 236'911 $ 516'390'1 $ %91'61 666'566 929'91- 929'410'1 091'993'1 %90'ZI 256'34 01
• (906'93) 5 %9161- 911'941 $ 9 .11 $ L£L'LZ $ %L1'3 044'041 $ 001'91 $ 012'931 $ %83.3 099'914 999'9- 961'531 961'531- %95'1 L4S'S OH
(Ls0'99) S %9'L/- 461'639 $ 491`113 $ 991'94 $ %96'4 068'612 $ 5L9'4S $ 910'59Z $ %38'4 519'093 416'6 1-01`943 693'393 %99'5 691'0Z 19
(53640L) S %8'91- 643'586 $ 561.34E $ ££4`55 $ %0115 833.89E $ 194'94 $ 091'6LE $ %Z8'S 854.30E 1.64'L4 196`453 063'613 %00'S 508'1L S3
• (919`06) $ %6103- 096.944 $ 416.692 $ 419'39 5 %94'9 936'944 $ 290131 5 5991£49 5 %93'9 653193E 991'91- 960809 159'442 %941 614193 03
(6SE'LE) $ %3'It- SZ4'322 $ 110'963 $ 363139 $ %1-£'9 492'14£ $ 21£'89 $ 090'693 $ %93'5 01-4'213 958 999'313 041'963 %10'9 ZZ4'L3 Illllll -
upidn upidn 'qu;sl0 'q<•1s10 uo!inglJlslp 'gJls1- 'gJLslp MS•dod quls!O'3J13 .oilo 03N11 '3JI s
tieS
S % 90-40 90.50 homleN 411 30% ssoJ ° % a aN1 0LP 'o)!J pus to'dad pa od
0 /°S4 %99 10 Palsn�PV laN Pa3aUoLeLI Ie101 }o% •dod
91(03 Lk 103 9//03 S//03 3/700 I l 700 01 700 I 6 700 9 700 1 700 9 700 9 700 6 700 9 703 3 703 1 700
MEEI immimmimommi 081'164`5 5 Lunowe•qp;s!0
•
1431216 5 =spaaN 013pn8 IN seal
11111111.1.11 • %91. %99 90-90 9Zo'S94`9 $ anuanalle101NM
=_ --�--
- 063'1 5 anuana,os!W
- -- � 963'31 5 a!ouenbu,ieppeno due3
_— — — 1 1000'99E19 5 001 pun}woa},a}sued
1 I ( I%98 =uope!naJ!ol
—_ — t%Z'El- 145£'lZVI- $I LOZ'EL6 $ I
-__ -_ __ - %B_-SZ SL6'£5 $ 000'04 $ (Oua6uguo0
- $ puedxa ielldeo 1
----
--001 000'1.41. $ xIW I
%L'O 6E6'936 $ L$Z'EE6 $ 1SOD 6u9ejedo
--- -- —-- --I %S AeW loam puz— —
%0Z gWeW XeeM puZ
%6-91- LL9'0£L'L $ 920'994'9 S •puadx3lelol
— ---—---- — %51. ue f WnPuZ uOAa4ws!0
%Z'£1- PSC'LZ L'L $ LPZ'£L6 $ asuadxa IN alewnSe ue sI la6pnq IN 111
%6-91- EZS'609`9 $ 09L'461,'9 $ 'gUs!p tiemq!1 slenioe 000Z jeaA Jepuelea aye sill laN 50!9014
%6'L C- 060'49Z'L $ 96L'9Z0'4 S a(lunoo lelol sa1n611(1Sd wail 9002 9 uer paiepdn sem panus dod aalep11ad
%L-91- E£4`BS£'S $ 486'494'4 $ Sayq 15101 1£380 g6naiyl l ue'-1,00z leak Jepueleo 04 pe pow ale s3.110 Ns-dod
up1dn 90-40 90-90 60/9424
I
1%00'004 %00004 %00.001.
(S63'f33) $ %6-L1- 060`1.SZ'4 $ 1 96L'9Z0'4 $ L96'481. $ %01.'84 £91'90eI. $I£90'EZZ $ 099'996 S %46'D. I00Z`846 Z9Z'64- ZS4'LE6 Z6Z'SL0'I %00•EZ Z96`48 j Bono°
I I I I I
— %6-91- EZ9'609'9 S 09L'L64'9 S Li'Z'£16 $ %09'48 930'996'9 S PSL`696 $ 21.2'966'9 $ /9079 £90'611`9 968'L£S'4 498.986'5 %00•LL 093.9SE
AM(9£6'68) $ %6-91- O44'EE5 $ 814'844 $ 9Z4'6L $ %94'9 £09'LZ9 $ EpL'49 $ 498'Z94 $ %Z4'8 ELL'let 8£L'£Z S£b•1017 099'9L4 %89-9 48L'EZ AM
1M(01.£'66) $ %E 91- 891'LL9 $ 848•ZZ9 S E99'Z6 $ %Z9.6 LLYS49 $ II-COL $ 09£•949 S "126.6 SZO'90S Z4E'64 £89'£66 LL9'L6S %£Z'1. 98L'SZ 1M
01(Z90'1l1) $ %6'91- Z96'849 $ 1.1.6'145 $ 004'L6 S %96'6 410'949 $ 4Z6'9E4 5 060'609 $ %92.6 9£Z'tL4 ZS£'6Z- 069'909 99L'409 %20.44 Z£6'66 01
VS (99929) $ %9'61- £68'189 $ 4LE'OEE $ 199'89 $ %40'9 9P9'99E $ 946'LS $ 206'0££ $ %20.9 642.80E 996'0Z- LlL'9ZE ZZ9'LL£ %96•S L9Z'4Z VS
30 (6E0'901) $ %2'91- ZLZ'999 S. E£Z'099 $ Z4S'L6 $ %2004 941'L49 $ 8ZL'04l $ LLO'L0S $ %EZ'6 90E'ZL4 916'91- 492'466 619'999 %LS'4l 869'49 00
OW(460'26) S %1-61- LE£'86Z $ E6Z'99Z $ OZ4'S4 S %L9'4 CLL.!.Oe $ 90V£9 $ L09'8tZ $ %25'4 L85'L£Z 698'84- 9S4'OSZ 9LZ'L9Z %9V9 605'64 OW
IW(L06'6ol) $ %Z'81- 494'SLS $ 4LS•OL4 S 969'99 $ %L9'8 696`eSS $ 694'49 $ 60S'ZL4 $ %09'9 191'044 986'9 9L 1'17E4 92Z'ZL9 %04'9 SZ6'6Z IN
01 (6Z9`6EZ) $ %9'61- 909'Z6Z'4 $ LS4'£00.4 $ 9LL.LL4 5 %LZ'84 9£6'09['1 $ £Z6'9LL $ 21.0'490'1 $ %9£'64 694'466 929'94- 909'600'4 06L'612'I. %9074 £S6'24' 01
OH(816'9Z) $ %Z'61- 9L1'844 $ 09L'64L $ PZZ'4Z $ %9L'Z 486'041. $ 004'91. $ 499'924 $ %6Z'Z 992'1.11. 999'9- Z£6'2Z4 Z£6'£Z4 %99'4 LPS'9 OH
19(69£`99) $ %1'Ll- 46L'6ZE $ L£4'£LZ $ 994'94 $ %9617 969'IZ£ $ SL9'4S $ OZO'L9Z $ %98-4 6EL.94Z 4L6•£ 59L'44Z L89`69Z %99'5 694'02 19
S3(896'69) S %L'91- 6'Z'99£ $ 46L'0ZE $ 0S8'95 $ %49'9 1.49.11E $ L94`84 S 4L4'6ZE $ %66'S 899.90E 164.14 L44`6SZ £98'8L2 %00'S 508'LL S3
03(938'68) S %L'61- 096'994 $ 9ZL'6S9 $ 449'99 $ %49'9 69L'ZZ4 $ £90'ZL $ 901'099 $ %92.9 L69'93£ 99L`91. 4.£6'60£ 41.5'94£ %£4'L EL 6.9Z 00
VO(Z£Z'Ef) $ %0'EL- SZ6'ZE£ $ £64'683 $ OSZ'49 $ %LZ'S £44'04£ $ £4£'89 $ OeVZ8Z S %£4'S 949'393 999 496'493 449'393 %4.0'9 ZZ4'IZ V0
1
uP/dn uPldn •qulslU _ q!lls10 uoiinglJislp •quls!p gils!p 9•dod gpis10-3.143 3m 33N41 of s
$ % SO 40 90 50 )I�oMia o> ssw ° ° 10 111 0J(0 540 Pols dod paniag
-- N gl1 4 h O /°SI- /°S8 to / Palsn(pV laN Palaime21 15101 10% •dod
91 100 1.1100 91 100 91 100 31 703 11103 OL 100 6 700 I 9 700 L '100 9 703 9 703 6 700 9 703 Z 700 1 700
— 081`1.64'9 5 lunowe-gpislp
-- — — LIZ'£L6 $ =spaaN 4a6pn8 IN ssal
—_-- —..- %9 I• %98 90-90 920'994`9 5 anuana,45404
—— — — I I 0EL'L $ enuanai bSM
---- I I i 96Z'3L $ salouenbullappano-fuus3
•
---- — I 000'98£'9 5 004p4 punt wail JalsueJl
- %91. =uopeIndod
I __I
I I 1 %49 =uo!le!n3.10
h 9/,(:0T .
fa of
C9) 5--i? z ___p?y --A 5)?//,D -4
04.1(kci j\,) g .
r
1
f
i
I(4E8`b) $ (9Z4'6ZZ) $ 1 b96'4Z0'L $ 1(56Z'17ZZ) $ 1 96L'9Z0'4 $ I 060'L5Z'4 $ daunoo
(bbL`L 4 4'L) $ 08L`46b'9 $ (PPL`L L 4`L) $ 08L'L6'17`9 $ EZS'609'9 $
__ ___ 8bb $ (9917179) $ 9Z9`91717 $ (EE6`b8) $ 9L1`81717 $ _01,4'££S $ AM
_ __ _.__[L9'9 $ (662.'18) $ 68E'6Z9 $ (OL£'b6) $ 84S`ZZS $ 884'2.49 $ 1M
L9b`4 $ (989`604) $ 8LE'6179 $ (Z90.1-LI-) $ 4 46`Lb8— — $ Z96`999 $ a1
_ 868'4 4 $ (1796'90 $ 606'1,17C $ (E89'L9) $ 4 4£`OEE --i £68`2.8£ $ vs
(80L) $ (9PL`904) $ 9Z5'6179 $ (6£0'904) $ EEZ'O99 $ LZ'999 $ 00
L 40`Z $ (E£0`017) $ b0£'85Z $ (17170'Zb) $ E6Z`99Z $ LE£`86Z $ 01/4
__ __ _ (1768`4) $ (408`904) $ 089'8917 $ (L06`b04) $ 17/.9`0L17 $ l8b'9L9 $ M
__ (91£`6) $ (506`8bZ) $ 482.'£66 $ (6Z9`6£Z) $ 2.54`£00`2. $ 989`Zt'Z`4 $ 01
(L817) $ (906'86 $ £LZ`644 $ (8447`9Z) $ 09L16 LL $ 9Ll`8174 $ OH
(EOL'4) $ (2.90`89) $ bCL'La $ (179£`99) $ LEb`ELZ $ L6L`6Z£ $ 10
(966'L) $ (59b'ZL) $ 961`ZLE $ (8917179) $ 46L'OZE _ $ 6PPZ'98£ $ 59
_- (448'9) $ (9£9'06) $ blE`E9£ $ (9Z9179) $ 9Z4'65E $ 056'£1717 $ 03
82.8`9 $ (179E`LE) $ LLO'96Z $ (ant) $ E6 L`68Z $ 9Z15''Z£E $ 'd0
oc aunt al ung pue Meal(luauno 0£aunt o)suoi;oa(oJdsilJsoieo .ieeA;uajmo Jean(Jepuaieo esn sp!sago SOOZ-pOOZ —
iepueleo ram um o;paredwoo sso- -- gi>>sip 90-50 oa paiedwoo sso-i quls!p 90-SO
dealt leosljgp- 'oJelnaar JeMlepualeas0-b0 SOOZ/8141. llI
90-50 uo suoistoap einuaioj snopen aNY uo!sioep "no wei6oid x�uu Jo �oedwt1
1
1
Impact of MIX program CUT decision AND various formula decisions on 0506
ill8/200ii t 04-05 calendar year regular 04-05 fiscal year
05-06 distrib Loss compared to 05-06 distrib Loss compared to diff b/w calendar
2004-2005 circa ills use calendar year current year cireslillsprojections to June 30 current year and run to June 30
CA_ $ 332,425 $ 289,193 $ (43,232) $ 295,071 $ (37,354) $ 5,878
Co $ 443,950 $ 359,125 $ (84,825) $ 353,314 $ (90,636) $ (5,811)
ES $ 385,249 $ 320,791 $ (64,458) $ 312,795 $ (72,455) $ (7,996)
GL $ 329,791 $ 273,437 $ (56,354) $ 271,734 $ (58,057) $ (1,703)
HO $ 148,178 $ 119,760 $ (28,418) $ 119,273 $ (28,906) $ (487)
LO $ 1,242,686 $ 1,003,157 $ (239,529) $ 993,781 $ (248,905) $ (9,376)
MI $ 575,481 $ 470,574 $ (104,907) $ 468,680 $ (106,801) $ (1,894)
MO $ 298,337 $ 256,293 $ (42,044) $ 258,304 $ (40,033) $ 2,011
OC $ 656,272 $ 550,233 $ (106,039) $ 549,525 $ (106,746) $ (708)
SA $ 387,893 $ 330,311 $ (57,583) $ 341,909 $ (45,984) $ 11,598
TC $ 658,962 $ 547,911 $ (111,052) $ 549,378 $ (109,585) $ 1,467
WL $ 617,188 $ 522,818 $ (94,370) $ 529,389 $ (87,799) $ 6,571
WV $ 533,110 $ 448,178 $ (84,933) $ 448,626 $ (84,485) $ 448
$ 6,609,523 $ 5,491,780 $ (1.117,744) $ 5,491,780 $ (1,117,744)
County $ 1,251,090 1 $ 1,026,796 1 $ (224.295)1 $ 1,021,964 1 $ (229,126)1 $ (4,831)
I
sra )O
_0.:3.
Circulation= 25% U el
Population= 75%
Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000 _,..mr;or,
I v. .,
C�-over(delinquenciet $ 72,296 Yc
\ _ 't
Mtn revenue $ 7,730 ?2 'r ,,, .
Total revenue $ 6,465,026 05-06 25%
less NT Budget Needs= $ 973,247
Distrib.amount $ 5,491,780
Y-Col.1 Col.2 Co/.3 Col.4 Cot 5 Cot.6 Cot.7 Cot.8 Col.9 Co/.10 Cot 11 Col. 12 Col 15 Col 16 Cot 17 Col 18
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 25% 75% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. _distribution Distrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,422 6.01% 296,740 296,740 855 297,595 5.43% $ 87,815 $ 291,566 $ 379,381 5.87% $ 57,112 $ 322,269 $ 332,425 -3.1% $ (10,156)CA
CO 26,473 7.43% 344,657 333,493 17,012 350,505 6.40% $ 103,428 $ 360,313 $ 463,741 7.17% $ 69,812 $ 393,929 $ 443,950 -11.3% $ (50,020)CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 273,290 273,290 47,491 320,781 5.86% $ 94,657 $ 242,336 $ 336,994 5.21% $ 50,731 $ 286,262 $ 385,249 -25.7% $ (98,987)ES
GL 20,159 5.66% 262,269 262,269 3,974 266,243 4.86% $ 78,564 $ 274,376 $ 352,939 5.46% $ 53,132 $ 299,808 $ 329,791 -9.1% $ (29,983)GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 125,196 125,196 -6,666 118,530 2.16% $ 34,976 $ 75,498 $ 110,474 1.71% $ 16,631 $ 93,843_ $ 148,178 -36.7% $ (54,335)HO
LO 42,953 12.06% 1,286,180 1,039,635 -18,636 1,020,999 18.64% $ 301,280 $ 584,615 $ 885,895 13.70% $ 133,363 $ 752,532 $ 1,242,686 -39.4% $ (490,153)LO
MI 29,925 8.40% 518,465 463,849 5,985 469,834 8.58% $ 138,640 $ 407,297 $ 545,937 8.44% $ 82,185 $ 463,751 $ 575,481 -19.4% $ (111,730)MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 275,018 275,018 -18,869 256,149 4.68% $ 75,585 $ 265,529 $ 341,114 5.28%4 $ 51,351 $ 289,763 $ 298,337 -2.9% $ (8,574) MO
OC 51.698 14.51% 597.030 522,773 -18,978 503,795 9.20% $ 148.662 $ 703,640 $ 852,301 13.18% $ 128,306 $ 723,996 $ 656,272 10.3% $ 67,724 OC
SA 21,287 5.98% 389,979 367,484 -16,572 350,912 6.41% $ 103,548 $ 289,728 $ 393.277 6.08% $ 59,204 $ 334,073 $ 387,893 -13.9% $ (53,820)SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 619,746 539.810 -29,352 510,458 9.32% $ 150,628 $ 679,604 $ 830,231 12.84% $ 124,983 $ 705,248 $ 658,962 7.0% $ 46,286 TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 611,769 533,827 14,342 548.169 10.01% $ 161.756_$ 350,554 $ 512,310 7.92% $ 77,123 $ 435,187 $ 617,188 -29.5% 5 (182,002)WL
WV 23,784 6.68% 488,102 439.576 23,738 463,314 8.46% $ 136,716 $ 323,714 $ 460,431 7.12% $ 69,313 $ 391,117 $ 533,110 -26.6% $ (141,993)WV
356,250 77.00% 6,086,442 4,614,832 5,477,284 82.12% $ 1,616,257 $ 4,848,770 $ 6,465,026 78.28% $ 973,247 $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
County 81,952 23.00% 1,089,599 998,499 -19,006 979,493 17.88% $ 289,032 $ 1,115,414 $ 1,404,447 1 21.72% $ 211,426 $ 1,193,021 $ 1,251,090 -4.6% $ (58,069)
100.00% 100.00% I 100.00% I
12/15/04 05-06 04-05 up/dn r
pop.sry . Circs are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly Total cities $ 4,298,759 $ 5,358,433 -19.8%
cert.date Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures Total county $ 1,193,021 $ 1,251,090 -4.6%
1/05/05 Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly Library distib. $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9% _
1 jkr NT budget is an estimate NT expense $ 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2%
Distribution 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. $ 6,465,026 $ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2nd week Mardi 20%
2nd week May 5% _
operating cost $ 933,247 $ 926,439 0.7%
Mix $ 141,000 100.0%
Capital expend $ - 1
Contingency $ 40,000 $ 53,915 -25.8%
$ 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2%
Circulation= 85%
Population= 15% _
Transfer from fund 100 I $ 6,385,000 _ -
7 _
Carly-overtdeilnquencie8 $ 72,296
_ Misc revenue _ $ 7,730 - T 1--
~_Total revenue $ 6.465,026 05-06 85% 15%
less NT Bud Needs= $ 973,247
-
Distrib.amount $ 5,491,780
Cot 1 Col-2 Cot 3 Cal.4 Cal 5 Col.6 Cot.7 Cot 8 Cal 9 CO. 10 Cot Col. 12 Col 15 Col 16 Col 17 Col 18
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted _ %of 85% 15% Gross_ %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC elm. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,422 6.01% 296,740 272,555 855 273,410 5.26% $ 289,050 $ 58,313 $ 347,364 5.37% $ 52,292 $ 295,071 $ 332,425 -11.2% $ (37,354) CA
CO 26,473 7.43% 344,657 308,493 16,766 325,259 6.26% $ 343,865 $ 72,063 $ 415,928 6.43% $ 62,614 $ 353.314 $ 443,950 -20.4% $ (90,636) CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 273,290 254,967 47,491 302,458 5.82% $ 319,760 $ 48,467 $ 368,228 5.70% $ 55.433 $ 312,795 $ 385,249 -18.8% $ (72,455) ES
GL 20,159 5.66% 262,269 246,701 3,974 250,675 4.82% $ 265,015 $ 54,875 $ 319,890 4.95% $ 48,156 $ 271,734 $ 329,791 -17.6% $ (58,057) GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 125,196 125,196 -6,666 118,530 2.28% $ 125,310 $ 15,100 $ 140,410 2.17% $ 21,137 $ 119,273 $ 148,178 -19.5% 5 (28,906) HO
LO 42,953 12.06% 1,286.180 1,014,635 7.18,636 995,999 19.16% $ 1,052,975 _$ 116,923 $ 1,169,898 18.10% $ 176,117 $ 993,781 $ 1,242,686 -20.0% $ (248,905) LO
MI 29,925 8.40% 518,465 438,849 5,985 444,834 8.56% $ 470,280 $ 81,459 $ 551,739 8.53% $ 83,059 $ 468,680 $ 575,481 -18.6% $ (106,801) MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 275,018 256,264 -18,869 237,395 4.57% $ 250,975 $ 53,106 $ 304,081 4.70% $ 45,776 $ 258,304 $ 298,337 -13.4% $ (40,033) MO
OC 51,698 14.51% 597,030 497,773 -18,978 478,795 9.21% $ 506,184 $ 140,728 $ 646,912 10.01% $ 97.386 $ 549,525 $ 656.272 -16.3% $ (106,746) OC
SA 21,287 5.98% 389,979 342,484 -16,572 325,912 6.27% $ 344,556 $ 57,946 $ 402,502 6.23% $ 60,593 $ 341,909 $ 387,893 -11.9% $ (45,984) SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 616,706 512,529 -29,352 483,177 9.30% $ 510,817 $ 135,921 $ 646,738 10.00% $ 97,360 $ 549,378 $ 658,962 -16.6% $ (109,585) TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 611,769 508,827 14,342 523,169 10.06% $ 553,096 $ 70,111 $ 623,207 9.64% $ 93,818 $ 529,389 $ 617,188 -14.2% $ (87,799) WL
WV 23,784 6.68% 486.102 414,576 23,738 438,314 8.43% $ 463,388 $ 64,743 $ 528,131 8.17% $ 79,505 $ 448,626 $ 533,110 -15.8% $ (84,485) WV
356,250 77.00% 6,083,402 4,612,551T 5,197,928 82.17% $ 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81.39% $ 973,247j$ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
1 i
County 81,952 23.00% 1,086,559 946,218 -19,252 926.966 17.83% $ 979,993 $ 223,083 $ 1,203,076 18.61% $ 181,111 $ 1,021,964 I $ 1,251,090 -18.3% $ (229,126) .
100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
12115/04 05-06 I 04-05 up/dn
pop.sry - Cires are finked to 04-05 actuals and will be updated monthly Total cities $ 4,469.815 $ 5,358,433 -16.6%
cert.date Pop served was updated Dec 15 2004 from PSI)figures Total county $ 1,021.964 $ 1,251,090 -18.3%
1f05105 Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly
Ow NT budget is an estimate Library distib. $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
- NT expense S 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2%
I
Distribution 2nd 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend. 5 6,465,026!$ 7,730,877 -16.4%
I 2nd week March 20% -
I- - 2nd week May 596 I - -
F _ operating cost $ 933,247 $ 926,439 0.7% j
_
1 Mix S 141,000 100.0%
- _---- I 1 -- _.- - - - - -- -
Capital expend $
Contingency $ 40,000 $ 53,915 -25.8%
_- -- $ 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2%
Circulation= 85%,
Population= 15% -
Transferfrom fund 100 I $ 6,385,000 I ,
Carry-over/delinquencleqr$c 72,296
l _
Misc revenue 7,730
Total revenue 8 6,465,028 .41114014,11'- 85% 15%
less NT Budget Needs m $ 973,247
I ( - --
Distrib.amount $ 5,491,780
_ Col. 1 Col,2 Col.3 Col.4 Cot 5 Cot 6 Cot 7 Col.8 Co/.9 Col. 10 _ Col 11 7 C . 12 Col 15 Co/16
Co!17 Col 18
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of85% 15% Gross %of J Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC circa Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distrib. Distrib. up/dn up/dn
CA 21,422 6.01% 282,614 261,961 865 262,816 5.13% $ 282,130 $ 58,313 $ 340,443 5.27% $ 51,250 $ 289,193 $ 332,425 -13.0% $ (43,232) CA
CO 26,473 7.43% 346,574 309,931 16,766 326,697 6.38% $ 350,706 $ 72,063 $ 422,769 6.54% $ 63,644 $ 359,125 $ 443,950 -19.1% $ (84,825) CO
ES 17,805 5.00% 278,863 259,147 47,491 306,638 5.99% $ 329,174 $ 48,467 $ 377,641 5.84% $ 56,850 $ 320,791 $ 385,249 -16.7% $ (64,458) ES
GL 20.159 5.66% 259,687 244,765 3,974 248,739 4.86% $ 267,020 $ 54,875 $ 321,895 4.98% $ 48,458 $ 273,437 $ 329,791 -17.1% $ (56,354) GL
HO 5,547 1.56% 123,932 123,932 -6,666 117,266 2.29% $ 125,884 $ 15,100 $ 140,984 2.18% $ 21,224 $ 119,760 $ 148,178 -19.2% $ (28,418) HO
LO 42.953 12.06% 1,279,740 1,009,805 -18,636 991,169 19.36% $ 1,064,012 $ 116.923 $ 1,180,935 18.27% $ 177,778 $ 1,003,157 $ 1,242,686 -19.3% $ (239,529) LO
MI 29,925 8.40% 512,235 434,176 5,985 440,161 8.60% $ 472.509 $ 81,459 $ 553,969 8.57% $ 83,395 $ 470,574 $ 575,481 -18.2% $ (104,907) MI
MO 19,509 5.48% 267,275 250.456 -18,869 231,587 4.52% $ 248,607 $ 53,106 $ 301,713 4.67% $ 45,420 $ 256,293 $ 298,337 -14.1% $ (42,044) MO
OC 51.698 14.51% 588,379 491,284 -18,978 472,306 9.23% $ 507,017 $ 140,728 $ 647,745 10.02% $ 97,512 $ 550.233 $ 656,272 -16.2% $ (106,039) OC
SA 21,287 5.98% 371,622 328,717 -20,468 308.249 6.02% $ 330,902 $ 57,946 $ 388,848 6.01% $ 58,537 $ 330,311 $ 387,893 -14.8% $ (57,583) SA
TC 49,932 14.02% 604,786 503,590 -29,352 474,238 9.26% $ 509,090 $ 135,921 $ 645,011 9.98% $ 97,100 $ 547,911 $ 658,962 -16.9% $ (111,052) TC
WL 25,756 7.23% 591,577 493,683 14,342 508,025 9.92% $ 545,360 $ 70,111 $ 615,471 9.52% $ 92,653 $ 522,818 $ 617,188 -15.3% $ (94,370) WL
WV 23,784 6.68% 476,580 407,435 23,738 431.173 8.42% $ 462,861 $ 64,743 $ 527,603_ 8.16% $ 79,426 $ 448,178 $ 533,110 -15.9% $ (84,933) WV
356,250 77.00% 5,983,864 4,537.898 I 5.119,063 82.06%1$ 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81.30% $ 973,247 $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
County 81,952) 23.00% 1,075,2921 937,4521 -19,2521 918.2001 17.94% $ 985,680 $ 223,083 J- 1,208,763 1 18.70% $ 181,967 $ 1,026,796 $ 1,251,090 -17.9% $ (224,295)
100.00% 100.00% _ 100.00%'.
12)15/04 L___ : - I -� 05-06 04-05 u do
____PP-sry Cires are modified to calendar year 2004-Jan 1 through Dec 31 _ Total cities $ 4,464,984 $ 5,358,433 -16.7%
cert.date Pop served was updated Jan 5 2005 from PSI)figures Total county $ 1,026,796 $ 1,251,090 -17.9% _
1/05(05 Net Ills are calendar year 2004 actuals Library distib $ 5,491,780 $ 6,609,523 -16.9%
jkr NT budget is an estimate? NT expense $ 973,247 $ 1,121,354 -13.2% .-
• D1sMbubon 2nd wk Jan 75% Total Expend $ 6,465,026 $ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2nd week March 20%
2nd week May 5%
operating cost $ 933,247 $ 926.439 0.7%
Mix $ 141,000 10LI0%
Capital expend $ -
Contngency S 40,000 $ 53,915 -25.8%
15 973,247 I$ 1,121.354 -13.2%
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA
Thursday,January 20, 2005
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, OR1
I. Call to Order
II. Introductions
III. Minutes
IV. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. 05-06 budget/distribution
1. PLC recommendation about possible mid-year changes to 05-06 distribution
formula—review comparison between calendar year and fiscal year circs
2. MIX issue—report and statistics from MIX study
3. LNIB recommendation re NT budget
B. Report from LNIB Process Committee—strategic planning after levy defeat
C. Other
V. Other comments—sharing news
VI. Next regular meeting—April 21, 2005
VII. Adjournment
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate.
LNIB Minutes
December 9, 2004
1:30 PM
! Library Network Office
Present: Beth Saul, CA ; Jon Mantay, CO ; Randy Ealy, ES ; Judy Ervin, GL ; Chris
Jordan, LO; Mike Swanson, Chair, MI ; Gene Green,MO ; Larry Patterson, OC ; George
Hoyt, SA ; Julia Corkett, WL; Pat Duke, WV
Alternates, guests,visitors,staff: Mark Adcock, CA, Doris Grolbert, Marlon Goebel,
Nancy Newton, CO; Joe Sandfort, Cynthia Sturgis, Tom Hogan Sue Trotter, Pat Lynch,
MI ; Eldon Lampson, MO; Jan Erickson, LO; Scott Archer, OC; Beth Scarth, SA ;
Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring NT.
Chair Mike Swanson called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
Minutes of the July 29 meeting were approved with the correction that Chris Jordan had
chaired the July meeting.
A. Review of levy election results:
Joanna reviewed the statistics. 42.3%Yes, 57.7%No. Library levies used to pay with
48,000 Yes votes and this time we got 78,000 yes votes and still lost. Out of 187
precincts, the levy passed in only 27. Only three precincts passed the measure with>
60% Yes votes.
Factors affecting the levy—possibly contributing to the defeat
• All the noise of the presidential election.
• Measure 36 and Measure 37 may have attracted fiscally conservative voters
• Lack of clear-cut message about consequences of no vote
• Confusion about safety net of$6.385 million
• Secretary of State strict guidelines may have discouraged library supporters
• Advocacy campaign only raised $43,000. The consultant told us that we needed at
least $150,000 to run a campaign able to punch through all the other election noise.
• Advice from consultant to base advocacy campaign locally in each community meant
a lack of visible advocacy campaign county-wide and variable results locally
Chris Jordan suggested that other county-wide or state-wide tax measures failed by much
larger margins than our library levy. There is an anti-tax feeling throughout Clackamas
County and throughout the state that is working against us and it makes it much harder to
get tax measures passed. George Hoyt commented that we registered so many new voters
this time and this may have hurt the cause and raised the bar higher for next election in
terms of turnout
B. LNIB priorities and budget - Mike Swanson asked Joanna to go over the NT budget
and highlight any LNIB concerns. Joanna presented the NT budget, clarifying that PLC
had already reviewed it and approved it, with one exception that PLC felt they needed
more information about MIX before deciding whether to continue the program.
ii
Joanna clarified that ther
p oposed NT budget contains little change with one exception.
In the absence of the levy(when NT planned to added 2-3 new full-time people), NT now
proposes to convert three part-time evening weekend support people to one full-time day
person. The combined salaries would cover the new salary cost. Our cataloging and ILL
software is being modified to a web-based interface, and because the software is
estimated to be 30%-40% slower, we cannot keep up with the current work-load. It is
also possible that we may approach the BCC with a request to upgrade our shared
computer system. If this is requested and approved, staff help in the day-time will
support all NT programs,particularly during migration.
After clarifying several questions and confirming that the Library by Mail program will
be the only one cut Joanna discussed the MIX payment. In FY 05-06, the MIX payment
to Multnomah County amount will be $161,000. It goes up every year according to a
25% cap. Judy Ervin asked whether we have any incoming money from MIX. Joanna
said that we will get about$9,000 in FY 05-06 from Washington Co. and Ft. Vancouver.
Joanna quickly reviewed the history of the MIX program. In past years, discussions about
whether the cost of MIX was affordable had caused LNIB to recommend cutting it from
the NT budget. At that time the BCC got involved and saved the program by allowing
libraries to raise the levy amount. Joanna also explained that if the program was
discontinued , those who wished to use other libraries out of county could purchase a card
for$75 annually.
Mike recognized that MIX is a program with a definite geographical bias. Several border
libraries find that it's in their interest to continue the service, the other libraries don't use
it and it's in their interest to not continue the payments. Mike remembers how the Metro
area tried hard to define itself as a region and for that reason there was an impetus to try
to work together on joint projects. There are issues beyond money in the MIX program.
Chris agreed with Mike that we need more information before making any decisions. It
seems like a waste to cut off a service that our citizens are using for a savings of less than
2% of the total library budgets in the county. Joanna will meet with MIX directors and
request printouts that reveal where their Clackamas patrons live and what they check out.
Mike asked if there were other issues besides MIX in the NT budget that people want
Joanna to come back with more information about.
Joanna suggested that the discussion of the formula might be an on-going issue.
Larry Patterson stated that there will be severe cutbacks in OC and fears that the
circulation model forces OC into a death spiral. He also raised the issue of the recent the
number of libraries we have in the county. He wondered, as did the mayors & managers
recently, whether it makes sense to keep all libraries open as is, or should we look at
consolidation or something to make our resources go further?
lLi
Mike stated that we seem to come back every couple p of years and talk about money. We
talk about a library system, but we don't always decide what we want the system to do.
Let's define what we want— serve many small units and only have them open a little?
Mike reminded LNIB that if we go to the voters with a SYSTEM funding message, we're
much better served than if we go with many community messages.
Jon agreed that he thought LNIB should pursue both the funding formula and the library
locations issues over the next year.
Mike appointed an LNIB Process Committee. Larry, Jan, Jon, George, Mike and Joanna
will convene before the next meeting to define the questions and the way we go about
answering those questions. They will try to design a process for getting to the answers of
the questions. Judy Ervin asked if the team will need to look at governance and Mike
confirmed that it should be on the table with everything else.
Joanna clarified that there is some urgency about having the formula discussion, as some
libraries are likely to make changes in January, and those changes could hurt their
circulation. Joanna agreed to make new distribution green sheets that would show
calendar year versus no freeze options.
Mike asked everyone to bring the latest information about their library cuts to the next
LNIB meeting. It still won't be carved in stone, but at least let's have our best guesses at
the next meeting.
There was no news/sharing.
Next LNIB meeting will be Thursday, January 20`", 1:30 pm at NT.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 pm.
Action:
Joanna will meet with MIX directors and request printouts that reveal where their
Clackamas CO patrons live and what they check out.
Joanna will facilitate the LNIB process committee start-up
LNIB members will bring latest info about Library cuts to next meeting.
Joanna agreed to make new distribution greensheets that would show calendar year
versus no freeze options.
ij
At the last LNIB meeting a small group was designated to look into the advisability of
new strategic thinking in light of the defeat of the County-wide Library Levy in November
2004. The impact of that defeat ranged from a 14.4% to a 23.2% reduction in County
funding of local libraries between the projections for FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. The group
looked at a number of issues. The first was to define the questions that should be
answered in order to make appropriate decisions:
STRATEGIC QUESTIONS
A. Currently LINCC is a loosely knit confederation of local libraries with some level
of funding from Clackamas County. Can we ever become a more unified library
system that has joint-responsibility to provide library service county-wide?
B. In your opinion, as m embers o f LNIB should we be primarily advancing the
interests of the library system in Clackamas County, or should we be primarily
advocating for formulas and strategies that benefit our own libraries?
C. Is a County Library one which is funded and operated by Clackamas County, or
does it include those libraries whose funding is 100%derived from the County?
D. Do we have the right number of libraries to serve the users effectively and
efficiently? Do we have the libraries located in the right places?
E Given the crisis in available library funding, do we still have the right number of
libraries, and are those libraries located in the right places?
F. Should fiscal maintenance of effort from cities be a requirement for obtaining
county funds for libraries? If so, how should it be defined and set?
The Process Committee learned things that may influence future decisions. They are:
POLITICAL I FINANCIAL REALITIES
• Projections for FY 2005-06 may with some comfort assume $6,385 million in
County funds. However, no certain amount is guaranteed beyond that date,
and the on-going a mount will depend o n the County's overall demands and
priorities. The only"guarantee"is that the amount will not increase.
• The question of creating a countywide district will not be placed on the ballot.
It is unlikely that we will see another county-wide library levy on the ballot
before 2010 as there are other County priorities that will now be given a chance
at the ballot. (Remember that every election costs the County$100,000.)
It is not safe to assume that funds saved from closing a County branch library
would be added to the amount available for distribution.
• There are almost an infinite number of"solutions"for providing library service in
Clackamas County that may be defined by changing govemance, structure,
and/or the allocation of funds.
LNIB Page 1 1/20/20054119/2005
The questions and the issues facing the libraries in Clackamas County admit to no easy
resolution. The system faces a present shortage of funds, a future in which funding will
most likely further decline, and many users placing demands on the facilities, staff and
funding that is available. In order to meet the challenges facing the system, the LNIB
Process Committee identified a few strategies, some of which were:
STRATEGIES/SOLUTIONS
aa. Do nothing and see what kind of library network, library service providers or
county-wide library service evolves over the next 5-7 years.
bb. Do nothing now, aim for a 2010 vote, and then see what kind of library
network, library service providers or county-wide library service emerges.
cc. Create a countywide library district on the east side (although at this point it
seems unlikely to be placed on a county-wide ballot),
dd. Define an affordable "standard" library for Clackamas County, determine how
many of these standard libraries can survive in the current funding crisis and
where they should be located and then fund only these from county funds.
ee. Define a minimal level of service that can be supported with available funds
and fund each library at that level, leaving any enhancement of that minimal
level to local city/county funding. County-wide funding to specific libraries
would continue only as long as the minimum level of service was being met.
ff. Close the County libraries, apportion the available County funds to each
remaining city library (based on either population served or assessed value),
and then reimburse cities for circs to unincorporated areas. Alternatively, the
funds realized from closing county libraries could be used only to reimburse
those libraries that actually began providing services/circs to residents of the
unincorporated areas. (Remember, however, that there is no guarantee that
the funds currently used to fund County libraries would become part of the
county-wide library funds)
gg. Leave the "west side" (Lake 0 swego, West L inn, and Wilsonville)a s is in
terms of I ocal governance, but attempt to create a centralized governance
authority for the east side, and distribute existing funds equitably.
The group has not defined an ideal strategy yet, or even a process for defining that ideal.
In the hopes of narrowing down some of the above options and clearing the way for
future planning, the Process Committee would be interested in your thoughts on the
above issues. To that end, would you please answer a few questions- unofficially? This
is not meant to be a scientific poll, nor any kind of commitment on behalf of your library
or city government so please be as honest as you can. We would like replies from both
a CEO/ City Manager/ Assistant City Manager, and the Library Director of each LNIB
member. Responses from elected officials who are informed about the issues are also
welcome.
LNIB Page 2 1/20/20051-4-9/2-4345
LNIB QUESTIONNAIRE
Please reply no later than February 4,2005. The questions are:
I
1. What questions—in addition to those listed (A-F) above—do you believe
require resolution or at least discussion by LNIB in order to chart a reasonable
future course?
2. Please provide brief answers (to the best of your knowledge) to questions A-F
above. It's OK to say"don't know", but please share your opinions!
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
3. Upon review of the strategies listed above (aa-gg) please list the strategy(ies)
you would prefer and why.
4. Please share any strategy or solution not listed above (aa-gg) that you feel
should be considered.
5. Assuming an eventual solution that would provide some level of library stability
and predictability, what would you be willing to give up in your jurisdiction, and
what would you absolutely need to retain in exchange for a solution?
6. Any other thoughts about how to resolve the issues facing the libraries in
Clackamas County? How would you ensure that your strategy/solution has a
reasonable chance of being implemented?
7. Please feel free to include any additional comments you might have.
LNIB Page 3 1/20/20051149/2-G05
• Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.33",
Hanging: 0.29"
I LNIB Page 4 1/20/20051/19/2005
j };O BSJOM AO OSJOM };O OSJOM - };O esiOMl
-- [ seueiq1.5 AJeigg auo - _seueJgll g saueJq'j L . -
£94%0 L $ � £LS'L9Z`L ti 5£9'E $ 15ZL'175Z`L $ , RAN (L L£) $ 611'052't $ I OSJOM (Eb8`£L) $ LtrZ'L£Z'l $ 060'49t4 $ I Aluno3
_ 1
EZ9'6O9'9 $ £9'609'9 $ ( £Z9'6O9`9 $ EZ5'609'9 $ _ £Z9'611$
AM;__ _ £6L17I $ VOW/VS $ 996'5 $ 9LO'1£5 $ _ 995 $ 999'££9 $ OSJOM (869'Z) $ £lb0£9 $ 04l'E£9 $ AM
1M 1749'9 $ Z09`9Z9 $ 1.9t $ 617£'119 $ 669'5 $ 8E9'ZZ9 $ 9£6`01 $ £Zl'9Z9 $ 894'LL9 $ 1M
31 6L9'01. $ 499'699 $ 965'1- $ 89£'099 $ L66'£ $ 696'Z99 $ £89`64 $, 9178'9L9 $ Z96'999 $ 01
VS OS9'04 $ EVd86E $ 917L'OL $ 0179'86£ $ esJOM (£Z5'8) $ LL£'6L£ $ eSJOM (5ZL`Z4) $ 69L'9L£ $ £68'L9£ $ VS
00 ZEZ'L 4 $ £09'L99 $ ELL'L $ 9170'899 $ 36V`£ $ £91'699 $ 9517`5 4 $ 8z2:119 $ ZL3'959 $ 00
OW OSJOM (6£17'8) $ 969'69Z $ 'ane' (ZZ9) $ SLL'L6Z 5 (SJoM (85014) $ 6LZ'178Z $ OSJOM (£64'172) $ P17l'17LZ $ L££'86Z $ OW
1W Z98'Z4 $ £90389 $ 68L'Z $ OLZ'8L9 $ 4£4'Z $ Z49'LL9 $ Z90`Z $ £99'LL5 $ 4917'919 $ IW
01 MOM(202'1£) $ 178t'SOZ`L $ OSJOM (£170`82) $ ZV9171Z'L $ JePeq £W£17 $ 960`992`l $ JaAeq Z5L'170 L $ LEV'Lt£'l $ 999'Zt' l $ 01
OH (6£5'04) $ 6£9'1£1 $ (8817'9) $ 069'4174 $ Z49'4 $ 069`6171 $ (VOL`8l) $ VLV'6Z4 $ 914'8174 5 OH
19 OSJOM (80l'L) $ E89'ZZ£ $ 6PL'L $ 0175'1££ $ OSJOM (Z60'ZL) $ 669`L4£ $ OSJOM (696'I' ) $ ZE8`17O£ $ 1.6L'6ZE $ 19
S3 OSJOM(99£'6) $ V69'9L£ $ 09t' I $ 60L'99£ $ MOM (610`8) $ OLI'LL£ $ OSJOM (MAO $ 960.175E $ 617Z'S9E $ S3
03 £OV'OL $ £9£17917 $ LZL'8 $ LL9'Z9V $ (0Z9'9) $ 0£4'8E17 $ (ZZO'94) $ 8Z6'107 $ 096'£V17 $ 00
Y3 asJoM(6V17'9) $ 9L6`9Z£ __ $ _ 99E'Z $ 41•9'4,££ $ asJOM (811'Z4) $ LVZ'DZE $ OSJOM (gSZ'17Z) $ OL4`80£ $ 9Z17'ZE£ $ d0
Aed%5L 1 ;ape' j Aed%SL pipes Sed%5L ;a43eJ S3JI3 Ile Aed I1n1 (%51PI00Z)
la4oe1)10017 IeuiJou Jano ;ape.'X100£ Ieuuou JOAO ;egoew�100L leuJJou JOAO 18438)OU _! )Ot1 J IeuJJou
_ SOOZ-1700Z 1+HIP gseo 500Z-170OZ 1+MP 4Se3 500Z-POOZ q+HIP 4Sea SOOZ-POOZ f SOOZ-VOOZ -
0 Ci.:\) J
Cli
(i)/
%Z'£l- 4S£'LZ1,'1 $ L4Z'£L6 S
%B'SZ- 916'£9 $ 000'04 5 Aoue8uguo0 -
$ Puedxe IePcleO -
%0'OOL 000'141. $ X!W
%L'0 6E4'9Z6 $ LtZ'EE6 $ ISO3 6ugatedo
- %S LeI leant Pug
%CZ
8M!RIZ
%° 11= %SL �, e f Am puZ uognq ria
VW- 119'0£1'1 $ 9Z0'S94'9 $ 'p0adx31e101
%e V' 4SE'LZL'L $ L43'£L6 $ asuadx91N a lew0seues!la6png1N Mr
%6'91- £ZS'609'9 $ 09L'L64'S 5 'gimp Awgll gluow e6uego UM pue suopae o.1•90-40 we sill ION SOISO/L
%03- 060'LSZ'L $ LZ8'881'L 5 Apinoo lelol saint%fSd way 400Z S L 390 palepdn sem Panus dod 91eP1Je3
%L"61- £E4'9SE'S $ £96'Z0E'4 $ SOW lelol Algluow paw..n eq mix pue sienpe 50-40 of pa>ful'ale sy!3 MS-.T
up.n SO-40 90790 Y0/94/Z4
%00-00L -%00-00 L %00"00 L
(49Z'Z9) $ %O'S- 060'LSZ'L $ LZ9'991'L $ Z99.0LZ S %S9'LZ 609'66£'1 $ VI.V'S LL'L $ S60'49Z $ %85'L1 E69'0L0'I• 900'61- 669'690'1 669'680'1, %1:10'£Z ZS6•L9 /ono
'
%6'91- 9'609'9 S 09L'164PZ'
'S S LEL6 S %S£'9L 9Z0'591'9 S OLL'969'b S LSZ'9L9'1 $
C. %M9 991'060'9 Z£9'41.9'4 244'990'9 %00 L1 O9Z'9SE
AM(EOZ'EjL) S %6W- 011'£ES $ 106'69C 5 660'69 5 %0l'L 900'694 $ 4LL'EZE $ Z6Z'9E1. $ %L£'9 049'609 9£L'EZ ZO1'994 ZOL'994 %99.9 49L'£Z AM
1M(ZLZ'9Ll S %6'92- 991'LL9 S 916'9£4 $ 49L'LL $ %66"L 00L'9tS $ 4SS'OS£ $ 961'991. $ %92'O1 LLL'9Z9 Z4£'41. 69L119 691'119 %£Z1, 9SL'SZ 1M
31 L14'19 S %9"L Z96'999 $ 61£'OLL $ E69'9ZL $ %46"Z1, ZLZ'9E8 S 409'619 $ 899'991 $ %69'6 66£'069 ZSE'6Z- 941'619 94L'619 %Z0'41. 2£6'64 31
VS (609'L9) S %6'61- £69'19£ $ 48Z'OEE $ EES'9S $ %10.9 919'89£ $ 8ZL'68Z $ 880'66 $ %£I.'9 L04'£L£ ZLS'9L- 616'69£ 616'69£ %86'S L9Z'LZ VS
OO E1L'1L S %6'01 ZU'999 5 9L0'8ZL $ 91.0'6Z 1, $ %9Z'£l EEO'L99 $ 049'£0L $ £6E'ESI $ %64'6 ZS0'9L9 9L6'91.- 0£0'169 OCO'L69 %19'41 969'LS 30
OW (140'91 S %03- LE£'96Z $ 962'£92 $ SOZ'OS 5 %91,"S L0S'E££ $ 6Z9'S9Z $ ZL6'L9 $ %lZ"4 641.'99Z 699'91- 910'912 9L0'SLZ %91' 609'61 ON
IN (0eZ'111) $ %5.61- L94'SLS $ L0Z'494 $ S9Z'Z9 $ %94'9 994'949 $ L6Z'L04 $ 691'6£L $ %19"9 0S4'4Z9 986'S 994'819 494'8;9 %04'9 SZ6'6Z IW
01 995'096 S %01,£- 999'Z1Z'L 5 OE£'Z9L $ E49'9£1 S %SZ 41, £L6'0Z6 $ SL9'499 $ 99£'9EE $ %W02 449'/92''. 9£9'91.- 09L'99Z'1. 091'982'1 %90'ZL ES6'Z4 01
OH LZC'LS S %i'9E- 911'941 5 198'06 $ 001'91 $ %9911 196'901 $ 964'9L S ESL,'LE $ %96"L 0£S'91L 999'9- 961'SZL 96L'SZL %94'1 L4S'S OH
10 COL'9E $ %1'11- L61'6ZE $ 990'E6Z $ 046'19 $ %4E'S 920'94£ $ 9LE'4LZ $ L99'01 $ %1,£'4 EtZ'99Z 416'£ 692'292 69Z'Z9Z %99"9 691'0? 19
S3 990'101 $ %BLZ- 64Z'S8E $ 491'8LZ $ 962'64 $ %L0•9 694'LZ£ $ 9£E'Z4Z $ EZI'S8 $ %LZ'S mem 1.64'L4 06Z'£LZ 06Z'ELZ %00'9 909'LL S3
03 E9E'99 S %L'Z1- 096'£44 $ L69'L9E $ 699'89 $ %901 982'9$6 $ EL£'09£ $ £16'96 $ %46'9 699'19£ ZLO'L1 199'44£ LS9'44£ %£4"1, £L4'9Z 03
V3 (01921 5 %E'9- 9Z4'Z££ $ 99L'4LE $ L9L'S9 $ %£L'9 9E9'0L£ $ 9991.6Z $ 016'81 $ %68'4 969'L6Z SS9 04L'96Z 04L'96Z %L0"9 ZZ4'LZ VO
upidn up.n •gplslO 'glitsl0 uognqulslP •g1J1s10 Anew MS•.•d comp]•*JI3 '3J10 3318 •31t3 2111 '3i!3 '3I0 Pius od PAS
$ % SO-40 90-SO voml9N qll 10% 590.19 %9/ %4Z 10% Pe1Sn(PV ) N POleLI0IeN Ielol 10% •,od
91100 Ll 103 91 103 91100 Z l 700 11 100 01 703 6 103 9 700 L 703 9100 9 703 4 700 E 100 Z 703 1 700
OBL'L64'S $ lunowe•gllisl0
14Z'E16 $ =SPOON la6png-
%992 %9L 90-90 9Z0'69409 5 anuaAaJ lelol
OSL'L $ anuaAai sslW
962'21 $ LapuanbullappeAo-weO
1
000i69f'9 5 not Pun}way JejsuP91
S %SL =uollelndod
%9Z =uollelno.g3
i\I --,.,‘ ,\ ,....-----
.))
(1111111.1111.11646. , / 5 1.2 (°)Cirr(514( . \........--,..r...•__ ..,,..
n
DRAFT
At the last LNIB meeting a small group was designated to look into the
advisability of system changes in light of the defeat of the County-wide Library
Levy i n November 2 004. The impact o f that defeat ranged from a 14.4% t o a
23.2% reduction in County funding of local libraries between the projections for
FY 04-05 and FY 05-06.
The group looked at a number of issues. The first was to define the questions
that should be answered in order to make appropriate decisions. Some of those
questions are:
-A. Is ours a de-facto county system with responsibility to provide some level- (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.29"
of service throughout Clackamas County, or is it a loosely knit confederation (Formatted:Bullets and Numbering )
of local libraries with some level of funding from Clackamas County?
14B. What should it be?
�?C. As members of LNIB should we be advancing the interests of the system
in Clackamas County, or should we be advocating for our individual libraries?
�D. Is a C ounty Library one which is funded and operated by C lackamas
County, or does the definition include those libraries whose funding is 100%
derived from the County?
r-E. Do we have the right number of libraries to serve the users effectively
and efficiently? Do we have the libraries located in the right places to serve
the users effectively and efficiently?
•PF_Given the funding that is available, do we have the right number of
libraries, and are those libraries located in the right places?
The g roup I earned a few things that are important i n making future decisions.
They are:
Projections for FY 2005-06 may with some comfort assume $6,385 million
in County funds. However, no amount is guaranteed beyond that date,
and an amount will depend on the County's overall demands and
priorities. The only"guarantee" is that the amount will not increase.
The question of creating a countywide district will probably not be placed
on the ballot.
It is unlikely that we will see a similar library levy neasure-to-that--which
was-just--defeated on the ballot before 2010 as there are other County
priorities that will now be given a chance at the ballot. (For both this and
the previous bullet,Uremember that every election costs the County
$100,000__
Page 1 of 4
i It is not safe to assume that funds saved from closing a County branch
library would be added to the amount available for distribution.
There is an infinite number of"solutions" that may be defined by changing
governance, structure, and/or the allocation of funds.
The questions and the issues facing the libraries in Clackamas County admit to
no easy resolution. The system faces a present shortage of funds, a future in
which funding will most likely further decline, and many users placing demands
on the funding that is available. In order to meet the challenges facing the
system, the group identified alternatives, some of which were:
Qaa. Do nothing and see what (and who) emerges. (Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25°
nbb. Do nothing now, aim for a vote in 2010, and see what (and who) (Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
emerges.
Create a countywide library district (an unlikely a Iternative since it will
not be placed on the ballot). Li-J
•E+dd. Define anthe "ideal" library (perhaps in relation t. .opulation determine
how many libraries could be supported and the best locations, and fund them
from the available resources.
.ee. Define a minimal level of service that can be supported with available
funds and fund each library at that level, I eaving any enhancement o f that
minimal level to local funding. County funding would continue only as long as
the minimum level of service was being met.
–ff. Close the County libraries, apportion the available County funds to each
remaining c ity library and the unincorporated area (population or assessed
value), transfer the amount allocable to each city, and reimburse cities for
circs to unincorporated areas. (Remember, however, that there is no
guarantee that the funds currently used to fund County libraries would - D
become part of the available funds.) f
•
-•g. Leave the "west side" (Lake Oswego, West Linn, and Wilsonville)SW
create a central governance authority for the east side, and equitably fun. all ve �,.rl.a't^^ 11-.64� 7
with available County funds. u,, {t.,tcreS
The group has not defined an ideal alternative or process for defining that ideal.
However, it would be interested in y our thoughts on the above issues. To that
end, would you please answer a few questions? Joanna will distribute this form
electronically, and your responses should he sent to her. The identity of all
respondents will be confidential—known only to Joanna. This is not meant to be
a scientific poll, but we would be interested in receiving responses from both the
chief appointed official (do you mean City Manager or LNIB rep – who is
sometimes the library director...?) and Llibrary Ddirector within each LNIB
member. Please reply no later than February 4, 2005. The questions are:
1. What questions—in addition to those listed in the second paragraph (A-
FJ above--do you believe require resolution in order to chart a reasonable
future course?
Page 2 of 4
2. Please out-line your proposed answers (to the best of your current
knowledge/opinion) to questions A-F above.For any-of--the-qucctions
listed in the second paragraph-above for-which-you-feel-a-resolution-is
+mpe#ont-what-ie-yol—answer? (Please identify the--puestion (s) y
answer-+ •
}
3 .Upon review of the solutions listed above (aa-qq) which solution(s would
your prefer and whyP-lease define any sobs)-that-you-strongly-feel
should-bc con-side-red-but is not listed is the fourth-par-agraph above,,.
4. Please define any solution not listed above (aa-qg) that your feel should
be considered.
Formatted:Indent:Left: 0,33" j
5. Assuming an eventual solution that would provide some level of library
stability and predictability, what would you be willing to give up in your
jurisdiction, and what would you absolutely need to retain in exchange for a
solution?
Any other thoughts about how to resolve How-would-you :,olve the- I Formatted: Indent:Left: 0.33"
issues facing the libraries in Clackamas County? How would you ensure that I Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
your solution has a reasonable chance of being implemented?
Page 3 of 4
6-7. Please feel free to include any additional comments you might have. • LFormatted:Indent:Left: 0.33"
IFormatted:Bullets and Numbering j
Page 4 of 4
Summary of out-of- county library use by Clackamas County residents in2004
Multnomah County Library Washington County Libraries 1Fort Vancouver Regional Library
Clack Co citizens using MCL %of total Clack Co citizens using WCCLS I %of total Clack Co citizens using FVRL , %of total
MCL cards 1 WCCLS cards - -
- FVRL cards
Some Boring residents 613 8.56% Some Boring residents 4 1.63%
Brightwood residents 35 0.49% _ Brightwood residents 1 0.41%
Clackamas residents 725 10.12% Clackamas residents _ 18 5.75% Clackamas residents 31 12.65%
Damascus residents 14 0.20% -- -
Government Camp residents 4 0.06% -
Happy Valley residents 14 0.20% - --
Oak Grove residents 21 0.29% Oak Grove residents1 _ 0.41%
Rhododendron residents 38 0.53% Rhododendron residents _ - 1 0.41°A;
Welches residents 66 _ 0.92% Welches residents 1 0.32%
Zig Zag residents 8 0.11%
Total County service areas 1538 21.47% 'Total County service areas 19 6.07% Total County service areas 38 15:51%
Canby residents 123 1.72% Canby residents 8 2.56% Canby residents 14 5.71%
Estacada+ Eagle Creek res. 198 2.76% Estacada+Eagle Creek res. 3 0.96% Estacada+ Eagle Creek res. _ 9 _3.67%
Gladstone residents 164 2.29% Gladstone residents 4 1.28% Gladstone residents 16 6.53%
Lake 0+ Lake Gr.+Marylhurst 1321 18.44% Lake 0+ Lake Gr.+Marylhurst 185 59.11% Lake 0+Lake Gr.+Marylhurst _ 25 10.20%
Milwaukie residents 1350 18.85% Milwaukie residents 16 5.11% Milwaukie residents 52 21.22%
Molalla+Colton+Mulino res. 96 1.34% Molalla+Colton+ Mulino res. 6 1.92% Molalla+Colton+Mulino res. 9 3.67%
Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 552 7.71% Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 13 4.15% Oregon City+Beavercreek res. 39 15.92%
Sandy+some Boring residents 1248 17.42% Sandy+some Boring residents 2 0.64% Sandy+some Boring residents 18_ 7.35%
West Linn residents 453 6.32% West Linn residents 33 10.54% West Linn residents _ 221 8.98%
Wilsonville residents 120 1.68% Wilsonville residents I 24 7.67% Wilsonville residents 3 1.22%
Total Clack.City service areas 5625 78.53% Total Clack. City service areas 1294 93.93% Total Clack. City service areas 2071 84.49% 1
1538 f 19 -- --- 38
Total MCL library cards 7,163 100.00% Total WCCLS library cards 313 100.00% Total FVRL library cards 245 100.00%
NB:total library cards=total out-of-county library cards used by Clack Co residents in calendar 2004 at least once
1/06/06jkr I I I I - }-
What Clackamas borrowers check out from Multnomah County Library (snapshot) --
Adult FIC Adult NON Adult AV Juv FIC Juv NON Juv AV
FIC LP For. NON LP For. CASS CD VID DVD FIC LP For. GN NON For. CASS CD VID DVD
CA checked out 10 1
owned 5
CO checked out 21 1 45 1 2 7 7 8 5 29 1 8 2 5 7 2
owned 16 1 28 4 4 6 4 28 1 8 1 2 6 2
ES checked out 1 15 2 1 3
owned 1 8 2 1 3
GL checked out 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
owned 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
HO checked out 3 1 1 1 1
owned 2 1 1 1 1
LO checked out 12 72 5 14 7 1 18 1 7 2 3 2 2
owned 9 35 4 4 3 1 17 5 2 2
MI checked out 11 3 71 1 2 25 15 3 24 1 7 1 2 2 5
owned 11 3 44 15 10 2 19 7 1 2 2 3
MO checked out 16 1 7 1 4 3 1
owned 10 1 2 1 4
OC checked out 10 46 1 5 4 5 5 1 1 1
owned 8 18 3 3 2 3 1 1
SA checked out 4 18 1 1 5 2 1 8 10 1 1
owned 4 9 3 2 8 9 1
TC checked out
owned
WL checked out 4 14 4 1 3 1
owned 4 5 2 3
WV checked out 2 7 3 2 1 1 1
owned 2 3 2 1 1 1 1
Adult FIC Adult NON Adult AV Juv FIC Juv NON Juv AV
FIC LP For. NON LP For. CASS CD VID DVD FIC LP For. GN NON For. CASS CD VID DVD Totals
checked out 66 4 0 322 1 5 20 70 41 18 94 1 _ 0 8 39 2 4 12 13 10 730
TOTAL owned 56 4 0 169 0 0 12 36 27 12 85 1 0 1 34 0 3 5 11 8 464
% 85% 100% 0% 52% 0% 0% 60% 51% 66% 67% 90% 100% 0% 13% 87% 0% 75% 42% 85% 80% 64%
%of total 9% 1% 0% 44% 0% 1% 3% 10% 6% 2% 13% 0% 0% 1% 5% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 7571 tiovi
_____
Li:
--\\7,)
I ) Y 0 I
Impact of MIX program CUT decision AND various formula "freeze" decisions on 05-06
1106/05 jkr half year circs circs all year 1st half doubled
05-06 distrib Loss compared to 05-06 distrib Loss compared to diff biw Jan and I05-06 distrib Loss compared to diff blw Jan and
2004-2005 MIX out freez Jan current year MIX out freez July current year July freeze date I Mix out freez Jan current year July freeze date
CA $ 332,425 $ 294,875 $ (37,550) $ 295,504 $ (36,921) $ (629) $ 295,151 $ (37,274) $ (353)
Co $ 443,950 $ 356,184 $ (87,766) $ 354,050 $ (89,900) $ 2,134 $ 343,688 $ (100,261) $ (10,361)
ES $ 385,249 $ 313,424 $ (71,825) $ 307,633 $ (77,617) $ 5,792 $ 298,167 $ (87,082) $ (9,466)
GL $ 329,791 $ 265,981 $ (63,810) $ 272,130 $ (57,661) $ (6,150) $ 270,310 _
$ (59,481) $-_ 11,820)
HO $ 148,178 $ 107,718 $ (40,460) $ 120,313 $ (27,865) $ (12,595) $ 119,181 $ (28,997) $ (1,132)
LO $ 1,242,686 $ 962,269 $ (280,417) $ 995,357 $ (247,329) $ (33,088) $ 1,001,977 $ (240,709) $ 6,620
MI $ 575,481 $ 484,854 $ (90,628) $ 468,543 $ (106,938) $ 16,310 $ 473,620 $ (101,861) $ 5,077
Mo $ 298,337 $ 258,712 $ (39,625) $ 257,809 $ (40,528) $ 903 $ 269,290 $ (29,047) $ 11,481
oc $ 656,272 $ 559,689 $ (96,583) $ 548,337 $ (107,935) $ 11,351 $ 561,978 $ (94,294) $ 1_3,641
8A _ $ 387,893 $ 348,725 $ (39,168) $ 342,425_ $ (45,469) $ 6,301 $ _343,031 $ (44,862) $ 607
TC $ 658,962 $ 553,788 $ (105,174) $- 550,142 $ (108,820) $ _ 3,646 $ $ (98,331) $ 10,489
WL $ 617,188 $ 531,338 $ (85,850) $ 530,217 $ (86,971) $ 1,121 $_ _5 521,294 $ (95,894) $ (8,923)
wv $ 533,110 $ 454,223 $ (78,887) $ 449,319 $ (83,791) $ 4,904 $ 433,461 $ (99,650) $ (15,859)
$ 6,609,523 $ 5,491,780 $ (1,117,744) $ 5,491,780 $ (1,117,744) I $ 5,491,7801 $ (1,117,744)1
$ -
I - I
- l
County $ 1,251,090 1 $ 1,017,690 $ (233,400)` $ 1,024,505 $ (226,585) $ (6,815)I $ 1,023,501 $ (227,590) $ (1,004)
[ 1 f 1 i
TY\ 1 (‘
iiT.._
Impact of MIX program NO CUT decision AND various formula "freeze" decisions on 05-06
half year circs circs all year 1sf half doubled
05-06 clistrib Loss compared to 05-06 distrib Loss compared to dill b/w Jan and 05-06 distrib Loss compared to diff b/w Jan and
2004-2005 MIX in freez Jan current year MIX in freez July _ _ current year I July freeze date Mix In freez Jan current year July freeze date
CA $ 332,425 $ 286,231 $ (46,195) $ 286,841 $ (45,584) $ (610) $ 286,498 $ (45,927.21) $ (342.74)
i Co $ 443,950 _ $ 345,742 $ (98,208) $ 343,670 $ (100,279) $ 2,071 $ 333,613 $ (110,336.99) $ (10,057.64)
ES $ 385,249 $ 304,236 $ (81,014) $ 298,614 $ (86,635) $ 5,622 $ 289,425 $ (95,823.67) $ (9,188.35)
GL $ 329,791 $ 258,183 $ (71,608) $ 264,153 $ (65,638) $ (5,969) $ 262,386 $ (67,405.48) $ (1,767.05)
HO $ 148,178 $ 104,560 $ (43,618) $ 116,786 $ (31,392) $ (12,226) $ 115,687 $ (32,491.27) $ (1,098.93)
LO $ 1,242,686 $ 934,058 $ (308,627) $ 966,176 $ (276,509) $ (32,118) $ 972,602 $ (270,083.32) $ 6,425.88
MI $ 575,481 $ 470,639 $ (104,842) $ 454,807 $ (120,674) $ 15,832 $ 459,735 $ (115,745.88) $ 4,927.75
MO $ 298,337 $ 251,128 $ (47,209) $ 250,251 $ (48,086) $ 877 $ 261,396 $ (36,941.49) $ 11,144.60_
oc $ 656,272 $ 543,281 $ (112,991) $ 532,262 $ (124,010) $ 11,019 $ 545,503 $ (110,768.83) $ 13,241.12
SA $ 387,893 $ 338,502 $ (49,392) $ 332,386 $ (55,508) $ 6,116 $ 332,975 $ (54,918.77) $ 588.73
. rc $ 658,962 $ 537,553 $ (121,410) $ 534,014 $ (124,948) $ 3,539 $ 544,196 $ (114,766.78) $ 10,181.61
WL $ 617,188 $ 515,761 $ (101,427) $ 514,673 $ (102,515) $ 1,088 $ 506,012 $ (111,176.49) $ (8,661.36)
wv $ 533,110 $ 440.907 $ (92,204) $ 436,147 $ (96,964) $ 4,760 $ 420,753 $ (112,357.33) $ (15,393.63)
$ 6,609,523 $ 5,330,780 $ (1,278,744) $ 5,330,780 l $ (1,278,744) I $ 5,330,780 I $ (1,278,743.50)
County $ 1,251,090 ' $ 987,854 $ (263,236), $ 994,470 I $ (256,620) $ (6,616)1 $ 993,495 ! $ (257,595) $ (975)
1/06/05 jkr I
V. 0t4'
co� � VI ;S`^
ll 7 ►2•D
sl" f
-J"' .1"'M
CA CO
N.,..,..________7o__---'''---p ji.i.iu,
a�
IV\ 1
8 1 1 V i
a C. �� 0
Impact of MIX program BILLED BACK decision AND various formula "freeze" decisions on 05-06
05-06 distrib Loss compared to I 05-06 distrib Loss compared to diff blw Jan and
2004-2005 MIX billed freez Jan I current year MIX billed freez July current year July freeze date
CA $ 332,425 $ _ 292,525 $ (39,901) $ 293,154 $ (39,271) $ (629)
co $ 443,950 $ 356,212 $ (87,738) $ 354,075 $ (89,875) $ 2,137
ES $ 385,249 $ 309,414 $ (75,836) $ 303,614 $ (81,635) $ 5,800
GL $ 329,791 $ 262,668 $ (67,123) $ 268,826 $ (60,965) $ (6,158)~
Ho $ 148,178 $ 105,262 $ (42,916) $ 117,874 $ (30,304) $ (12,613)
LO $ 1,242,686 S 933,927 $ (308,758) $ 967,062 $ (275,624) $ (33,134)
MI $ 575,481 S 455,190 $ (120,291) $ 438,857 $ (136,624) $ 16,333
Mo $ 298,337 S 256,918 $ (41,419) $ 256,013 $ (42,324) $ 905 _
oc $ 656,272 S 548,067 $ (108,205) $ 536,700 $ (119,572) $ 11,367 _
8A $ 387,893 S 321,164 $ (66,730) $ 314,854 $ (73,039) $ 6,310
TC $ 658,962 $ 523,075 $ (135,887) $ 519,425 $ (139,538) $ 3,651
WL $ 617,188 5 521,901 $ (95,287) $ 520,779 $ (96,409) $ 1,122
wv $ 533,110 S 452,163 $ (80,947) $ 447,253 $ (85,858) $ 4,911
$ 6,609,523 $ 5,338,486 $ (1,271,038) $ 5,338,486 $ (1,271,038) _
County $ 1,251,090 $ 984,549 $ (266,541)1 $ 991,374 I $ (259,717)$ (6,825)
1106105 jkr MIX share %of MCL use -$ 2.765 1.72%
$ 472 0.29%
$ 4,450 2.76%
$ 3,686 2.29% �
_ $ 2,607 1.62%
$ 29,692 18.44%
$ 30,343 18.85%
$ 2,158 1.34%
$ 12,407 7.71%1
$ 28,051 17.42%
$ 31,490 19.56% -- --$ 10,182 6.32% - - - -
_ $ 2,697 1.68% - - --`
$ 161,000 100.00% I --- - ---
34,569 21.47% ! ~-- --- --
J
1
i 1 t
L 4A4- 4 el ati4"4-
0 • .4ie" ti.
I,—, �s ,P1-
Goer v,r
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD -d
AGENDA �,v tiL
Thursday,January 15,2004 ,i I A d w / �K -
w
1:30 p.m. U` G U,M '&U
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, OR
I. Call to Order X 111�+
4 47 6
II. Introductions Iti ! U S L I ,,v✓ �' .
III. Minutes 1 1b44 `�
`
IV. Action/Decisions/Presentations WW (.113'
A. Estacada Library District presentation-David Bugni,Estacada 1-..--
%. Library Levy planning update-Jon Mantay LA'
C. WeLL (We Love Libraries) report
D. Library-Network budget �)
E. Other
V. Other comments-sharing news
VI. Next meeting-April 15, 2004
VII. Adjournment
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate. 1
vb .w-f .
Z0
Cs •-•7 +k"'°'[� b0,4.-61;
u row c,f,,„*t- e�
11" 0$0617:4...
� ��,.. (
ve
bi, 4-44s-
'VA
/ ni, 0
„,„„,,,-.....,o6a- _.e...tec f-f0-. v i I ‹tp,c..,‘.... - 1
• C witiP
V. I
dr
5
• Vises i lat
A,12,tu LQ1,11 ect.4.6s1. _) _ 0 5 -0 (2
cc
`DI 5-Ii10. it,/‘
, o
Circulation= 85%/
Population= , 15%
Transfer from fund 106($ s,000,000 I f
I New levy revenue $ 7,760,023
MIsc revenue
e elinquenci $ 100,000
Mist re $ 30,0011 j
Total revenue ' $ 12,890,023 05-06 85% 1 15%
•less NT Budget Needs' $ 2,245,989 1
Mess reserve for futre' $ 602,034 �11 jf
iDistrib.amount $ 10,042,000 ii
3 r TJ2
Cal. 1 Col.2 I Cot 3 1 Co 4 Cal.5 Cot 6 I Col. 7 Col.8 j Col.9 Col. 10 Co!11 Clo. 12 1 Cui 13 Cot 14 Co!15 I Co!16 , Col 17
Pop. %of Total Rat heted Ne Adjusted %of 85% 15% Gross %of base refund NT budget PLUS Vafua recd 05-06 04-05
Served Pop.srvd Circ. irc. IL - Circ. LINCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distributior from AV future savings from l b faxes Distrib. Distrib. upfdn
CA 21,628 5.99% 259,250 244,437 -'.872 234,566 4.39% $ 375,017 $ 90.254 $ 465,271 4.63% $ .384,956 $ 131,956 5 597,226 $ 465,211 $ 314,544 47.9% CA
CO 26,586 7.37% 362,907 322.180 381 339,561 6.36% $ 542,880 $ 110,944 $ 653.824 6.51% $ 185,432 $_ 839.256 5 653,824 $ 443,420 47.5% CO
ES 18,111 r ' r 257,828 .0,363 308,191 5.77% $ 492,727 $ 75,578 $ 568,304 5.66% $ 63,870 $ 161,177 $ 729.482 $ 568.304 $ 382,074 48.7% ES
GL 19,891 251,139 4,208 255,347 4.78% $ 408,242 $ 83,005 $ 491,247 4.89% $ 282,636 S 139.323 5 630,570 5 491,247 $ 329,385 49.1% GL
HO 5,559 • • -4,443 124.849 2.34% $ 199,605 $ 23,198 $ 222,803 2.22% 6 63,189 5 285.993 5 222.803 $ 147,712 50.8% HO
LO 43,526 r.' 1,4812 1,161,486 -9.701 1,151,785 21.57% $ 1,841.441 $ 181.634 $ 2,023,075 20.15% $ 1,984,074 $ 573,767 5 2,59`6,842 $ 2,023,075- $ 1,291,265 56.7% LO
MI 30,201 8.37% o4b,275' ` I 29,345 489,051 9.16% $ 781,881 $ 126,028 $ 907,909 9.04% $ 651,600 $ 257,493 $ 1,165.402907, 09 $ 603,017 50.6% MI
MO 19,872 5.51% 254,520 240,800 -7,347 233,543 4.37% $ 373,382 $ 82,925 $ 456,306 4.54% $ 141,945 $ 129.414 $ 585,720 $ 456,306 $ 303,592 503% MO
OC 53,089 14.71% 552,871 46.4,653 -10,355 454,299 8.51% $ 726,320 $ 221,541 $ 947.860 9.44% $ 722,224 5 268,824 $ 4216,684 $ 947,860 $ 645,507 46.8% 00
SA 21,549 5.97% 372,949 329,711 -17,175 312,536 5.85% $ 499,674 $ 89,926 $ 589.600 5.87% $ 181,281 $ 187,217 5 756,817 $ 589,600 $ 379,026 55.6% SA
TC 50.987 14-13% 606,246 504,685 -30,012 474.673 889% $ 758.893 5 212,768 $ 971,661 9-68% $ 275,574 $ 1,247,234 5 971,661 $ 648,277 49.9% TC
WL 26,118 724% 626,882 520.161 -3,239 516.923 9.68% $ 826.441 5 108,991 $ 935,432 9.32% $ 1,056.055 5 265,299 S 1,200.731 5 935,432 $ 608,231 53.8% WL
WV 23,846 661% 508,546 431.409 12,180 443,590 8.31% $ 709,198 $ 99,509 $ 808,708 8.05% $ 664,1.16 $ 229,359 $ 1,038,066 $ 808,708 $ 507,629 593% WV
360,964 76.97% 6,247,009 4,735,256 5,338,914 82.41% $ 8,535,700 $ 1,506,300 $ 10,042,000 81.59% $ ' 6;152,687 5 2'.848.023 $ 12,890,023 $ 10,042,000 $ 6,603,680 52.1%
I 1 1
Courtly 83.1321 23.03% 1,098,4461 956,1571 -17,0741 939,0831 17.59%1 $ 1,501,379 1$ 346.910 1$ 1,848,288 18.41% $ 6,954,000 I I $ 1,848,288 $ 1,239,409 49 1%
' 100.00% - 100.00%' 100.00%
12/15/04
----
pup.sry 'fires are based on prior year projections I $ 2,245,989 05-06 04-05 up/dn
cell date Pop served is based on long-range projections-will he updated each December ' f 1 $ 602,034 $ 8,193,712 $ 5,364,271 52.7% l
1/15/2004ikNet Ills are 03.04 projections,not projected further $ 2,848,023 I $ 1,848,288 $ 1,239,409 49.1% ;
I $ 10,042,0001$ 6,603,680 I 52.1%
04.--)
NIT b.tusei- Ack3,c(coct
,),4" il
tl
Circulation= 85%
Population= 15% I
!Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000 •
New levy revenue $ I _ _
Carry-overldelinquencli' $ 100,000 I
Misc revenue $ 30,000 - - --. _ -_--_ _-____ -
Total revenue I $ 6,515,000 ! 05-06 85% 15%
less NT Budget Needs= $ 1,200,000 _-.___
less reserve for future $
Distrib.amount $ 5,315,000 -_.-_- __
Col. 1 1 Cot 2 I Col.3 ; Col 4 Col.5 , Cot 6 Co/.7 Col 8 Col 9 Col. 70 Col 11 Col 12 Col 13 col 1.1 Col 15 Col 16 - Co117
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% 15% Gross %of base refund NT budget PLUS Value recd 05-06 04-05
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. LINCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distributioi from AV future savings from lib taxes Distrib. Distrib. upldn
CA 21,628 5.99% 259,250 244,437 -9,872 234,566 4.39% $ 198,488 $ 47,769 $ 246,257 4.63% $ 139,023 5 55,599 $ 301,856 $ 246,257 $ 314,544 -21.7% CA
rCO 26,586 7.37% 362.907 322,180 17,381 339.561 6 36% $ 287,334 $ 58,720 $ 346,054 6.51% • $ 78,131 $ 424,185 5 346,054 $ 443,420 -22.0% CO
IES 18,111 5.02% 277.103 257,828 50,363 308,191 5.77% $ 260.789 $ 40,002 $ 300,790 5.66% $ 31,370 S 67,911 $ 368,702 $ 300,790 $ 382,074 -21.3% ES
GL 19,891 5.51% 268,186 251,139 4,208 255,347 4.78% $ 216,073 $ 43,932 $ 260,006 4.89% 5 138,818 $ 53,703 5 378,709 $ 260,006 $ 329,385 -21.1% GL
110 5,559 1 54% 129,292 129,292 -4,443 124,849 2.34% $ 105.647 $ 12,278 $ 117,925 2.22% 5 26,625 5 144,549 $ 117,925 $ 147,712 -20.2%1110
LO 43,526 1206% 1,481,982 1,161,486 -9,701 1.151,785 21.57% $ 974,632 $ 96,135 $ 1,070,767 20.15% 5 974,486 $ 2.1,754 $ 1.312521 $ 1.070,767 $ 1,291,265 -17.1% LO
MI 30,201 8.37% 546,275 459,707 29,345 489,051 9.16% $ 413,832 $ 66,704 $ 480,536 9.04% $ 320,036 5 108,493 $ 589,029 $ 480,536 $ 603,017 -20.3% MI
MO 19,872 5.51% 254,520 240,890 -7.347 233,543 4.37% $ 197,622 $ 43,890 $ 241,512 4.54% 9 69.717 $ 54,528 $ 296,040 $ 241,512 $ 303,592 -20.4% MO
OC 53,089 14.71% 552.871 464,653 -10,355 454,299 8.51% $ 384,424 $ 117,257 $ 501,681 9.44% $ 354,723 $ 113,268 S 614,948 $ 501,681 $ 645,507 -22.3% OC
SA 21,549 5.97% 372,949 329,711 -17,175 312,536 5.85% $ 264,466 $ 47,596 $ 312,061 5.87% 4 89,037 $ 70,456 $ 302,518 $ 312,061 $ 379,026 -17.7% SA
TC 50,987 14.13% 606,246 504.685 -30,012 474,673 8.89% $ 401,665 $ 112,613 $ 514.278 9.68% $ 116.112 5 630..789 S 514,278 $ 648,277 -20.7% TC
WL 26,118 7.24% 626,882 520,161 -3,239 516,923 9.68% $ 437,416 $ 57,686 $ 495,102 9.32% $ 518.686 $ 111,782 5 606,885 5 495,102 $ 608,231 -18.6% WL
WV 23,846 6.61% 508,546 431,409 12,180 443,590 8.31% $ 375,362 $ 52,668 $ 428,030 8.05% $ 336.021 5 96,639 5 524.669 $ 428,030 5 507,629 -15.7% WV
360,964 76.97% 6,247,009 4.735,256 5.338,914 82.41% $ 4.517,750-$ 797,250-$ 5,315.000 81.59% S 3,021,917 S 1.200.000 S 0.515,000 5 5,315,000 $ 6,603.680 -19.5%
County' 83.132 23.03% 1,098,4461 956,1571 -17.0741 939,0831 17.59%I$ 794,645 I. 183,611 I$ 978.2571 18.41% $ 8054,0001 I - $ 978,2571$ 1,239,409 -21.1%
12115104 100.00% I 100.00% 1 100.00%
pop.am Circa are based on prior year projections $ 1 200 000 05-06 04-05 I upldn _
cert.date I Pop served is based on long-rangeprojections-will be updated each h December $ $ 4,336,743 $ 5,364,271 -19.2%
1115(2004 eprojected Ills are 03-04 projections,not further $ 1,200,000 ( $ 978,257 $ 1,239 409 -21.1
jkr - - - - t -
$ 5,315,000 I$ 6,603,680 i -19 5%
MINUTES
Library Network Intergovernmental Board
October 16, 2003
2:00pm
Present: Marlin Goebel, CO ; Randy Ealy, ES ; Judy Ervin, GL ; Chris Jordan, LO ; Mike
Swanson, MI ; Mara Scantlebury, MO ; Alice Norris, OC ; George Hoyt, SA ; Pat Duke, WV ;
Jon Mantay, Commissioner Sowa, Commissioner Kennemer, Commissioner Schrader
Guests/Staff: Joanna Rood, Jeff Ring, NT ; BJ Smith, Clackamas County ; Doris Grolbert, CO ;
Felix Gurley-Rimberg, ES ; Catherine Nicolas, GL ; Jan Erickson, LO ; Cynthia Sturgis, MI, Joe
Sandfort, MI, Tom Hogan, MI ; Debbie Dodd, OC, Larry Patterson, OC ; Beth Scarth, SA ;
Arlene Lobel, WV, Charlotte Regan, WV,Ray Cooper, WV.
Meeting called to order at 2:00pm. The meeting began with introductions around the table.
Minutes: Reviewed minutes, amended to reflect that Mike Swanson was present at the last
meeting. Moved by George Hoyt, seconded by Alice Norris, to accept the minutes as amended.
Motion carried.
Actions/Decisions/Presentations
Joanna discussed the progress made on the LTP project. The goal is stable, ongoing, adequate
funding for libraries. In January, the LTP team recommended that a local option levy would be
the appropriate method for funding libraries in Clackamas County.
Joanna moved on to discuss the spreadsheets that she presented. One spreadsheet showed the
situation if assessed value were assumed to grow by 4% and if there were a $.29/$1000 levy, and
the other showed$.31/$1000.
Jon Mantay asked why the city general fund contributions were projected to decrease so much
after 03-04. Chris Jordan noted that in LO's case, there had been a significant one-time capital
improvement that artificially inflated LO's general fund contribution in 02-03.
LNIB was reminded that a final decision on the levy amount might not be made at the meeting
today, but the citizen group ("The WeLL") is anxious to begin campaigning for libraries. They
would like at least a preliminary policy feel today for where the levy is headed.
Mike Swanson reminded the group that in the mid 1990s he had spearheaded an LNIB
recommendation to increase the library levy from a$.29 levy to a$.35 levy, and that in March
1997 library volunteers really took over and made it pass at that rate. He reminded the group
that previous volunteers have passionately believed in their libraries, and that volunteers this
time around are likely to behave just as passionately.
Commissioner Kennemer stated that although the BCC is very supportive of the library local
option levy for November 2004, the BCC was not prepared to commit to a specific rate at this
meeting. In response to questions about other County priorities on the November ballot,he
noted that there might be a modest proposal for a juvenile center. Commissioner Kennemer
acknowledged that the library levy has good potential to pass and that library supporters would
very likely provide the horsepower needed to make it happen.
Commissioner Sowa stated that the BCC needs more information, probably from pollsters: What
kind of rate will the voters support? We can probably run a good campaign and pass a higher
levy, depending on who manages the campaign, who the pollsters are, etc. It will be up to the
citizen group (The WeLL) to poll voters to find out what they will support.
Commissioners Sowa and Kennemer reminded the group that there is some urgency to passing
this levy. Commissioner Sowa counseled the group not to talk about specific numbers until the
polls come back and it is more clear what the voters would support.
George Hoyt stated that it is very difficult to get started without having any numbers to talk
about.
All three commissioners agreed that polling should be done as soon as possible to learn what the
voters will support. Commissioner Schrader suggested that the BCC hold a study session to try
to arrive at a number that the WeLL can use in talking about the levy as soon as polling
information became available.
Commissioner Schrader commented that the citizens' WeLL group will be able to build on the
support this county has always had for its libraries. By running a good campaign and getting all
the ducks in a row first, success is likely. Commissioner Schrader approaches this issue with a
bias toward libraries and is supportive of doing what she can to help the levy pass.
The last WeLL meeting had guest speakers who are pollsters, campaign managers, and fund
raisers. Each guest talked about how to run an ideal campaign and how to make it work. Pat
Curran (Chair of the WeLL and the LO Library Board) intends to call a meeting in November
and make plans to hire a campaign manager and pollster. He thinks that The WeLL can
fundraise enough support to pay for this. With all the friends groups and foundations out there,
there should not be a problem in raising enough money to hire this help.
Joanna recalled from the last WeLL meeting that the pollsters did not want to start polling people
until March or April, once the February election had passed. They did not feel that information
gained too early would still be valid for the November 2004 election. The campaign managers
present at that meeting felt that the group would have to have a single, simple message and hit
the voters hard with it over the summer and fall months.
Chris Jordan reported that the Lake Oswego City Council had a brief discussion with the LO
Library Board. They do not want to make any distribution formula recommendations until they
know how big the overall pot of money might be.
Jon Mantay asked if there were interest in making changes to the distribution formula.
Joanna reported that LNIB had previously set some parameters for discussing any formula
changes. Those parameters are: The formula must be simple and easily explainable; changes
must be fair; changes must not cause any undue harm or undue advantage to any one library; and
changes should take into account factors other than just pure circulation. With these parameters
in place, Joanna does not believe that any formula changes would be substantial.
Commissioner Sowa asked Chris Jordan what it would take to get LO on board. Chris responded
that he did not have any firm numbers in mind,but that getting back most or all of the taxes that
LO puts into a levy would be a good start.
After further discussion, Mike Swanson proposed that LNIB appoint a small subcommittee to
meet with Jon Mantay to discuss this issue further. Commissioner Schrader supported that
suggestion. She also suggested that there might be some flexibility in the ceiling limit that the
County's general fund could provide.
Commissioner Kennemer stated that the County and the cities are friends and partners in
providing library service. The overall goal is not to quibble about pennies, but rather to reach
consensus on a product that is sustainable. The sooner we can settle on a number, the better it is
for everyone.
LNIB Chair Randy Ealy appointed a workgroup to be comprised of city managers and Jon
Mantay to discuss the levy rate. This group will report back to the BCC in 30 days.
Alice Norris asked if there would be consideration given to a rate higher than $.31. Joanna
stated that it might present a problem of voters feeling taxed twice for library services: once by
the old rate that has since been rolled into the County's general fund, and once by the new levy.
There was general feeling that discussion of rates higher than$.29 or$.31 should not be ruled
out.
Meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.
Joanna Rood, Library Network Manager
The next regularly scheduled LNIB meeting will be January 15, 2004. at 1:30pm at the
Library Network office.
6. 7i-v21,1 0.), rrAID - 44,-16,e/9 Lni
_ no-ed(\ ThriAA/s doD
O--,.01_ ntavi�� Icop adr I
�
1 %E'L 1 SZZ'1'8o'I $I LLL`Esc!. $
°�.Z'6L 1'SZ'8L $ Z0I'68 5 Aoua6uguo0
%6'Z1 1'Z6'1'Z4 $ 000'41'1. $ Xryy -_-
%6V L1'0'L99 $ SL£'££6 $ 1soaBu!jejedolenhe IN
1 %9'O I LZE'8ZL'L $ I L6£'L91'L $ 1 puadx3 leloi , I
%E"L 5ZZ'b801. $ LLC£941. $ L1a6Uguoo/xWJ pul'IN
%9D- 960'1'1'9'9 $ 089'£09'9 $ 'q!Ls!p NeJq!l J)IL
%CZ- 89£'PLZ'l $ 601''6EZ'L $ A;unoo le)ol soi!o Jean(mud uo peseq;no peloe[ojd pue'slen)oe Aly;uow yl!m pe epdn we sill IaNI 60ovcWt
LSO- 8£1'69£'5 $ LLZ'1'9£'S $ sage le;oil £0/6LIZL Jo se suogoe1wd uollelndod lel0www0 11Sd uo paseq sl panus dod;
u
P/ P0-£0 90-60
I sono JeeA Joud uo peseq jno pel6e16.1d pue's!en)oe A!yjuow y;lm pe)epdn we s3JPJ 1
alep-paa
r (wisp 00 1so0 IN q!i 00 gplslp to% wispssoJe on
03 o Jo% ill 1N 03 alp)ayaeJ 00. oJlo le;o)00 pros dod Jo% AJS'dod
601''6£2'1. $ Z11''8LZ $ %8'84 lZ8'LS1''L $ 460'892 $ 6ZL'681'l $ %0'81 1.1'S'L06 1'LO'Ll- 51.9'1'26 41'1''8S0'l %£Z £O/61/ZL
%9'0- ' 960'1'1'9'9 $ 099109`9 $ 111'£91'1. $ %00'001 L6E'L9L'L $ 011'991'1 $ LBZ'Z09'9 $ %00'00I- OLE`9E09 951'LW'9 628'499'9 %00 VOL 09k'EVE
AM %9'E- , 1'SL'9ZS $ '6Z9'LOS $ 991''68 $ %691 S80'L6S $ S90'LL $ OZO'OZS $ %884. 819'96£ 08l'ZL LL6'66£ 959'996 %L9'9 6L£'£Z AM
1M %L•Z 6SZ'Z69 $ l£Z'809 $ P81'LOl $ %1Z'6 9117'9 LL $ LOP'1'8 $ 800'1£9 $ %95'6 LPC'l81' 6EZ'£- L1'E'l81' LZ4'SLS %1'ZL 909'SZ 1M
•
31, %E'E- 0E6'0L9 $ L/2'81'9 $ 1.1'Z'Pll $ %Z8'6 81S'Z9L $ LLl'E9l $ 11'£'669 $ %80'6 S81'LgP ZL0'0£- L6L'L81' 6Z6'Z89 %L0'1'L ZOS'61' 31
VS %5'L 991''EL£ $ 9Z0'6LE $ £6L'99 $ %1'L'9 618'51'1' $ 8£1''69 $ 09£'9L£ $ %0L'S 80l'L8Z 9LL'L1- £82'1'0£ 1'1'0'6££ %96'5 990'12 VS
30 %1.'9- 969'089 $ L0S'S1'9 $ E9L'£lt $ %LL'6 09Z'6SL $ 580'691 $ SLL'065 $ %1'6'8 £6L'0Sh 55£'01- 91'9'091' L6E'L1'9 %151'L 1'6Z'l5 00
ON %1-9- ZZE'EZE $ 269'£0£ $ 009'ES $ %0911' Z60'L5£ $ L69'£9 $ 961''£62 $ %54'1' Z88'£ZZ L1'£'L- 8ZZ'l£Z 8£9'1.17Z %91''9 £62'61 ON
M %9Z- LL0`6L9 $ LLO'£09 $ S9Z'90l $ %£4'6 ZSZ'60L $ 695'86 $ 1'lL'0L9 $ %92'6 099'991' 91'£'62 _919'9£1' 1'9£'S19 %96'8 ZO6'6Z IW
01 %99 Z98'ZLel $ S9Z'L6Z'l $ 09S'LZZ $ %99'61 91.8'91.9'1 $ 69£'141'l $ 9S1''LL£'1 $ %98'02 11'L'090'L L0L'6- ZM'090'L 9SZ'L1'£'1. %EL'Z1 £88'21' 01
OH %6'E LL6'Zbl $ Z4ELK $ 0£0'92 $ %1'Z'Z Z1'L'ELL $ E14'94 $ 669'991. $ %9£'Z £69'81.1 £1'1''1'- •9EL'EZL S£l'£Z1- %99'4 109'9 OH
10 %9'0 LPL'LZ£ S S8£'6Z£ $ 960'99 $ %66'1' 0£1''L8£ $ ZtZ'S9 $ 88L'ZZE $ %98't' 69L`96Z 80Z't 199'1.PZ SL1''SSZ %099 Z6L'6L 10
S3 %C*C- 1.90'96£ $ 1'L0'Z8E $ O££'L9 $ %6L'9 VOP'61'1' $ 69£'89 $ 51'0'46£ $ %26'9 1'6Z'96Z £9£'09 4E6'LPZ 806'£92 %LO'9 1'0L'LL S3
03 %8'E- LL0'l9b $ 021''£1'1' $ 41'4'9L $ %4L'9 1.99'LZS $ LLL'98 $ 06L'tEh $ %69'9 £99'LE£ l8£'LL £8Z'1'L£ LLE'ZS£ %96L £ZE'9Z 03
VO %E'1.- 829'81£ $ 1'1'5'1'4£ $ 0£1''99 $ %9L'1' EL6'69£ $ L69'69 $ LLO'00£ $ %W1' Z06'8ZZ ZL9'6- 1'LL'8£Z 669'L9Z %OO'9 1'02'2 V0
up/ft 'gNtsia 'MAW] slso3 -quls!p -q!lsla •gJlslp/JS dod quls;p-0Jl0 •aJi3 30N11 'on s
ill% Ieu01'0-£0 laN 50-60 )pOMIeN q!1. Jo% sso.10 %SL %99 to% pemsn0 eu meq 'emo PNS-dod pa/kinod
5! 700I hl 703 El 700 Zl 703 11100 IPV 1 N Palatloea 1e101 J0% 'dod
0 01 700 6 700 9 '100 / 100 9 700 9 703 Y 700 E 703 Z 700 : t 100 I
•
089'£09`9 $ : lunowe-qulsia
LI;L'894'1. $ I =spaaN latpng 1N;
L6E'19L'L $ anuanaJ lelol
I , L6£'LZ $ 1 anuOAeJ osgj
%96 %98 90'b0 000'01'1. S aaue)egJeAo-AJJe3
A (< L000b09'L $ 001.pun,Luau JajsueJl
\ C 0...
%51. =uollepidod
7 %SS =uollepiaJu3, I
V
1/14/2004 Library Network Budget -
02-03 02-03 __ 03-04 03-04 04-05 %change _ Amount -
Budgeted Actual _ Budgeted Proj.Yr.End Proposed Change notes
302001 Fund balance at prior year end $ 282,495.00 $ 183,023.00 $ 120.321.00 $ 120,000.00 $ 140,000.00 17% $ 20,000.00
311100 Current year RE taxes and penalties $ - S - $ - $ - $ _ S _
311310 Delinquent taxes $ - $ 769.00 S 769.00 $ 769.00 $ 769.00 $ - ____
311350 Interest&penalties-property tax $ - $ 527.00 $ 527.00 $ 527.00 $ 527.00 $ -
331310 Western Oregon Severance $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ -
341800 Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ --
341880 Other Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - -.
361000 Interest earned $ 15,000.00 $ (1,962.00) $ 900.00 S 900.00 $ 900.00 $ -
369000 Reimbursements $ 5,500.00 $ 5,879.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 18,660.00 $ 25,201.00 35% $ 6,541.00
390100 I/F Transfer from Fund 100 $ 7,643,257.00 $ 7,643,257.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 7,600,000.00 0% $ -
390250 I/F Transfer from Fund 250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ ---
390760 I/F Transfer from Fund 760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ -------
Revenue Total $ 7,946,252.00 $ 7,831,493.00 $ 7,726,317.00 $ 7,740,856.00 $ 7,767,397.00 0% $ 26,541.00
Expenditures - - 02-03 02-03 03-04 0.3-04 04-05 %change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Budgeted Actual Budgeted Proj.Yr.End Proposed Change notes
411100 Regular Full-time Employees $ 209,203.00 $ 221,000.00 $ 220,523.00 $ 220,523.00 $ 234,554.59 6% $ 14,031.591
412100 Regular Part-time Employees $ 49,578.00 5 49,700.00 $ 52,691.00 $ 52,691.00 $ 56,642.83 8% $ 3,951.83 _ 2 _
413000 Temporary Workers $ 42,026.00 S 43,000.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 49,000.00 S 54,408.00 11% $ 5,408.00 3___
414030 Overtime $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 0% $ -
414050 Vacation Sell-back $ 2,500.00 S 1,412.00 $ 2,600.00 $ - $ - $
415000 Fringe Benefits $ 123,972.00 S 118,794.00 $ 150,956.00 $ 150,956.00 $ 158,503.80 5% $ 7,547.80 4
415020 Worker Compensation $ 1,472.00 S 1,472.00 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,424.00 0% $ -
415030 Unemployment $ 393.00 $ 9.66 $ 744.00 $ 2,671.00 $ 744.00 -72% $ (1,927.00)
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 429,644.00 $ 435,887.66 $ 478,438.00 $ 477,765.00 $ 506,777.21 6% $ 29,012.21
$ .
421100 General Office Supplies $ 1,500.00 S 2,282.18 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,944.50 S 1,800.00 -7% $ (144.50)
421110 Postage $ 200.00 $ 1,561.11 S 2,000.00 $ 1,613.17 $ 1,740.00 8% $ 126.83
421111 Overdues Postage $ 15,665.00 $ 19,964.89 $ 17,500.00 $ 13,377.84 $ 15,600.00 , 17% $ 2,222.16
421200 Computer Supplies $ - $ 3,999.62 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ - -100% $ (18,000.00) t3
422910 Misc.Meeting Expenses $ - $ - $ 200.00 ' $ 200.00 $ 200.00 0% $ -
422950 Election Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000.00 100% $ 30,000.00
422990 Courier Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 0% $ -
424610 Fuel&Vehicle Rental $ 11,000.00 $ 8,491.29 $ 12,906.00 $ 13,325.83 $ 10,710.00 -20% $ (2,615.83) 8
425100 Small Tools 8 Minor Equip. $ - $ 611.00 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
431420 Legal Fees $ 1,500.00 $ 1,277.70 $ 900.00 $ 633.90 $ 900.00 42% $ 266.10
431700 Misc.Professional Services $ - $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ _
431711 Metaframe user cost S 750.00 $ 750.00 ' $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 0% $ -
432100 Telephone(Co.phone bills) $ 4,000.00 $ 3,004.08 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,237.47 $ 3,240.00 0% $ 2.53
432200 Communication Lines $ 76,000.00 $ 65,594.89 $ 77,868.00 $ 61,566.23 $ 94,484.00 53% $ 32,917.77 9
02-03 03-04 _ _Tichange_ Amount_
52-03 Actual Budgeted
tt d Pro'.Yr.End Proposed Change notes
Budgeted 6.331.00 $ 7:000.00 $ 5,832.00 $ 6,000.00 3% $ 168.00 _
TITLE S 6,0':0.00 $ 300.00 S 250.00 $ 250.00 S 250.00 0% $
Services w 5C0 00 $ 256.90 $ $ 300.00 S 100% $ (300.00) _
��� Tavel , fv)ileage 2,134.50 S 1,746.00 S 1,746.00 S 1,746.00 0% $
.licating Services 2,134.00 $ 5,300.00 S 5,635.20 $ 5.950.00 6% $ 314.80 _
& pu '� $ 5,623.93 .S 22,000.00 S 18,598.73 S 20.120 00 8% $ 1,521.27`� Printin• t�ntena5 5,37 00 23.269.55 $�' Gasualt ��nent, RepairlMaint. 18,60000 $ 150,012.56 $ 164,080.00 120.922.33 $ 141,984.00 17% $ 21,06167117_
5 __�"`' Equip.RepairlMaint. S 147,96900 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500 00 $ 5,000.00 900% $ 4,500.00GcmPute Maintenance $ 69.99 $ $ $ 0% Sgoftwareuter S sI.Repairrfvlaint. SS 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 S36,048000% $ 18.00Cot11p 34,680.00 S 34,680 00S -'� Noncapital office furnlequip. S 2,030.00 $ 75.00 S 7,495.00 $ 7,495.00 0%�trn S75.00S $ $ $ 0% $pffice Rer berships 772.00 $ 200.00 $ 130.00 $ 130.000% Spues8 Mentaff Develo•nent 112,000.00 $ 129,999.00 S 124,924.00 $ 141,000.00 13% $ 16,076.00
�9 rrainin' & 5 Subscriptions S 112,000.00 S y 502,374.00 $ 438,182.20 S 526,347.00 2040 $ 88,164180
uhi;canons Other Governments $ 432,948.00 $
paVr�ienls to 4,302.00 5 4,255.00 S 4,255.00 $ 4,255 00 0% $
O� $ 4,'302.00 $ 1,685.00 $ 1,847.00 $ 1,847.00 S 1,847.00 0% $ -
.O� Services Allocated $ 1685.00 $ 12 76100 S 12,540.00 S 12,540.00 $ 12,540.00 0% $
30 Rata Processing tratiolocated $ 12,761.00 $ 12,167.00 $ 11,203.00 S 11,203.00 S 11,203.00 0% S -
p. nce Allocated $ 12,167.00 $ 262.00 $ 397.00 S 397.00 $ 397.00 0% S
0� gtiitdin9 �Aaintena $ 262.00 $ 2,545 00 0% S -
2,149.00 S 2,545.00 S 2.545.00 $
$� PGR Adml Administration
nent Allocated S 2,149.00 $ 818.00 $ 908.00 $ 908.00 $ 908.00 D% S
r$40y �eGords M MAllocated S 918 00 $ 52
209.00 S 5,605.00 $ 5,605.00 S 5,605.00 0% S
76 0; Pia-chasm], Service-, S 5,209.00 $ 1,891.00 $ 1�0 gun y Courier Allocated 2,147.00 $ 1,891 00 0% $9a G t el Administration AllocatedS 2,147 00 $ 41,191.00 $ 4141,191.00 0% $�0ersonn tion n•Ilocated 41,600.00 $ 41,600.00 $ l2
-
98D6P t Administra LIB $ - `8 10; G0ST ALLOCATIONSICO S - $ $ - 0% S S $ S 0% Spurchases S $ 0% SAle:. orn.uter Software S $ 0% -
Q�a c s $Gomputer Hardware S $ 16illipirpromm............. .._,:0810990011_3...000.00004 $$-:
100% $ (16,000.001 13
Cam.uler Peri'heals 11111111111110.111111111111111111111
5320 Computer Network Installation g -�_ $ 16,000.00 $ -100% $ (16,000.00)
4$' � Vehicles 924,004.85 1,100,257.00 957,738.20 $ -f 163,777.2 •
201000380020°::%/°%,0/
2% $ 206,579.01
,465-',3-3
Light CAPITAL PURCHASES g 1,166,252.00 $ -,
465-0,3341 ran'Network Budget Total " T $ - S 89,402.00 0% $ 89,402.00
1 S 262,060.00 1,316,815.00 $ 1,274,357.86 $ 1,274,357.86 S 1,239,408.94 3% $ (34,948.92)
h855 ency $ 1,316,815.00 $ 5464,185.00 $ 5,369.738.14 S 5,369,738.14 S 5,364,270.84 0010,0/1/.
% $ (5,467.29)
Gontin9 $ 5,464.185.00 $
OF Transfer toCO
cts With Cities 7,705,004.85 $ 7,744,353.00 $ 7,601,234.20 $ 7,767,397.00 2% $ 166,162.80
01 Contra $ 7 947,252.00 5
.098000 792,192.00 $ 812,004.85 $ 892,004.00 $ 832,214.20 $ 933.315.21 12% S 101,101.01
0 $
0000 tatN1 pud9et minus MIX 8 continysncy
T
..)(13e11--t03
5�2y1
0
S
TO: The BCC and LNIB
FROM: Jonathan Mantay, County Administrator
RE: Proposal for November 2004 Library Levy
DATE: January 15, 2004
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC), at the recommendation of the county-wide library
advisory committee Library Network Intergovernmental Board (LNIB), has concluded that
placing a local option levy on the ballot in November 2004 is the best way to sustain public
library services for the five year period 2005-2010.
The last library levy was passed by the voters in March 1997, and it would have raised an
estimated $8.4 million for library services if Measure 47 had not been enacted the previous
November. Although the library levy passed in March 1997, it did not receive the double
majority required by Measure 47. Under the terms of Measure 50, the levy rate of$.35/$1000
that had been approved by the voters was preserved, but it was necessary for the State of Oregon
to calculate the actual amount of money that could ultimately be collected for the levy based on
rollbacks in the County's assessed value. When all the complex Measure 47/50 calculations
were completed, the net effect was a loss of 24% from the original amount projected in the levy
ballot title. So, the levy amount approved by the voters was rolled back to $6,385,000 and
permanently moved into the County's general fund. The County has continued to allocate this
funding to libraries over the past six years.
During that same six year period, library use in Clackamas County has risen from 3.6 million to
5.9 million circulations per year, and the cost of maintaining adequate library hours, services,
and collections to meet these ever-increasing demands has gradually risen to $12.5 million.
As these library expenses have risen, the County and the cities that operate libraries have needed
to supplement the original $6.385 million with their own general funds. The recent severe
economic downturn has placed increasing demands on both city and county general funds, and
the BCC and the LNIB anticipate not being able to continue to provide full support from their
general funds for libraries over the next five-to-ten years. Libraries have already begun to feel
the effects of this pressure as county general fund revenue has remained flat over the last three
years, causing numerous reductions in library hours, collections, and staffing.
After considerable study and reflection, staff proposes to the BCC and to LNIB for their
consideration the following detailed strategy for the five-year library local option levy.
• The BCC is committed to honoring the intent of voters who passed the libr levy in
1997 by agreeing to commit for the five-year period of 2005-2010 the 6.385 million
approved for library services. In light of recent budget concerns, the BCC feels it is no
longer able to continue to supplement the original voter allocation with county funds.
• Staff proposes to allocate $5 million of the original $6.385 million directly to libraries for
on-going library operations.
•
• Both the BCC and LNIB have struggled for years with the problem of how to fund library
facilities, particularly in areas where a large proportion of library users are
unincorporated residents. A new library development program is proposed to improve
library facilities and collections. To accomplish this, $1 million annually i
recommended to be allocated from the original $6.385 million. The Board cou d then
gran ding to assis m a e co fa.m ' . • i.rary facilities and the development of
library collections and electronic resources of county-wide benefit.
• Staff proposes to allocate $385,000 as general fund support for the Clackamas County
libraries, and to allow a direct contribution for library services to the City of Tualatin.
• As noted above, the BCC and LNIB have previously agreed that a five-year local-option
library levy be placed before the voters in November 2004. Subject to the BCC and
LNIB's recommendation and support, staff proposes that the rate for the new levy be
$.29/$1000. This new levy would raise approximately $8 million in its first year and,
wen added to the $5 million from the County general fund, would supply a solid base of
$13 million for on-going library operations.
• Staff acknowledges that the BCC and LNIB may wish to examine the results of any voter
opinion surveys that may be conducted this spring and might be open to revising the
strategy as necessary, based on the polling results and other factors that may emerge.
Staff believes this proposal will be appealing for a number of reasons:
• It retains and continues 100% of the original "old levy" funding approved by voters in
1997 for library services.
• It proposes sufficient revenue to meet the LNIB projected library expenses for the 2005-
2010 period.
• It proposes a moderate levy rate, which should be more appealing to voters.
• It proposes a new program for funding library facilities that may be particularly
appropriate in areas serving a high percentage of unincorporated residents.
• It allows cities the flexibility to reduce their general fund contribution up to 10% if
economic pressures require them to do so.
• It assumes the retention of a library distribution formula that contains both a circulation
and a population-served model.
• It proposes sufficient revenue to restore Library Network staffing, to replace the aging
shared computer system, and to expand the number of homework help database
subscriptions.
• It provides for funding outside of the library distribution formula from which the BCC
can contribute to Tualatin in return for library services to county residents.
User surveys continually remind us that free, quality public library services are an important
livability element in the lives of Clackamas County residents. Staff believes that the continued
success of the current countywide library program depends on the close partnership between the
BCC and LNIB and hopes that the above-proposed levy strategy will further this cooperation.
Staff looks forward to discussing the ideas proposed above with the BCC and LNIB at the
meeting on January 15th, 2004.
s
p
1
2nd Revision
111312004 jkr LINCC OVERALL SUMMARY
LINCC revenues-actual&projected 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Levy Rate $ 6,385,000 million when M 50 passed
Co general fund $ 7,600,000 $ 7,600,000 I $ 5,000,000 5 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $.29/1,000 $ 1,000,000 m.for construction/collections
Ci /Coun generalfund $ 4,202,934 $ 4,140,798 S 3,283,080 --' - ---
ty tyS 3.321,114 $ 3,380,305 $ 3,362,018 S 3,363,800 $ 5,385,000 for distribution
Library-generated • $ 490,909 $ 506,353 $ 522,950 $ 5_31,674 $ 550,763 i $ 571,402 $ 593,756 , $ 385,000 for county library-GF __
Grants,donations $ 86,606 $ 89,988 $ 93,545 $ 97,288 1 $ 101,228 ; $ 105,379 j $ 109,754 AV growth $ 5,000,000 for library dlstrib�
------
Libraries Carry-over balance $ 147,000 $ 70,000 . $ 50,000 $ 50,000 I $ 50,000 $ 50,000 i $ 50,000 1.04
NIT delinquencies/other revenue $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 230,000 j $ 230,000 I $ 230,000 i $ 230,000 ;
NT savings for future years revenue $ 6_02,034 ! $ 935,040 $ 847,519 i $ 581,874 Formula assumes 1 million"grants"for lib_.development
New local option levy $ 7,760,023 $ 8,070,424 $-8.,-3-93,240 . $ 8,728,970 $ 9,078,129 85% '-assumes new levy @.29/$1,000
Total revenues $12,577,449 $ 12,457,140 $ 16,809,597 $ 17,902,534 $ 18,620,577 $ 18,895,288 $,;19,007,314 15% "assumes city GF contrib down by 10%
extra carry-overl(unfund expend.) $ 602,034 $ 935,040 $ 847.519 $ 581,874 $ (71,018) "assumes County GF contrib of$6.385 million_
.
"assumes$385,000 GF for CO Iib and Tualatin
Expenditures I$ 42,030,785 =Five year total of new levy I
Local Libraries • 2003-04 2004-05 I 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Personnel i $ 7,674,825 $ 8,025,206 $_9,358,159 $ 10,030,787 $ 10,786,453 , $ 11,235,223 $ 11,814,892 GF growth
Collections , $ 1,435,411 $ 1,519,350 I $ 1,904 414 ; $ 2,061,519 $ 2,170,879 I $ 2,226,084 $ 2,258,069 0.90
Ali other exp. $ 2,364,571 $ 2,463,669 ! $ 2,613,146 I $ 2,799,269 $ 2,836,922 I $ 2,947,007 $ 3.073,82.1
t.,braryCapital $ 38,542 $ 39,073 $ 85,855 $ 185,367 $ 61,374 $ 100,000 $ 52,826
Total local library expenditures $11,513,350 $ 12,047,299 $ 13,961,5 ; $ 15,076,942 $ 15,855,628 $ 16,508,314 $ 17,199,611
Library Network operating costs $ 881,047 $ 933,315 I $ 1,316,546 $ 1,353,748 $ 1,378,925 $ 1,447,055 $ 1,471,056
t.11:,casts $ 124,924 $ 141,000 $ 161,443 $ 186,804 $ 218,505 $ 258,045 $ 307,664 _
Capitalicon ingency(new computer) $ 78,254 $ 89,402 $ 768.000 $ 350,000 $ 320,000 $ 100,000 ' $ 100,000 ± ,
Total Library Network $ 1,084,225 $ 1,163,717. $ 2,245,989 $ 1,890,552 $ 1,917;430 $ 1,805,100 $ 1,878.720
•
Total Libraries and Library Network $12,597,575 $ 13.-211,016 -$ 16,207,564 $ 16,967,494 $ 17,773,058 $ 18.313,414 $ 19,078,331
r
I I l _--- I _ - GF growth
- - I $ 44,000T$ 45,760 I $ 47,590] $ 4_9,494 $ 51,474 0.90 l -•
Canby 2003-04 2004-05 i 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 . 2008-09 I 2009-10 1 Canby '
County General fund 1 $ 318,628 $ 314,544 1 $ - 1 $ - • $ - i $ - 1 $ - I. I _____
City general fund . $ 45,475 $ 47,294 ; $ 39,600 1 $ 41,184 1 $ 42,831 I $ 44,545 1 $ 46,327 I
Library-generated I $ 20,400 $ 20,808I $ 21,2.24 j $_ 21,649 t$ 22,082 1_$ 22,523 I $ 22,974
Grants,donations ! $ $ -. -
I $ - ` $ - I $ - ; $ - 1 $ - , I
Carryover balance $ $ - i $ ' $ - $ 20,000 I $ 10,000 ' $ 10,000 1 _-
Current revenues $ 384,503 $ 382,646 $ 60,824 $ 62,833 I $ 84,913 $ 77,068 79 300 Formula --`
- � __-- _ $ i
new local option levy _ _ $ - $ - $ 465,271 $ 513,348 $ 535,001 $ 542,455 $ 545,806 85% _ I -
Potential revenues $ 384,503 $ 382,646 $ 526,095 $ 576,181 S 619,914 $ 619,523 $ 625,107 15%
Diff b/w rev and expenditures '_$ (26,621) $ (47,821)1 $ (27,249):, $ 24,719_ $ 21,209__$ __ 3,568 $ 33 -
Personnel _ _ ____
$ 290,812 $ 303,526 $ 363,794 1 $ 392,923 $ 434,897 $ 455,715 $ 473,350
Collections $ 59,985 $ 63,223 $ 86,243 $ 87,432 $ 88,679 $ 84,986 ' $ 75,018 _. - _' __ 1 -
� -
Allotherexp_ $ 60,328 $ 63,718 $ 67,307 $ 71,106 $ 75,129 $ 75,253 $ 76,705 I I
Capital ---$ --$ - . 5 36,000 $ - $ - $ _ -- i -
Total expenditures $ 411,124 $ 430,467 $ 553,344 $ 551,462 $ 598,705 $ 615,955 $ 625,074
- -- = - - - GF -
Estacada 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 I 2006-07 ' 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 growth
County General fund $ 395,061 $ 382,074 . $ - I $ - $ - $ - ; $ - Estacada
City general fund $ - $ - $ - $
Library-generated _ $ 22,000 $ 22,380 $ 22,768 _$ 23,163 $ 23,566 $ 23,978_ $ 24,397 .
Grants,donations $ 13,000 : $ 13,260 $ 13,525 ' $ 13,796 $ 14,072 $ 14_353 $ 14,640
Carryover balance $ 25,000 ' $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 S 20,000 $ 20,000
Current revenues :-$ 455,061 : $ 437,714 : $ 56,293 $ 56,959 $ 57,638 $ 58,331 $ 59,037 Formula_ __
new local option levy $ - $ - $ 568,304 $ 613,324 $ 661,622 $ 695,957 $ 707,909 85% _
Potential revenues $ 455,061 $ 437,714 $ 624,597 $ 670,282 $ 719,260 $ 754,288 $ 766,946 15% _
Diff b/w rev andexpenditures $ 1,514 $ 17,275 ' $ 44,270 $ 67,140 $ 65,388 $ 56,531 $ 44,064 1
Personnel $ 271,697 $ 264,184 $ 343,426 $ 355,340 $ 396,899 $ 435,328 $ 454,696
Collections $ 94,244 $ 64,371 $ 140,502 $ 146,637 $ 150,776 $ 150,919 $ 151,067
All other exp. $ 81,364 $ 85,517 $ 89,905 $ 94,541 $ 99,439 $ 104,617 $ _11.0,089
Capital $ 6,242 $ 6,367 $ 6,495 $ 6,624 $ -67757 . $ 6,892 $ 7,030
Total expenditures $ 453,548 $ 420,440 $ 580,328 $ 603,142 $ 653,872 $ 697,757 $ 722,882
$ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000
Gladstone 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 GF growth
County General fund $ 327,744 $ 329.385 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0.9
City general fund $ 178,145 $ 200,000 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 $ 162,000 S 162,000 $ 162,000 . Gladstone
Library-generated $ 19,390 $ 19,686 $ 19,988 : $ 20,295 i $ 20,60.9 S 2.0,929 $ 21,256 •
Grants,donations $ - $ - $ - $ - i $ - S - $ -
Carryover balance $ - $ - $ -
Current revenues ' $ 525,279 ' $ 549,071 $ 181,988 $ 182,295 $ 182,609 $ 182,929 $ 183,256 Formula
new local option levy $ - $ - $ 491,247 $ 539,071 ' $ 622,246 $ 683,213 $ 731,909 85%
Potential revenues $ 525,279 $ 549,071 $ 673,234 $ 721,366 $ 804,855 $ 866,142 $ 915,165 15%
Diff blw rev and expenditures $ 704 $ (6,799): $ (40,264) $ (58,058) $ (53,673)i $ (_35,227)' $ (27,111)
' Personnel $ 418,175 $ 438,280 $ 560,982 $ 618,512 $ 688,735 $ 722,187 $ 757,825
i
Collections $ 70,800 $ 79,854 $ 112,516 $ 118,513 $ 124,849 $ 131.542 $ 1.33,951
All other exp. $ 35,600 $ 37,736 . $ 40,000 $ 42,400 $ 44,944 $ 47,641 $ 50,499
Capital $ $ $ _ , $ _ $ . $
Total expenditures $ 524,575 $ 555,870 $ 713,499 $ 779,424 $ 858,528 $ 901,369 $ 942,275
•
•
GF growth
S 1,350,000 $ 1,390,500 $ 1,432,215 S 1,432,215 $ 1.432,215 0.9
Lake Oswego 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Lake Oswego
County General fund $ 1,212,882 $ 1,291,265 $ $ $ - $ - . $
Citygeneralfund , $ 1,766,000 $ 1,646,000 $ 1,215,000 $ 1,251,450 $ 1,288,994 $ 1,288,994 ! $ 1,288,994^
------ -- ----
Library-generated $ 96,050 $ 98,677 $ 101,382 $ 104,168 $ 107,038 $ 109,994 $ 113,039
Grants,donations $ 30,000 $ 30,900 $ 31,827 • $ 32,782 $ 33,765 $ 34,778 . $ 35,822 -
Carryover balance _ $ - $ - $ -
Current revenues $ 3,104,932 $ 3,066,841 $ 1,348,209 $ 1,388,400 $ 1,429,797 $ 1,433,766 $ 1,437,854 Formula
new local option levy $ $ - $ 2,023,075 • $ 2,253,698 $ 2,398,398 1 $ 2,481,170 $ 2,578,250 85%
Potential revenues $ 3,104,932 $ 3,066,841 $ 3,371,284 $ 3,642,098 $ 3,828,195 $ 3,914,936 $ 4,016,105 15% -
Diff bhv rev and expenditures $ 136,107 : $ (54,081) $ 60,622 : $ 70,607 $ 252,722 • $ 83,439 • $ 170,625
Personnel $ 1,993,016 $ 2,065,316 . $ 2,187,107 j $ 2,273141 $ 2,363,583 $ 2,459,612 . $ _2,5617642
Collections $ 366,160 . $ 417,740 ' $ 455,946 $ 474,384 ! $ 479,859 $ 479,984 • $ 480,154
All other exp. _ $ 609,650 $ 637,867 $ 667,610 $ 698,966 $ 732,031 $ 766,901 $ 803,683
Capital $ - $ - . $ - $ 125,000 $ - $ 125,000 $ -
Total expenditures $ 2,968,826 $ 3,120,923 $ 3,310,662 $ 3,571,491 $ 3,575,473 $ 3,831,498 $ 3,845,480
GF Growth_
' $ 630,000 $ 630,000 $ 630,000 S 630,000 $ 630,000 0.90
Milwaukie 2003-04 ' 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Ledding/Milwaukie
County General fund $ 619,077 $ 603,017 $ - $ - $ - $ - $
City General fund . $ 710,000 $ 710,000 $ 567,000 • $ 567,000 $ 567,000 1 $ 567,000 $ 567,000
Library-generated $ 64,530 $ 64,530 • $ 64,530 $ 64,530 $ 64,530 : $ _ 64,530 $ 64,530
Grants,donations . $ $ $ - $ $ - , $ _ - $ _- -
-
Carryover balance $ 72,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - ! $ - $ -
Current revenues $ 1,465,607 $ 1,427,547 • $ 631,530 $ 631,530 $ 631,530 $ 631,530 $ 631,530 Formula
new local option levy $ - $ - . $ 907,909 i $ 994,136 $ 1,040,736 i $ 1,040,133 $ 1,042,228 85%
Potential revenues $ 1,465,607 $ 1,427,547 -$ 1,539,439 $ 1,625,666 $ 1,672,266 $ 1,671,663 $ 1,673.758 15%
Diff b/w revand expenditures - i $ 5.561 $ (79,365)' $ (127,532). $ -(100,589): $ (120,030): $ (166,894) $ 2(-26,094)
-
Personnel i $ 752,466 $ 782,065 $ 907,181 $ 945,800 , $ 990,268 ' $ 1,014,007 $ 1,051,787
Collections ; $ 155,399 $ 157,113 $ 175,835 $ 179,583 $ 183,512 $ 187,634 ' $ 191,956
All other exp. , $ 552,180 $ 567,735 $ 583,955 $ 600,872 $ 618,515 $ 636,917 $ 656,110
Capital $ $ $ $ $ I .$ $
Total expenditures $ 1,460,045 $ 1,506,912 $ 1,666,971 $ 1,726,255 $ 1,792,296 $ 1,838,557 $ 1,899,852
•
1. GF growth
__ _ _ _ 0.9 I I
-
Molalla 2003-04 2004-05 _ 201)5-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Mollala I I _
County General fund $ 323,322 $ 303,592 5 $ - S - $ - $ - • i
City general fund $ $ - I $ - $ S - $ - $ ______J1
Library-generated $ 15,320 $ 16,204 - $ _17,158 _$ 18,187 $ 19,297 $ 20,495 $ 21,787 I
Grants,donations $ 17,000 $ 18,360 $ 19,829 $ 21,415 1 $ 23,128 $ 24,979 $ 26,977 I --
Carryover balance $ - $ - $ - $ - � $ - $ S - ----- - i -
Current revenues $ 355,642 $ 338,157 $ 36,987 $ __39,602 , $ 42,426 . $ 45,473 $ 48,764 Formula __
new local option levy $ - $ - $ 456,306 $ 508,551 ' $ 542,522 $ 558,476 $ 572,945 85%
Potential revenues _ $ 355,642 $ 338,157 $ 493,294 $ 548,153 $ 584,948 $ 603,949 $ 621,709 15% _ ---
Diff b/w rev and expenditures $ 3,613 $ (33,518)1 $ 14,617 $ 39,279 $ 54,614 $ 50,803 $ 44,299 --- -
Personnel $ 235,804 $ 248,807 $ 328,017-T$ 340,395 $ 3_53,494 $ 367,363 $ 382.057
Collections $ 27,375 , $ _28_88_7 $_ 51,244 j $ 63,_306 $ 65,569 : $ 68,053 $ 70,779 -
All other exp, _ $ 83,850 $ 88,881 $ 94,214 $ 99,867 $ 1.05,859 - $ 112,210 $ 118,943 - -
Capital $ 5,000 $ 5,100 $ 5,202 $ 5,306 $ 5,412 $ - 5,520 $ 5,631 I - -
Total expenditures $ 352,028 $ 371,674 $ 478,677 $ 508,874 $ 530,334 $ 553,146 $ 577,410
' --- - - - -- - GF growth
_ - I $ 440,00_0 ; $__ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 0.9
Oregon City 2003-04 2004-05 I 2005-06 • 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Oregon City ' ,
County General fund $_ 680,546 ! $ 645,507 I $ - $ - $ - $ - i $ - .
City general fund $ 472,000 $ 481,4407 $ 396,000 $ 396,000 $ _ 396,000 ' $ 396,000E $ 396,000 • .•
Library-generated $ 84,1.25 $ 85,630 I $ - 87,164 $ 88,729 $ 90,326 i $ 91,954 i $ 93,616
Grants,donations $ - $ - ' $ - $ - $ ! $ - ; $ _
Carryover balance $ - $ - . $ - $ - $ - • $ - $ -
Current revenues $ 1,236,671 $ 1,212,577.1 $ 483,164 $ 484,729 ' $ 486,326 1 $ 487,954 ! $ 489,616 Formula
new local option levy- $ - $ - - 5 947,860 $ 1,055,135 $ 1,130,782 I $ 1,294,735 $ 1,402,573 85% 1,-
Potential revenues $ 1,236,671 $ 1,212,577 $ 1,431,024 $ 1,539,864 $ 1,617,108 $ 1,782,689 $ 1,892,188 15% -
-
_
Diff biwrevand expenditures $ 76,013 $ (5,309) $ 64,660 $ (58,182) $ (170,879)1 $ (91,163) $ (74,119) I
Personnel : $ 782,642 $ 824,560 $ 925,018 $ 1,118,135 $ 1,337,206 $ 1,410,029 $ 1,488,703 --T
Collections 1 $ 156,997 $ 166,013 $ 207,380 $ 238,912 $ 286,875 1 $ 291,411 $ 296,215 I
All other exp. $ 221,020 $ 227,314 $ 233,966 $ 241,000 $ 163,906 7 $ 172,41.2 $ 181,389
Capital $ $ 5 - _ $ - _ $ -- ' - i $ - $ )
Total expenditures $' 1,160,659 $ 1,217,886 $ 1,366,364 $ 1,598,046 $ 1,787,987 $ 1,873,852 $ 1,966,308 _ 1
GF growth
0.9
Sandy 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sandy Ti -
County General fund $ 373,465 $ 379,026 $ - $ - I $ - $ - j $ - --
City general fund $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Library-generated $ 24,849 ' $ 25,267 $ 25,694 $ - 26,129 $ 26,573 $ 27.025 ' $ 27,487
Grants,donations $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Carryover balance $ 50,000 $ - $ - $
Current revenues $ 448,314 $ 40.4,29.3 $ 25,694 $ 26,129 I $ 26,573 ' $ 27.025 $ 27,487 Formula
new local option levy $ - $ - $ 589,600 $ 653,797 $ 693,135 $ 715,475 . $ 736,123 85%
Potential revenues $ 448,314 $ 404,293 $ 615,293 $ 679,926 $ 719,708 $ 742,501 $ 763,611 15%
$ 49,859 $ 47,018
I
Diff b/w rev and expenditures ,
Personnel $ 324,174 $ 340,626 ' $ 447,820 $ 468,371 $ 490,107 $ 513,110 $ 534,130
Collections $ 76,120 $ 78,815 $ 105,230 $ 119,879 $ 119,910 $ 119,941 $ 119,973
All other exp. $ 31,906 $ 33,820 $ 35,850 $ 38,001 $ 40,281 $ 42,697 $ 45,259 ' _ '
Capital $ 15,300 $ 15,606 ' $ 15,918 $ 16,236 $ 16,561 $ 16,892 $ 17,230 •
,Total expenditures $ 447,500 $ 468,868 $ 604,818 $ 642,487 $ 666,859 $ 692,642 $ 716,593
-4 c) Dnp O uC C) nor n (7n -IC) > c -C � c .n C) C C) (� � -i C) ➢ Z3 (7 v = C; C) c) E2'C) �
O Cp = O co O CD C Cu C O O O to - O CD O N c [U C - o O Cy = O CD - .'J c N .7 O
D 72..5,3, N N N C •
C n c O O (7 N ^ fL , .c N N b, O N �•� [U C ^
(Ty O a O Cj) .z n) O O N �� Cr o (0.,� O w.[6 O 0 _ N O a O N O_ N 10
N N n O ^. O �„2 •G K d @ N N C^�O * O •P. O "' App `C D CD N m n l = `.,;O ?,1 O m ,(D �.< i-
o m m ° m a c N ° m m °1 d - m 0.'7 N c) 5 a N m m m n_ m m a'm N c) - .
x N < N O < C7 C 0 O ) N = ) to < N O < 0- 7 O N 0 ci 3 'C rn < v o < a D 7 d m 7
a p m a N n) C� N n, (7 a F m ro a S a m.- , CD a p v [o .. S (D 9 N .
E •> - o c m " w m a o c o c m m c,w c � '� o c m o I°7 c w
Q c c m > > m 'a c cico O j 0 O O c O N 'O .9-
N
U X [ro/. CD N CD . a ? C N 'X N c N N N a a C N 'K V N y co N a 4 C
co G as �`' a o .c Ia
a .a. a. I I
CU [0 CD
co (n cn I
EA EA EA ER CA •EA EA ,En ER(A EA EA.(A EA EA.4A.(A'(A EA EA EA EA EA'EA,Ef) (R EA EA'(A(F) en IEA (-A EA,(A (A,EAI(:A 641EA
—+ N NJ NJ
V- A - -• 0) 0) CO N p V -+ 01 Co 'Co N (n O -- co A 4, (n ca p
V CO C) N N A A J O V C.d OD - C)) N O A A A -' C) Co NJ GJ C) A A V Cn O O -' CD (O CJ
N -' Co C) A -4 V CO O A Co N O CO CO N -, -. V Cn a) A O Cn V 0) O) (n•A C.N. N
CO CO CO V 'Co Cn (n O CJ A Cn O O O Cn U1 D O CD:CD Co J p O (n'J -' CO '10 6)I O O N „j
V O Co A C11 N N C) O Cn Cn O O O U1 C) Cr. 'OoC �•U1 0) O A ��C) A A O•Co'O.01
Co . (n N N 0) co W . . (n O co (n CD CD 0 (n N O . 'co O O A A N . Co CD A O Cn , (11 , 0) O O CD
Efl EA EA EA EA EA (A (A EN EA EA(A EA EA EA 44 EA ER EA (A(A(A (A(A',(A.EA (A(A CA CR ER (A cA CA Co (A.(A.U) (R co
_ _ _ NJ NJ _ _ _ N,
' O O ' O,
0) Cn --' -+ •N_ O) _O W N O O — O O N 0' O N - --''(p -' -• � (J1 O) O
Co O (n V V O co A A. CP N A W W - V W O A CO (n CO W co A A -. O A
O 1 N Cn 0) Co W A O CO 'O N N CO'CO W -' O O 1 A CT> -4 'O N CP V CO A V -4 Cn A CO'Co 'O
-N O'O Cn -co Co CO A O A (n O O 6) O,A .Co -+ -• •(n 0) G) 0) Cn O 10 (n'Q) O CO CO COIO V N (J)
CO CJ CO CO V Ul Cn A O O CD 0 CD O'O O) W CO (n A IN NJ IO.O•A A V 'V I-I(p'(S,W
-' . N N CO A -4 V . . CO 0 (D Co O O D W 0) J . J O A A•(D (n 'W'NJ 0) CO , CO . I O I O O -
EA EA(A.(0 EA ,EA EA EA(A (A(A EA EA ER 09 (A EA(A (A (A (A EA EA EA EA-(A(A•(A EA EA 49(R EA(A U) Cl)EA•EA CR EA U)CA•EA (A
N N Ni N - N
O O O
_N U) N A N CO W N O W O - CO —' Co NJ N O NJ A --''NJ O W CD A 4- CD A
O) N -+ - O A (n J V (n O W -, Cr) 0. CD -4 O O CO - Co O (71 N W Cn O V Cn V Co A N (11 J
CO O V Co V O) N O CO Cn V '6 O O N -4 C) A O) 0) CL V N W N 'O (n O (n O CO (D CO (n:W C) A W 'O O
-+ D (O-O N -' 0 N V V CO O Co O N A W - A Cn V O -"N U1 O O O) O N A I(O V A'W N'0 D, CA O
Cn O O O A N N Co (a U1 co CA V A. O 0) A O'Co 'N O O O CO ,N O O) W A W,-' W O O O
O O CO O O CT 0) CO V . V O . J CS) O C) CO'N 'Ln O co,W Co'(n O . •O Cn -- O I A !V CO N 10) . I 0),01 O . O
EA EA EA EA EA EA (A EA(A ER EA(R EA (A (A(•n EA EA(A •EA EA(A'(A (A'EA EA-EA ER (A EA(A EA EA EA, EA GA(A'EA 691EA EA EA,(A IEA
N N N 0 Q ,_, O
W CT N A W O W N O CO A'CO N CO'OD .N..) O NJ U7 '-+:N -' In O A A O A
CO N 07 N Co N J N A 0) V Cl O -' -4 -4 U1 CO CD CD 0 - (D O CA N CO V CO V IOD O C) A - N 0) V
ACD 0) A W CO O A (n V V '' O Cn N CO CO CO CO O CO N N N C7 Cn O A (n in A j W '0) A W 'O.O
l'.0.--, O V :0 N (O (D CD V CO O O A -' .P Co A.CJ O --...4--4 Cn V O Cn 'CO O CO V (D O) .(0) 0 0 -4 O
- O CO O'OD C) Cn N Co (n Co O) A O O) O.O J N CO.NJ .E.4.CD•O O CO NJ (O C o V N Co A CDI CO O O
0) O A O W O C) O) O . O O . J Co Cl CA CP CO C11 O . A A O . O CO . CO W NJ I--' J 01 -+ , 1-.10 O i . O
EA EA En£0 EA EA (I)EA EA EA(A EA (A EA EA EA EA(A (A EA ER EA ER (A•EA EA.(A EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA (A(A EA 6949,69'44 60 v)
N N N CD N N I N
-A C) N (n A. O co N O co -' -' (D N (D W _ NJ O N J ,--,'1,3.-t0' In A 1. O h
CO N CD NJ A co A CD A CS) -4 V O O - -4 V -+ (D V (n -' -' O O V N N Co C) V 'NJ CO Cn A -' NJ v --4
A O U) Cn Co CO 01 0,-4 (D V 'O CO A N Cn O CT W V O CD CO CO N 'O Cn N Cn Cn O V Cn -' CO O) A W G O
Cn A O) O (n -' W N - L. CO CO O A N V O) J Cn Co n A. W Cn (n O O U) A -i'(0 Ci O O,(O O'O'CD, CO O
CO O U1 O N CO Co V•O N O 0) Cn A A CO V -' 0) 01 O V CO O O A -' (n:0) l' V Cn -J . I N 10)I CJI . O
Co A N O V V C) V CO . (D O . V O O'(D O -' -+ -s CO A . 1'CO.O . O W . C)o i(fl'01
EA EA(A EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA 64 EA EA EA(A EA EN 69 EA EA EA EA EA(A EA Ef)EA(A'EA•( f fEA EA(A(A U'(P 0 (Cl EA EA
N N N N N N
OOO
01 -4 N.)'On 0) N W N O C.) -co �'O W CO•W --' N CO N J - INN -CO - A _ A O A
Cn N —' CO (0 A O 01 A V V CO O O -' Co Co N N N (D CO -' -' O 03 N NJ CO 0 W CO A CO A N co --)
N O -' W 0) (n V (O CO O V 'O Co -a N O O N CO (n co N A Cn N 'O Cn C) 0) ' O 0) O Cn A ...44:. GO 'O O
N Co 01 N 14 O W O Co Co (D (D Co Co A.N U1 O) Co N -> O Cn (n CD O -co Cn O) 1. (D O 0)Co halo O (0 O
Cn -'.N O W V A Co Co Co OD Cn O.(D N Cn N V V O co Cn•O O t3 (T) F,' OCD W 00 O O,
Co N:N,O CO 'CD J Cn N . - O . V Cn Cn A A'CO A J 0) O . CO A O O. C) . IOD O O O . O O O . O
EA EA (A'(A(A EA (A EA(A 49 69 EA(A EA EA EA EA(A EA EA (A EA'EA (A EA.EA(A EA (A EA(A(A'EA EA IEA EA(Cl EA 69(A 69 691E4 .EA
N N N O _ _ _ _ N N
-' N) �' _' O
CO V N CJ) V A'Co N O CO A - - -Co O Co N O N -co N (Al C.)I -CO N I A .4 O A
CO
A -' CO CO O C) -' A V ..4 O O A CO CD - N CO W A -' N O 7 NJ A 1 0 -N' U) CO A,A. .N 7 V
Cn O V A CO 4, 0 0 CD -' V -S O CO N SO,,C..) V CO O W Cr) 41,u) N -S Cn (D 'O -, (D Cn W CD A 'J A CO .s O
.4 N V N O) W - C7) (n Cn•(D O O A V-' O C) L] -' co.'ho J 0 Cn O O A -CO V CO IOD O) O 0) UI CD 0; 0 D
V O 0 0'-4 co Cn Co (n I(D C) V W -' O Co O C) 0.-4 A Co,C3 O Co .co U) (O O CO N 01 V Co CD1 O
A O O'O,Co - A C) Co . O'O . J 01 A A O O. Co V A,A . -' WIO , O O . IO 0)!V En A (O,U. . U1 GI O, V
n I
D O * 0 ,* �
0o tr o .., co ^
U, Cn j Cr (n D 0(0 Cn (n - N YI
O o c c ^ (D O o LD'1
ET a � z c - * o c I 1_ O0
0 J I J - �y r
I
I
.1
l I i I
;
• +
H _�._; I
! � I I j
I
I I. I I I
1_1___._ — -1 - - •
I
•
14,
Vei
�Mwj yw9µ'
i
A'�h
Ob.
•"
a.
✓e'
)4
Jo 0%.
S'44e
Jordan, Chris
From: Joanna Rood Uoannar@Iincc.lib.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 12:34 PM
To: Scott Lazenby; Judith Ervin; PLC; Randy Ealy; Jon Mantay; Mike Swanson; Jordan, Chris;
George Hoyt; Wanda Kupler; Penny Morrison; Gene Green; Eldon Lampson; Marlin Goebel;
Terry Ferrucci; Paul Hennon
Subject: LNIB Meeting tomorrow, REVISED AGENDA
04january
15agend.doc Hello all,
At the request of the city of Estacada, we've added one item to our
agenda tomorrow, discussion of a proposed library district for
facilities construction. I've also learned that our LNIB Chair, Randy
Ealy, will not be attending the meeting, so here's a heads-up to Chris
Jordan, the vice-chair, who will take the reigns and run the meeting.
Tomorrow's meeting should be the culmination of all our levy planning to
date. I'm really looking forward to finalizing our levy plan with the
Commissioners. •
See you all tomorrow,
joanna
Joanna Rood, Manager
Library Information Network of Clackamas County
Oak Grove, Oregon 97267 •
joannar@lincclib.or.us
Voice: 503.723.4889
Fax: 503.794.8238
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA
Thursday, December 9,2004
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, ORI
I. Call to Order
II. Introductions
III. Minutes
IV. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. Review of Library levy election results—comments, questions. `�Q�a
,401 ysc
B. Review and evaluate LN IB nrioriiies after defeat of library levy
C. Other
V. Other comment • ews
VI. Next meeting January 20 Jan 27 2005—or Feb 2005
VII. Adjournment
( :30
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate.
S S 44--vat G4.4. 4..24 ie
-
1'�
"Ac,,' I-t4 boo kr '�"'r r 1-44"1
-wS o'y a /
4 /
Fa 7•
VAifr
S1S
L,v Z t3 I. w p<<j.o•!- -)
rwd.#'i''t D�► l IG a 4rI K �'j `E j l'i p..w a i`•i.
j'D vi,nyCt 14.044,1- f 4'Illit
z..., r a e e%••••y�k'!► )' 1J
vw_ t r.y C t.. Tod L I �r.�a
+1.16 ter, ,�
Iv •�+re,�rwNr ,4-Wce Y- o. L4,-. 146‘0.14'."4 ° '
�•4..N r 142S
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
Library Network Office
ANNUAL ERAL MEETING
y 29,200 1.30 P.M.
INUTES .
CALL TO ORDER .,;s crovv(c.i
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m by "Dose attending introduced
themselves.
MEMBERS/ALTERNATES ATTENDING
Beth Saul, CA;Marlin Goebel,Doris Grolbert,Jonathan Mantay, CO;Ron Partch, Catherine
Powers, GL; Chris Jordan,Janice Dierdorf,Jan Erickson,LO;Mike Swanson,Joe Sandfort,
Cynthia Sturgis,MI; Gene Green, Eldon Lampson,MO;Debbie Dodd, Dee Craig, OC;
George Hoyt, Beth Scarth, SA;Julia Corkett,WL;Pat Duke, WV
GUESTS/LIAISON& STAFF ATTENDING: Martha Schrader, County Commissioner;
Larry Sowa,County Commissioner;Bill Kennemer, County Commissioner; Pat Curran LO
Board, Jeff Ring, NT; Sarah Hunsberger, Oregonian.
Minutes -Minutes of the May 13,2004 meeting were approved as presented.
Review of LNIB Accomplishments —PowerPoint presentation
Jeff R. and Joanna R presented a presentation that emphasized recent statistical analysis and
survey about voter attitudes about libraries and library funding support. The presentation
explained the innovative new PICLL program which brings together for the first time public
affairs coordinators from the larger Clackamas County cities so that the informational
message will be coordinated and distributed through all available channels. The presentation
confirmed LNIB's recommendation that the BCC place a 5-year$.29 per$1,000 library local
option levy on the ballot officially in August 2004.
Comments from the Board
Commissioner Schrader expressed support for libraries for the library levy. She reminded
the group that she was a"... librarian at heart, and there are days when I wish I was back in
the library. I miss it, and [libraries] axe one of the key services that this county provides. It's
one of the services that people love." Commissioner Schrader commented that since she had
considerable experience in libraries, she intends to follow the library funding issue closely. She
appreciated the LNIB presentation and the information it contained.
Commissioner Kennemer confirmed that he was looking forward to the opportunity to
place the library levy on the ballot on the 26th. Bill will be bass fishing, but he'll call in and
help support it. He also reminded LNIB that besides the county-wide library levy, the
Estacada new library bond measure will be the only other thing on the ballot from the
county and the BCC hopes that this will help focus attention on the library levy.
Commissioner Sowa warned LNIB that this election will be very busy with lots of other
issues to draw attention away from the levy and he hopes library advocates and
informational materials will provide a complete campaign. He emphasized that "library
supporters will need to use every method they can to get people's attention. There'll be a lot
of media because of the presidential election, and the library message could get lost."
Joanna reminded LNIB that the next LNIB meeting is normally in October. She wondered
if it would be more useful to postpone the meeting until after the election in November.
Ron Parch supported that idea and LNIB agreed to meet again on Thursday November
18th.
Sharing News from LNIB Libraries
LO now has three summer reading programs : for children, teens, and adults. They have
also installed a new much appreciated HVAC system for two of their floors.
WL is very busy with Summer Reading.Their Teen group is going to have a dog wash
fundraiser—cats will not be welcome.
ES has the coolest (air conditioned) building in town, and it's been very crowded all summer.
MO has had unbelievable large children's programs this summer. The popular "Reptile
Man" show brought in 300 kids to the library.
SA reported that attendance at this year's summer reading is double last year's. Circulation in
June reached an all-time high.
CO said all three of their buildings are very busy, especially with Summer Reading, and their
June circulation is also skyrocketing.
MI is also experiencing higher than normal SRP attendance. Their teen program is in its
second year and proving very popular. They are considering carving out a young-adult area
in the library and are also in the process of setting up a library foundation with the ultimate
goal of looking for grants to plan a library expansion.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40.
ANNOUNCEMENTS -Next LNIB meeting—TBA—January? Early Feb? 2005 at
1:30 p.m. at Library Network 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd.,Suite 208
Joanna Rood—Library Network Manager • 10)-'IVY (C UZ "
�1�
Library Network Budget
December 9, 2004 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed •.Proj.Yr.End Change notes
302001 Fund balance at prior year end $ 183,023.00 5 99,605.00 $ 110,730.00 $ 110,730.00 5 70,000.00 -36.8% $ (40,730.00) 1
311100 Current year RE taxes and penalties $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
311310 Delinquent taxes $ 926.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 769.00 $ 769.00 $ 769.00 0.0% $ -
311350 Interest&penalties-property tax $ 572.00 $ 600.00 $ 527.00 $ 527.00 $ 527.00 0.0% $ -
331310 Western Oregon Severance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
341800 Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
341880 Other Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
361000 Interest earned $ 9,228.00 $ 900.00 $ 900.00 -$ 900.00_ $ 1,000.00 11.1% $ 100.00
333001 Local Gov't&other agencies $ 5,879.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 17,951.00 $ 17,951.00 $ 18,862.00 5.1% $ 911.00
390100 I/F Transfer from Fund 100 $ 7,604,257.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 6,385,000.00 -16.0% $ (1,215,000.00) 2
390250 I/F Transfer from Fund 250 $ - $ - $ - $ -
390760 I/F Transfer from Fund 760 $ - $ - $ - $
Revenue Total , y 4.v e ,u.<1 «u.�y $ 7,803,885.00 $ 7,715,905.00 $ 7,730,877.00 $ 7,730,877.00 $ 6,476,158.00 -16.2% $ (1,254,719.00)
Expenditures ," U.1 ( 'Co. 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 °o
Change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed r.Proj.Yr.End Change notes
411100 Regular Full-time Employees $ 221,000.00 $ 212,147.00 $ 234,063.00 $ 234,063.00 $ 262,676.10 12.2% $ 28,613.10 3
412100 Regular Part-time Employees $ 49,700.00 $ 51,880.00 $ 55,441.00 $ 55,441.00 $ 59,954.90 8.1% $ 4,513.90 4
413000 Temporary Workers $ 43,000.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 57,408.00 $ 57,408.00 $ 31,203.00 -45.6% $ (26,205.00) 5
414030 Overtime $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00_ 0.0% $ -
414050 Vacation Sell-back $ 1,412.00 $ 1,162.00 $ - $ 1,200.00 $ 2,000.00 _ 66.7% $ 800.00 ��
415000 Fringe Benefits $ 118,794.00 $ 133,000.00 S 138,698.00 $ 138,698.00 $ 158,658.50 _ 14.4% $ 19,960.50 (6 /
415020 Worker Compensation $ 1,472.00 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,374.00 $ 1,374.00 $ 1,424.00 3.6% $ 50.00 U
415030 Unemployment $ 9.66 $ 1,842.00 $ 12.00 _ $ 12.00 $ 12.00 0.0% $ -
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 435,887.66 $ 450,755.00 $ 487,496.00 $ 488,696.00 $ 516,428.50 5.7% $ 27,732.50
421100 General Office Supplies $ 2,282.18 $ 3,188.20 $ 1,800.00 $ 3,305.00 $ 4,000.0021.0% $ 695.00
421110 Postage $ 1,561.11 $ 1,356.16 $ 1,740.00 $ 863.85 $ 180.00 - -79.2% $ (683.85) 7
421111 Overdoes Postage $ 19,964.89 $ 22,688.30 $ 15,600.00 $ 16,419.85 $ 13,400.00 _ -18.4% $ (3,019.85) 8
421200 Computer Supplies $ 3,999.62 $ 8,549.00 $ - $ 6,174.62 $ 13,200.00_ 113.8% $ 7,025.38 9
422910 Misc.Meeting Expenses $ - $ 5.99 $ 200.00 $ 25.00 $ - -100.0% $ 25.00)
422950 Election Supplies $ - $ - _ $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ - _ -100.0% $ (30,000.00) 10
422990 Courier Supplies $ - $ 1,683.86 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,600.00 _ 33.3% $ 400.00
424610 Fuel&Vehicle Rental $ 8,491.29 $ 14,004.43 $ 10,748.00 $ 10,837.95 $ 13,132.0021.2% 5 2,294.05 11
425100 Small Tools&Minor Equip. $ 611.00 $ - $ - 5 - $ - - $ -
431420 Legal Fees $ 1,277.70 $ 689.30 $ 1,200.00 $ 684.20 $ 600.00 _ -12.3% $ (84.20)
431700 Misc.Professional Services $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,980.13 S - -100.0% $ (2.980.13)
431711 Metaframe user cost $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 0.0% $ -
432100 Telephone(Co.phone bills) $ 3,004.08 $ 3,588.45_$ 3,240.00 $ 3,306.38 S 4,050.00 22.5% $ 743.62
432200 Communication Lines $ 65,594.89 $ 66,622.70 $ 94,484.00 $ 71,390.26 $ 93,090.00 30.4% $ 27,861.30 12
432500 Courier Services $ 6,331.00 $ 5,938.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,169.00 $ 6,400.00 _ 3.7% $ 231.00
433100 Travel&Mileage $ 300.00 $ 649.03 _ $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 200.00 -20.0% $ (50.00)
434100 Printing&Duplicating Services $ 256.90 $ - $ - $ 718.35 $ 100.00 -86.1% $ (618.35)
435180 Casualty Insurance $ 2,134.50 $ 1,746.00 $ 1,224.00 5 1,224.00 $ 1,746.00 _ 42.6% $ 522.00
437210 Office Equipment,Repair/Maint. $ 5,623.93 $ 4,835.96 $ 5,950.00 $ 5,400.03 $ 4,960.00 -8.1% $ (440.03)
437230 Computer Equip.Repair/Maint. $ 23,269.55 $ 19,694.61 $ 21,120.00 $ 23,101.90 $ 23,900.00 3.5% $ 798.10
437231 Software Maintenance $ 150,012.56 S 126,330.19 $ 142,484.00 $ 114,761.22 $ 132,500.00 15.5% $ 17,738.78 13
437235 Micro-Computer Syst.Repair/Maint. $ 500.00 5 - $ 2,000.00 5 2,000.00 $ 500.00 _ -75.0% $ (1,500.00)
437260 _Non-capital office furn/equip. $ 69.99 $ - $ - $ 7,128.00 $ - -100.0% $ (7,128.00) 14
438110 Office Rental $ 34,680.00 S 36,000.00 $ 36,048.00 $ 36,048.00 $ 39,000.00 8.2% $ 2,952.00
439100 Dues&Memberships • $ 2,030.00 $ 8,090.00 $ 8,245.00 $ 8,090.00 $ 7,730.00 -4.4% $ (360.00)
439200 _Training&Staff Development $ - $ 265.00 $ - $ 590.00 $ - -100.0% $ (590.00)
439400 _ Publications&Subscriptions $ 772.00_ $ 141.00 $ 130.00 $ 130.00 $ 141.00 7.7% $ 10.00
440001 Payments to Other Governments 5 112,000.00 $ 124,924.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 141,155.00 $ 160.00 14.1% $ 19,845.00 15
MATERIALS/SUPPLIES } $ 446,517.19 $ 451,740.18 $ 525,413.00 $ 494,702.74 $ 522,178.00 5.6% $ 27,475.26
4- /
11%;Y e +D eft4'yt.642.
Expenditures 02-03 03-04 04-05 04-05 05-06 %Change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Actual Actual Budgeted Proj.Year End Proposed .Proj.Yr.End Change notes
478101 Accounting Services Allocated S 4,302.00 $ 4,255.00 $ 4,157.00 $ 4,157.00 $ 4,157.00 0.0% $ -
478102 Data Processing Allocated $ 1,685.00 $ 1,847.00 $ 2,362.00 $ 2,362.00 $ 2,362.00 0.0% $ -
478103 Building Maintenance Allocated $ 12,761.00 $ 12,540.00 $ 13,540.00 $ 13,540.00 $ 13,540.00 0.0% $ -
478104 PGR Administration Allocated $ 12,167.00 $ 11,203.00 $ 11,241.00 $ 11,241.00 _ $ 11,241.00 0.0% $ -
478105 Records Management Allocated S 262.00 $ 397.00 $ 269.00 $ 269.00 $ 269.00 0.0% $
478106 Purchasing Services Allocated $ 2,149.00 $ 2,545.00 $ 1,904.00 $ 1,904.00 $ 1,904.00 0.0% $
478107 County Courier Allocated $ 918.00 $ 908.00 $ 970.00 $ 970.00 $ 970.00 0.0% $ -
478111 Personnel Administration Allocated $ 5,209.00 $ 5,605.00 $ 5,052.00 $ 5,052.00 $ 5,052.00 0.0% $ -
478112 County Administration Allocated _$ 2,147.00 $ 1,891.00 $ 1,495.00 S 1,495.00 $ 1,495.00 0.0% $
COST ALLOCATIONS/CO LIB $ 41,600.00 $ 41,191.00 $ 40,990.00 $ 40,990.00 $ 40,990.00 0.0% $ -
485320 Computer Software Purchases $ - $ - $ - S - $ $
-
485330 Computer Hardware $ - $ 7,544.00 $ - S - $ $-
485333 Computer Peripherals $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $
485334 Computer Network Installation $ - $ - $ - S - $ $
485510 Light Vehicles $ - $ 17,058.00 $ - $ - $ - — $
490002 PERS stabilization $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 0.0% $ -
490003 Health Ins stabilization $ 6,570.00 $ 6,570.00 $ 6,570,00 0.0% $ -
CAPITAL PURCHASES/reserve $ - $ 24,602.00 $ 13,570.00 $ 13,570.00 $ 13,570.00 0.0% $ -
Lib Net with MIX,but no contingency I $ 924,004.85 I $ 968,288.18 I $ 1,067,469.00 _$ 1,037,958.74- $ 1,093,166.50 5.3% $ 55,207.76
499001 Contingency $ - $ - $ 53,915.00 $ - $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
470100 I/F Transfer to CO $ 1,316,815.00 $ 1,274,357.86 $ 1,250,000.00 $ 1,250,000.00 $ 986,961.45 -21.0% $ (263,038.55)
444000 Contracts With Cities $ 5,464,185.00 l $ 5,352,914.00 $ 5,359,493.00 $ 5,359,493.00 $ 4,344,898.05 -18.9% $ (1,014,594.95)
EXPENDITURE TOTAL $ 7,705,004.85 $ 7,595,560.04 $ 7,730,877.00 $ 7,647,451.74 $ 64465.026.00 -15.5% $ (1,182,425.74)
(
Lib Net-no MIX,no contingency $ 812,004.85 $ 843,364.18 $ 926,469.00 $ 896,803.74 $ 932,166.50) 3.9% $ 35,362.76
Lib Net-with MIX,with contingency $ 924,004.85 $ 968,288.18 $ 1,121,384.00 $ 1,037,958.74 $ 133,166.50 9.2% $ 95,207.76
Footnotes
1 Decrease as we gradually spend down reserves.
2 Decrease in general fund contribution in 05-06 as per LNIB agreement.
3 Increase due to addition of one FTE LA2 (Cataloging/ILL) and small COLA.
4 Increase due 5% step increase and COLA for 2 employees
5 Decrease due to conversion of temp positions to one FTE (above), and therefore reduction in temp support hours.
6 Increase due to benefits for one new LA2 position and 5% general increase.
7 Decrease due to cancellation of Library By Mail program.
8 Decrease due to reduction in number of mailed notices because of increase in E-mailed notices and estm. change in county cost allocation.
9 Increase due to purchase of library cards, barcodes, and overdue mailers.
10 Decrease due to no election in 05-06.
11 Increase due to higher higher gasoline prices and greater anticipated maintenance on older van if van not replaced in 05-06.
12 Difference due to on-going uncertainty of E-Rate discount revenue and conversion to fiber-optic Internet connection.
13 Difference due to one-time discount in database licensing in 04-05.
14 The $7,128 was unbudgeted expense for equipment to convert to fiber-optic Internet connection.
15 UNDER STUDY - Increase due to 25% MCL annual MIX increase in reciprocal circ charges=net 14% incr.
Summary
Cut packages proposed: Determination:
A ILL Program Not feasible to cut
B Weekend courier Not feasible to cut Library Network staffing proposal
C Five computer dial-in lines Feasible, proposed Convert evening/weekend support to one FTE for Cataloging & ILL
D All computer dial-in lines Not feasible to cut • Surveying indicates very little evening/weekend support activity
E Local reference databases Not feasible to cut • Mandatory conversion to new cataloging and ILL software
F All reference databases Not feasible to cut estimated to be 20-40% slower
G MIX under study-not cut • Can't count on reduction in demand for cataloging
H All mailed notices Not feasible to cut Not all libraries going to cut book budgets
I Library by Mail program feasible, proposed Libraries with cuts soliciting donations
Add packages proposed: Determination: • Continued operation of NT with little reduction in services and
1 Authority control Not feasible to add only 3.8 FTE permanent office staff is difficult to sustain
2 Replacement courier van Not feasible to add • Reduce support hours, convert temp positions into one FTE
3 Temporary tech help Not feasible to add
4 Migration - hardware maint. Not feasible to add temp hrs/salaries cut $ 26,205
5 Migration - thin client maint. Not feasible to add
new LA 2 salary $ 26,000
new LA2 benefits $ 16,200
$926,469.00 04-05 NT budgeted operating budget
$932,166.50 05-06 proposed operating budget
December 9,2004 $ 5,697.50 Net increase ( .4 %)
mommosiignimmimmimimiimmimuml
d\
st•d"' ��131
J‘
- Population= 85%- - - - - I r
Population= 15% -- - -'--
Transfer from fund 100 $ 6,385,000 - --- --
r- -
Carry-overldelinquencies$ 72,296 - - - - T ---Misc revenue $ 7,730 -- -- -
Total revenue $ 6,465 02611-i_ 05-06 85% 15%
less NT Budget Needs= $ 1,133,167 1 _- -- -
Distrib.amount $ 5,331,860 U 0 _A. o�b; f - - -
Cot. 1 Col.2 Cot 3 Cot 4 `Col.5 Cot.6 Col.7 Col.8 Col.9 Col. 10 Co/11 Col.12 Cot 15 Cot 16 Col 17 Co 118 -_
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% 15% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 04-05 % $
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. UNCC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrib. distribution Distill,. Distrib. up/dn upldn
CA 21,522 6.03% 294,311 270,733 878 271,611 5.22% $ 286,597 $ 58,514 $ 345,111 5.34% $ 60,490 $ 284,621 $ 332,425 -14.4% $ (47,804)CA
CO 26,323 7.38% 344,259 308,194 16,015 324,209 8.23% $ 342,098 $ 71,566 $ 413,664 6.40% $ 72,506 $ 341,159 $ 443,950 -23.2% $ (102,791) CO
ES 17,881 5.01% 282,080 261,560 48,046 309,606 5.94% $ 326,689 $ 48,615 $ 375,303 5.81% $ 65,782 $ 309,522 $ 385,249 -19.7% $ (75,728) ES
GL 19,891 5.58% 266,285 249,714 3,702 253,416 4.87% $ 267,398 $ 54,079 $ 321,477 4.97% $ 56,347 $ 265,130 $ 329,791 -19.6% $ (64,661) GL
HO 5,559 1.56% 127,202 127,202 -6,708 120,494 2.31% $ 127,143 $ 15,114 $ 142,257 2.20% $ 24,934 $ 117,322 $ 148,178 -20.8% $ (30,856) HO
LO 42,904 12.03% 1,290,043 1,017,532 -18,104 999,428 19.19% $ 1,054,573 $ 116,648 $ 1,171,220 18.12% $ 205,287 $ 965,933 $ 1,242,686 -22.3% $ (276,752) LO
Ml 29,902 8.38% 510,257 432,693 6,013 438,706 8.42% $ 462,912 $ 81,297 $ 544,209 8.42% $ 95,387 $ 448,822 $ 575,481 -22.0% $ (126,659).i MI
MO 19,486 5.46% 277,907 258,430 -19,503 238,927 4.59% $ 252,110 $ 52,978 $ 305,088 4.72% $ 53,475 $ 251,613 $ 298,337 -15-7% $ (46,724) MO
OC 52,320 14.67% 594,551 495,914 -19,342 476,572 9.15% $ 502,867 $ 142,246 $ 645,113 9.98% $ 113,073 $ 532,040 $ 656,272 -18.9% $ (124,232) OC
SA 21,276 5.96% 396,027 347,021 -16,403 330,618 6.35% $ 348,860 $ 57,844 $ 406,703 6.29% $ 71,286 $ 335.418 $ 387,893 -13.5% $ (52,475) SA
TC 49,502 13.68% 610,776 508,082 -28,340 479,742 9.21% $ 506,212 $ 134,585 $ 640,797 9.91% $ 112,317 $ 528,480 $ 658,962 -19.8% $ (130,482) TC
WI. 26,041 7.30% 609,442 507,082 14,363 521,445 10.01% $ 550,216 5 70,801 $ 621,017 9.61% $ 108,850 $ 512,167 $ 617,188 -17.0% $ (105,021)WL
WV 24,080 6.75% 492,624 419,468 23,679 443,147 8.51% $ 467,598 $ 65,468 $ 533,066 8.25% $ 93,434 $ 439,632 $ 533,110 -17.5% $ (93,478)WV
356,687 77.18% 6,095,765 4,621,824 5,207,921 82.25% $ 5,495,272 $ 969,754 $ 6,465,026 81.49% $ 1,133,167 $ 5,331,860 $ 6,609,523 -19.3%
1 I �
County 81,384 22.82% 1,082,238 943,4791 -19,033 924,446 17.75% $ 975,453 I$ 221,265 $ 1,196,718 18.51% $ 209,756 $ 986,961 $ 1,251,090 -21.1% $ (264,129)
100.00% l 100.00% 100.00%
12/15/04 1 I 05-06 04-05 up/dn
pop.sry Cires are linked to 04-05 actuals and will be updatedo
Pd monthly _� Total cities
cert.date Pop served will be updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures � _Total county - $ 4,344,898 $ 5,358,433 -18.9/0
$ 986,961 $ 1,251,090 -21.1% _ _
12/01104 Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly _ Library distib. $ 5,331,860 $ 6,609,523 -19.3% _
jkr _--NT budget is an estimate(in the event of no levy)and could change NT expense $ 1,133,167 $ 1,121,354 1.1%
Distribution 2ndwkJan 75% _ _ Total Expend. $ 6,465,026($ 7,730,877 -16.4%
2nd week March 20% r -
2nd week May 5%
operating cost $ 932,167 $ 926,439 0.6%
--- _ - Mix $ 161,000 $ 141,000 100.0%
- -- - Capital expend $
-- Contingency $ 40,000I$ 53,915 -25.8%
$ 1,133.167 $ 1,121,354 1.1%
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Libra Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
123 CA 283 48% 304 52% 587 Failed
126 CA 535 45% 655 55% 1,190 Failed
125 CA 582 44% 743 56% 1,325 Failed
124 CA71641% 1,026 59% 1,742 Failed
343 CA 205 41% 301 59% 506 Failed
346 CA 529 41% 777 59% 1.306 Failed
122 CA 757 40% 1,133 60% 1,890 Failed
344 CA 44438% 723 62% 1,167 Failed
349 CA 248 37% 424 63% 672 Failed
345 CA 60 26% 167 74% 227 Failed
TOTAL 4,359 41% 6.253 59% 10,612 Failed
M
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Librar Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
533 CO 390 48% 422 52% 812 Failed
526 CO 536 48% 580 52% 1,116 Failed
505 CO 506 48% 553 52% 1,059 Failed
503 CO 536 48% 587 52% 1,123 Failed
531 CO 493 47% 555 53% 1,048 Failed
506 CO 303 46% 351 54% 654 Failed
530 CO 499 46% 579 54% 1,078 Failed
538 CO 307 45% 373 55% 680 Failed
525 CO 474 45% 585 55% 1,059 Failed
507 CO 401 43% 521 57% 922 Failed
532 CO 265 43% 346 57% 611 • Failed
551 CO 413 41% 587 59% 1,000 Failed
555 CO 585 40% 877 60% 1,462 Failed
480 CO 317 39% 497 61% 814 Failed
550 CO 476 37% 820 63% 1,296 Failed
TOTAL 6.501 44% 8,233 56% 14,734 Failed
Page 2 of 14
z
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
• Yes No Total
Precinct Libra Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
363 ES 30 52%: 28 48% 58 ' Passed
106 ES 454 44% 587 56% 1,041 Failed
361 ES 211 38% 339 62% 550 Failed
377 ES 415 38% 688 62% 1,103 Failed
365 ES 271 38% 451 62% 722_ Failed
585 ES 192 36% 342 64% 534 Failed
362 ES 395 36% 705 64% 1,100_ Failed
364 ES 317 35% 583 65% 900 Failed
582 ES 218 35% 401 65% 619_ Failed
366 ES 382 35% 723 65% 1,105 Failed
589 ES 154 34% 298 66% 452 Failed
368 ES 43 34% 85 66% 128 Failed
354 ES 271 33% 548 67% 819 Failed
576 ES 132 33% 268 67% 400 Failed
TOTAL 3,485 37% 6,046 63% 9,531 Failed
WITH 11 OF 11 PRECINCTS REPORTING
VOTES PERCENT
3-153 ESTACADA LIBRARY DIST BONDS
VOTE FOR 1
01 - YES 3,521 53.54 03 = OVER VOTES
02 - NO �Vv 1J b 3,056 46.46 04 - UNDER VOTES
{ 01 02 03 04
0106 PRECINCT 106 619 442 0 41
0361 PRECINCT 361 324 245 0 22
0362 PRECINCT 362 580 517 1 72
0363 PRECINCT 363 31 26 0 4
0364 PRECINCT 364 488 418 0 42
0365 PRECINCT 365 415 328 1 31
0366 PRECINCT 366 539 569 0 61
0368 PRECINCT 368 64 65 0 8
0377 PRECINCT 377 344 336 0 26
0394 PRECINCT 394 16 35 0 8
0577 PRECINCT 577 101 75 0 3
Page 3 of 14
I
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Library Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
31 GL 242 47% 270 53% 512 Failed
491 GL 195 46% 226 54% 421 Failed
39 GL 563 46% 653 54% 1,216 Failed
33 GL 606 45% 748 55% 1,354 Failed
32 GL 238 44% 302 56% 540 Failed
38 GL 358 44% 463 _ 56% 821 Failed
34 GL 550 42% 746 58% 1,296 Failed
549 GL 352 42% 481 58% 833 Failed
553 GL 152 41% 222 59% 374 Failed
552 GL 378 37% 639 63% 1,017 Failed
TOTAL 3,634 43% 4,750 57% 8,384 Failed
Page 4 of 14
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Librar Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
381 HO 731 49% 746 51% 1,477 Failed
383 HO 462 46% 542 54% 1,004 Failed
TOTAL 1,193 48% 1,288 52% 2,481 Failed
Page 5 of 14
,f
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Libra Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
t7`1 -.4.:-..:..q.11:0::::::. 1ici 6..8 = .. 1 ' 38% i 16, Passed
:.:-.7g5 ;.]:::1F:,; 8.0Z -,'''''.!!': ::5910-7:':''.. i.::5.6.3,*, P:7'.!..11. 411% 1,367.
11 Passed. ;1
31 L� 309t58°41_ 222:x, " 42°Ia{> 537 ; Passed
' 1;51= .:L.O ''...70:C*;' 579 522,7, 4'3%L '1,222 Passed.':
1 152 LQ 59Z`'a . :56 : - 465 P 42t/4 t',06.2' Passed.'
•
1'50: LO 986 561 5 44° 1 761' Passu
t58 LQ 3 t 5 _ 49 , 4. 1;1. ..7. 4 r 1rfi1r32 _ • Passed
1.67= LO 6'.87 . lw�: 3t :45°,x°t 125Q Passes'
LO 843 5 46,%i
11,,552 Pass6
17Q I 'LO 8 574'% 7"i 4 PSI 15
164: "LO - Passed
5.45. 53' t48' 4=74: it 030 Passed'
165: LOF- 632.,::1;.: 52"/a`"i 5.80 :zi %A ".
1;2"t3 Passed;.
3105: LO =33 52°/0 ai 48°t464
Passu:
:I 3.172 . :'LQ ,295 51n. 288 . 4 °/A x` '583 ` Pais44. .
251 LO 1 50% 1 50% 2 Failed
166 LO 677 50% 681 50% 1,358 • Failed
157 LO 387 49% 398 51% 785 Failed
159 LO 586 48% 625 52% 1,211 Failed
154 LO 748 48% 805 52% 1,553 Failed
160 LO 601 48% 654 52% 1,255 Failed
303 LO _ 428 47% 479 53% 907 Failed
300 LO 394 47% 447 53% 841 Failed
301 LO 374 47% 428 53% 802 Failed
162 LO 743 46% 881 54% 1,624 Failed
306 LO 57 45% 69 55% 126 Failed
169 LO 310 43% 403 57% 713 Failed
90 LO I 1 25% 3 75% 4 Failed
TOTAL [ 12,389 I 52% 11,590 48% 23,979 Passed
01 = YES 12,747 53.18
02 = NO 11,224 46.82
01 02 03 04 .
0090 PRECINCT 090 4.0 4 0 0 0
0136 PRECINCT 136 S c ‘ 38 34 0 5
0151 PRECINCT 151 660 554 0 77
0152 PRECINCT 152 u.vy 560 488 0 76
0153 PRECINCT 153 1 703 631 0 156
0154. PRECINCT 154 896 660 0 130
0155 PRECINCT 155 938 779 3 174
0157 PRECINCT 157 503 289 0 53
0158 PRECINCT 158 612 522 0 87
• 0159 PRECINCT 159 638 562 0 72
0160 PRECINCT 160 686 580 1 56
0162 PRECINCT 162 820 784 0 117
0163 PRECINCT 163 910 638 0 97
0164 PRECINCT 164 981 546 0 82
0165 PRECINCT 165 701 519 0 56
0166 PRECINCT 166 712 638 0 104
0167 PRECINCT 167 627 579 0 122
0169 PRECINCT 169 348 367 0 70
. 0170 PRECINCT 170 9 6 0 0
0171 PRECINCT 171 10 7 0 0
0251 PRECINCT 251 0 2 0 0
0300 PRECINCT 300 399 450 0 32 1
0301 PRECINCT 301 346 457 0 39
0302 PRECINCT 302 294 291 0 30
0303 PRECINCT 303 440 476 0 46
0305 PRECINCT 305 40 26 0 0
0306 PRECINCT 306 61 70 0 2
0313 PRECINCT 313 264 221 0 31
•
0326 PRECINCT 326 47 48 0 3
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Library Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
522 MI I 276 80% 68I 20% 344 Passed
523 MI 144 75% 48 I 25% 192 Passed
51 I Ml 629 52% 590 48% 1.219 Passed
57 Ml 560 50% 557 50% 1,117 Passed
521 MI I 480 49% 506 51% 986 Failed
56 MI 399 48% 436 52% 835 Failed
54 MI 425 47% 481 53% 906 Failed
91 MI 61 45% 74 55% 135 Failed
60 MI 502 45% 623 55% 1,125 Failed
62 MI 511 43% 669 57% 1,180 Failed
92 MI 39 43% 52 57% 91 Failed
475 MI I 567 43% 761 57% 1,328 Failed
63 MI 466 43% 630 57% 1,096 Failed
58 MI 318 42% 431 58% 749 Failed
53 MI 415 42% 584 58% 999 Failed
478 MI 135 40%, 203 60% 338 Failed
64 MI 415 39% 645 61% 1,060 Failed
95 MI 1 20% 4 80% 5 Failed
TOTAL _ 6,343 46% 7,362 54% 13,705 Failed
Page 7 of 14
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Library Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
355 MO 360 39% 564 61% 924 Failed
581 MO 322 37% 538 63% 860 Failed
350 MO 392 37% 673 63% 1,065 Failed
353 MO 313 36% 549 64% 862 Failed
583 MO 158 36% 286 64% 444 Failed
111 MO 339 35% 643 65% 982 Failed
351 MO 362 32% 758 68% 1,120 Failed
112 MO 479 32% 1,020 68% 1,499 Failed
356 MO 198 29% 482 71% 680 Failed
357 MO 249 28% 626 72% 875 Failed
TOTAL 3,172 34% 6,139 66% 9.311 Failed
Page 8 of 14
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Library _Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
1 OC 601 51% 580 49% 1,1:81 Passed
2 00 638 50% 648 50% 1,286 Failed
6 OC 446 44% 560 56% 1.006 Failed
563 OC 590 44% 763 56% 1,353 Failed
5 OC I 462 44% 600 56% 1,062 Failed
588 OC 16 43% 21 57% 37 Failed
578 OC 228 41% 322 59% 550 Failed
3 OC 415 40% 623 60% 1,038 Failed
562 OC 320 40% 482 60% 802 Failed
561 OC 79 40% 121 61% 200 Failed
7 OC 802 39% 1,263 61% 2,065 Failed
568 00 220 38% 352 62% 572 Failed
565 OC 362 38% 583 62% 945 Failed
577 OC 447 38% 733 62% 1,180 Failed
560 OC 370 38% 609 62% 979 Failed
11 OC 493 38% 813 62% 1,306 Failed
587 00 311 38% 514 62% 825 Failed
8 OC 1,390 37% 2,333 63% 3,723 Failed
580 OC 467 37% 801 63% 1,268 Failed
586 00 438 36% 779 64% 1,217 Failed
575 OC 570 35% 1,044 65% 1,614 Failed
9 OC 366 35% 690 65% 1,056 Failed
567 00 185 35% 349 65% 534 Failed
TOTAL 10,216 40% 15,583 60% 25,799 Failed
Page 9 of 14
,
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Libra Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
101 SA 756 42% 1,063 58% 1,819 Failed
382 SA 1 166 41% 236 59% 402 Failed
375 SA 160 39% 249 61% 409 Failed
373 SA 545 39% 851 61% 1,396 Failed
407 SA 283 39% 445 61% 728 Failed
102 SA 618 39% 977 61% 1,595 Failed
371 SA 223 38% 369 62% 592 Failed
372 SA 571 36% 1,002 64% 1,573 Failed
404 SA 293 35% 552 65% 845 Failed
402 SA 279 33% 566 67% 845 Failed
405 SA 476 29% 1,163 71% 1,639 Failed
TOTAL 4,370 37% 7,473 63% 11,843 Failed
Page 10 of 14
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Librar Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
451 TC 401 52% 369 48% 770 Passed
411 TC 563 45% 696 55% 1,259 Failed
441 TC 207+ 45% 257 55% 464 Failed
412 TC 606 43% 805 57% 1,411 Failed
413 TC 268 40% 408 60% 676 Failed
454 TC 646 40% 984 60% 1,630 Failed
414 TC 514 40% 786 60% 1,300 Failed
453 TC 475 39% 730 61% 1,205 Failed
445 TC 417 39% 646 61% 1,063 Failed
442 TC 498 39% 784 61% 1,282 Failed
446 TC 305 37% 519 63% 824 Failed
96 TC 1,421 37% 2,433 63% 3,854_ Failed
481 TC 772 36% 1,347 64% 2,119 Failed
422 TC 363 36% 643 64% 1,006 Failed
443 TC 482 36% 859 64% 1,341 Failed
452 TC 177 36% 321 64% 498 Failed
94 TC 18 33% 36 67% 54 Failed
93 TC 52 33% 106 67% 158 Failed
394 TC 367 32% 765 68% 1,132 Failed
'11111 TC 141 32% 297 68% 438 Failed
401 TC 422 30% 974 70% 1,396 Failed
403 TC 316 30% 740 70% 1,056 Failed
390 TC 358 _ 28% 928 72% 1,286 Failed
TOTAL _ 9,789 37% 16,433 63% 26,222 Failed
Page 11 of 14
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Librar Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
252 TU 492 33% 1,019 67% 1,511 Failed
Page 12 of 14
i l
I
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Library Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
135 WL 599 54% 51.8 . 46% 1,117 Passed
134 WL 850 52% 787 ' 48% 1,637 Passed
140 WL 411 51% 396 49% 807 Passed
136 WL 534 51% 516 49% 1,050 Passed
139 WL 719 50% 714 50% 1,433 Passed
326 WL 472 48% 517 52% 989 Failed
138 WL 726 46% 859 54% 1,585 Failed
132 WL 861 46% 1,029 54% 1,890 Failed
130 WL 912 44% 1,143 56% 2,055 Failed
131 WL 1,028 42% 1,402 58% 2,430 Failed
328 WL 31 38% 50 62% 81 Failed
TOTAL 7,143 47% 7,931 53% 15,074 Failed
Page 13 of 14
I
Measure 3-152 : Library Services Operating Tax
Analysis by Library Service Area
Yes No Total
Precinct Librar Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes
203 WV 575 49% 610 51% 1,185 Failed
206 WV 774 47% 861 53% 1,635 Failed
202 WV 846 47% 947 53% 1,793 Failed
201 WV 415 45% 499 55% 914 Failed
336 WV 451 44% 564 56% 1,015 Failed
204 WV 350 44% 453 56% 803 Failed
116 WV 258 43% 349 57% 607 Failed
205 WV ( 416 41% 606 59% 1,022 Failed
337 WV 505 39% 788 61% 1,293 Failed
327 WV 474 36% 846 64% 1,320 Failed
117 WV 73 29% 177 71% 250 Failed
TOTAL 5,137 43% 6,700 57% 11,837 Failed
Page 14 of 14
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
AGENDA
Thursday, December 9,2004
1:30 p.m.
Library Network Office, 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208, Oak Grove, ORI
I. Call to Order
II. Introductions
III. Minutes
IV. Action/Decisions/Presentations
A. Review of Library levy election results—comments, questions.
B. Review and evaluate LNIB priorities after defeat of library levy
C. Other
V. Other comments—sharing news
VI. Next meeting—January 20 or Jan 27 2005—or Feb 2005
VII. Adjournment
Please contact Joanna Rood at 503-723-4889 if you are unable to attend, and remember to send
your alternate.
LIBRARY NETWORK INTERGOVERNMENTAL BOARD
Library Network Office
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
July 29,2004-1:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. Those attending introduced themselves.
MEMBERS/ALTERNATES ATTENDING
Beth Saul, CA;Marlin Goebel,Doris Grolbert,Jonathan Mantay, CO;Ron Partch, Catherine
Powers, GL; Chris Jordan,Janice Dierdorf,Jan Erickson,LO;Mike Swanson,Joe Sandfort,
Cynthia Sturgis,MI; Gene Green, Eldon Lampson, MO;Debbie Dodd, Dee Craig, OC;
George Hoyt, Beth Scarth, SA;Jnlia Corkett,WL;Pat Duke, WV
GUESTS/LIAISON& STAFF ATTENDING: Martha Schrader, County Commissioner,
Larry Sowa,County Commissioner; Bill Kennemer, County Commissioner; Pat Curran LO
Board, Jeff Ring, NT;Sarah Hunsberger, Oregonian.
Minutes - Minutes of the May 13,2004 meeting were approved as presented.
Review of LNIB Accomplishments—PowerPoint presentation
Jeff R. and Joanna R presented a presentation that emphasized recent statistical analysis and
several surveys about voter attitudes about libraries and library funding support.The
presentation explained the innovative new PICLL program which brings together for the
first time public affairs coordinators from the larger Clackamas County cities so that the
informational message will be coordinated and distributed through all available channels.
The presentation confirmed LNIB's recommendation that the BCC place a 5-year$.29 per
$1,000 library local option levy on the ballot officially in August 2004.
Comments from the Board
Commissioner Schrader expressed support for libraries for the library levy. She reminded
the group that she was a "... librarian at heart, and there are days when I wish I was back in
the library. I miss it, and [libraries] are one of the key services that this county provides. It's
one of the services that people love." Commissioner Schrader commented that since she had
considerable experience in libraries, she intends to follow the library funding issue closely. She
appreciated the LNIB presentation and the information it contained.
Commissioner Kennemer confirmed that he was looking forward to the opportunity to
place the library levy on the ballot on the 26`h. Bill will be bass fishing, but he'll call in and
help support it. He also reminded LNIB that besides the county-wide library levy, the
Estacada new library bond measure will be the only other thing on the ballot from the
county and the BCC hopes that this will help focus attention on the library levy.
Commissioner Sowa warned LNIB that this election will be very busy with lots of other
issues to draw attention away from the levy and he hopes library advocates and
informational materials will provide a complete campaign. He emphasized that"library
supporters will need to use every method they can to get people's attention. There'll be a lot
of media because of the presidential election, and the library message could get lost."
Joanna reminded LNIB that the next LNIB meeting is normally in October. She wondered
if it would be more useful to postpone the meeting until after the election in November.
Ron Parch supported that idea and LNIB agreed to meet again on Thursday November
18th.
Sharing News from LNIB Libraries
LO now has three summer reading programs : for children, teens, and adults. They have
also installed a new much appreciated HVAC system for two of their floors.
WL is very busy with Summer Reading. Their Teen group is going to have a dog wash
fundraiser—cats will not be welcome.
ES has the coolest (air conditioned) building in town, and it's been very crowded all summer.
MO has had unbelievable large children's programs this summer. The popular"Reptile
Man" show brought in 300 kids to the library.
SA reported that attendance at this year's summer reading is double last year's. Circulation in
June reached an all-time high.
CO said all three of their buildings are very busy, especially with Summer Reading, and their
June circulation is also skyrocketing.
MI is also experiencing higher than normal SRP attendance. Their teen program is in its
second year and proving very popular. They are considering carving out a young-adult area
in the library and are also in the process of setting up a library foundation with the ultimate
goal of looking for grants to plan a library expansion.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40.
ANNOUNCEMENTS -Next LNIB meeting—TBA—January? Early Feb?2005 at
1:30 p.m. at Library Network 16239 SE McLoughlin Blvd., Suite 208
Joanna Rood—Library Network Manager
WISH LIST
Possible Fundraising Requests
Guestimates—Not Firm Estimates
FACILITY
Goal—Improved functionality of Popular Materials area as reading/gathering
space
• Upgrade furniture ($3,000)
• Upgrade shelving (Bill will get estimate on Nov. 12)
Goal—Improved aesthetics in Children's Department
• Upgrade garden area well area outside of windows ($30,000-$50,000)
• Install upgraded counters and stalls in children's rest rooms ($4,000)
Goal—Improved functionality of 1st Floor Workroom
• Replace workstation unit in Circulation Department ($7,500)
• Relaminate and repair tables, counters, and workstation ($4,000)
estimate)
Goal—Improve customer usability
• Self Service Checkout Machine ($24,000)
• Upgrade lighting on all three floors ($30,000 estimate)
EQUIPMENT
Goal—Increased technological capabilities
• Add 6 Stand Up Terminals for Second Floor and wiring necessary
(wiring and equipment-12,000)
• Flat screens for all public computers ($8,000)
• Video cleaner/rewinder machine ($3,000)
• Additional electronic database (guestimate to be held until Network
databases determined)
As of 11/9/04
.
dr-
w • . r )
Librar�Network Budget 02-03 i _ 02-03
03-04 D3-04i� 04-05 ,/change Amount
I Budgeted Actual ; Budgeted 1 Proj.Yr.EndI Proposed Change notes
302001 Fund balance at prior year end $ 282,495.00 $ 183,023.00 $ 120,321.00 $ 160,000.00 $ 140,000.00 -13% $ (20,000.00)
311100 Current year RE taxes and penalties $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
311310 Delinquent taxes $ - $ 769.00 $ 769.00 $ - $ 769.00 $ 769.00 _ _
311350 Interest&penalties-property tax $ - $ 527.00 $ 527.00 $ - $ 527.00 $ 527.00
331310 Western Oregon Severance $ - $ - $ - $ S - $ - --
341800 Internal County Services S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _
341880 Other Internal County Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
361000 Interest earned $ 15,000.00 $ (1,962.00) $ 900.00 $ - $ 900.00 $ 900.00 _--
369000 Reimbursements $ 5,500.00 $ 5,879.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 18,660.00 S 20,201.00 8% $ 1,541.00
390100 I/F Transfer from Fund 100 $ 7,643.257.00 $ 7,643.257.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 7.600,000.00 5 7.600,000.00 0% $ -
390250 I/F Transfer from Fund 250 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -
390760 I/F Transfer from Fund 760 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenue Total • _ _ _ ; $ 7,946,252.00 I $ 7,831.493.00 ' $ 7,726,317.00 I $ 7,778,660.00 $ 7,762,397_.00 I 0% $ (16,263.00)
iL_.---.-_
Expenditures - 02-031--- 02-03 i -- I I - - -
.-_ J_ .- _ 1 03-04 1 03-04 04-05 i%change i Amount 1
OBJECT TITLE I Budgeted r Proj.Yr.End I Proposed I Proj.Yr.End Proposed 1 Change notes
411100 Regular Full-time Employees $ 209,203.00 $ 221,000.00 $ 220,523.00 $ 220,523.00 $ 234,554.59 6% $ 14,031.59 1
• 412100 Regular Part-time Employees $ 49,578.00 $ 49,700.00 $ 52,691.00 $ 52,691.00 $ 56,642.83 8% $ 3,951.83 --2_
413000 Temporary Workers (gj.'-/ L " $ 42,026.00 $ 43,000.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 49,000.00 $ 62,000.00 27% $ 13,000.00 3
414030 Overtime S 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00_ $ 500.00_ $ 500.00 0% $ - _____
414050 Vacation Sell-back $ 2,500.00 $ 1,412.00 $ 2,600.00 $ - $ - $ -
415000 Fringe Benefits _$ 123,972.00 $ 118,794.00 $ 150,956.00 $ 150,956.00 $ 158,503.80 5% $ 7,547.80 4__
415020 Worker Compensation $ 1,472.00 $ 1,472.00 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,424.00 $ 1,424.00 0% $ - __
415030 Unemployment $ 393.00 $ 9.66 $ 744.00 $ 2,671.00 $ 744.00 -72% $ (1,927.00) ____
PERSONAL SERVICES $ 429,644.00 $ 435,887.66 $ 478,438.00 $ 477,755.00 $ 514,369.21 8% $ 36,604.21 _
I I S
421100 General Office Supplies $ 1,500.00 $ 2,282.18 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,639.09 $ 1,800.00 10% $ 160.91 -
_
421110 Postage $ 200.00 $ 1,561.11 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,613.17 $ 1,740.00 8% $ 126.83 _
421111 Overdues Postage $ 15,665.00 $ 19,964.89 $ 17,500.00 $ 14,856.24 $ 15,600.00 5% $ 743.76 _
421200 Computer Supplies 5 - $ 3,999.62 $ 18,000.00 $ 18,000.00_$ - -100% $ (18,000.00) _ 57 1
422910 Misc.Meeting Expenses $ - $ - $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 0% $ -
422950 Election Supplies $ - $ $ - $ $ 30,000.00 100% $ 30,000.00 6
422990 Courier Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 I 0% $ -
424610 Fuel&Vehicle Rental $ 11,000.00 $ 8,491.29 $ 12,906.00 $ 12,424.57 $ 10,710.00 -14% $ (1,714.57) 7
425100 Small Tools&Minor Equip. $ - $ 611.00 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
431420 Legal Fees $ 1,500.00 $ 1,277.70 $ 900.00 $ 633.90 $ 900.00 42% $ 266.10
431700 Misc.Professional Services $ - $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - -
431711 Metaframe user cost $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 $ 750.00 0% $ -
432100 Telephone(Co.phone bills) $ 4,000.00 $ 3,004.08 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,169.92 $ 3,240.00 2% $ 70.08
432200 Communication Lines Ink t( $ 76,000.00 $ 65,594.89 $ 77,868.00 $ 65,129.97 $ 94,484.00 45% $ 29,354.03 8
i
All--
Expenditures 02-03 02-03 03-04 ' 03-04' 04-05 : %change Amount
OBJECT TITLE Budgeted Proj.Yr.End ' Proposed Proj.Yr.End I Proposed I Change notes
432500 Courier Services $ 6,000.00 $ 6,331.00 $ 7.000.00 $ 5,832.00 $ 6,000.00 3% $ 168.00
433100 Travel&Mileage $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 0% $
434100 Printing&Duplicating Services $ - $ 256.90 $ $ 300.00 $ - -100% $ (300.00)
435180 Casualty Insurance $ 2,134.00 $ 2,134.50 $ 1,746.00 $ 1,746.00 $ 1,746.00 0% $
437210 Office Equipment.Repair/Maint. $ 5,375.00 5 5,623.93 $ 5,300.00 $ 5,682.87 $ 5,950.00 5% $ 267.13
437230 Computer Equip.Repair/Maint. $ 13,600.00 $ 23,269.55 $ 22,000.00 $ 18.452.73 $ 19,120.00 4% $ 667.27
437231 Software Maintenance $ 147,969.00 $ 150,012.56 $ 164,080.00 $ 124,217.53 $ 141.984.00 14% $ 17.766.47 _ 9
437235 Micro-Computer Syst.Repair/Maint. $ - $ 500.00 S 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 5,000.00 900% $ 4,500.00
437260 Non-capital office furn/equip. $ - $ 69.99 $ - $ 0%
438110 Office Rental $ 34,680.00 $ 34,680.00 $ 36.000.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 36,048.00 0% $ 48.00
439100 Dues&Memberships $ 75.00 $ 2,030.00 $ 75.00 $ 7,495.00 $ 7,495.00 0% $
439200 Training&Staff Development $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
439400 Publications&Subscriptions $ - $ 772.00 $ 200.00 $ 130.00 $ 130.00 0% $
440001 Payments to Other Governments $ 112,000.00 $ 112,000.00 $ 129,999.00 $ 124,924.00 $ 141,000.00 13% $ 16,076.00 _ 101
MATERIALS/SUPPLIES $ 432,948.00 $ 446,517.19 $ 502,374.00 $ 445,146.99 $ 525,347.00 18% S 80,200.01
$
478101 Accounting Services Allocated '$ 4,302.00 $ 4,302.00 $ 4,255.00 5 4,255.00 $ 4.255.00 0% $ __ _
478102 Data Processing Allocated $ 1,685.00 $ 1,685.00 $ 1,847.00 $ 1,847.00 $ 1,847.00 0% $ -
478103 Building Maintenance Allocated $ 12,761.00 $ 12,761.00 $ 12,540.00 $ 12,540.00 $ 12,540.00 0% $ -
478104 PGR Administration Allocated $ 12.167.00 $ 12,167.00 $ 11,203.00 $ 11,203.00 $ 11,203.00 0% $ -
478105 Records Management Allocated $ 262.00 $ 262.00 $ 397.00 $ 397.00 ,$ 397.00 0% $ - __
478106 Purchasing Services Allocated $ 2,149.00 $ 2,149.00 $ 2,545.00 $ 2,545.00 $ 2,545.00 0% $ - _ _^
478107 County Courier Allocated $ 918.00 $ 918.00 $ 908.00 $ 908.00 $ 908.00 0% $ - _
478111 Personnel Administration Allocated $ 5,209.00 $ 5,209.00 $ 5,605.00 $ 5,605.00 $ 5,605.00 0% $ - _ _ _
478112 County Administration Allocated $ 2.147.00 $ 2,147.00 $ 1,891.00 $ 1,891.00 $ 1,891.00 0% $
COST ALLOCATIONS/CO LIB $ 41,600.00 $ 41,600.00 $ 41,191.00 $ 41,191.00 $ 41,191.00 0% $ - 11
485320 Computer Software Purchases $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
485330 Computer Hardware $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
485333 Computer Peripherals $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
485334 Computer Network Installation $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ -
485510 Light Vehicles $ - $ - $ - $ 16,000.00 -100% 5 (16.000.00) 12
CAPITAL PURCHASES $ - $ - $ $ 16,000.00 -100% $ (16,000.00)
Library Network Budget Total $ 1,166,232.00 $ 924,004.85 $ 1,100,257.00 $ 964,102.99 $ 1,158,717.21 20% $ 194.614.22
499001 Contingency $ 262,060.00 $ - $ 78,254.00 $ - $ 77,810.00 0% $ 77,810.00
470100 I/F Transfer to CO $ 1,316,815.00 $ 1,316,815.00 $ 1,274,357.86 $ 1,274,357.86 $ 1,241,305.28 -3% $ (33,052.59) _
444000 Contracts With Cities $ 5,464,185.00 $ 5,464,185.00 $ 5,369.738.14 $ 5,369,738.14� $ 5,362,374.51 0% $ (7,363.63)
Expenditure Total $ 7,947,252.00 5 7,705,004.85 ' $ 7,744,353.00 $ 7,608,198.99 $ 7,762,397.00 2% $ 154,198.01
5/2212003 'NT budget minus MIX&contingency $ 792,192.00 $ 812,004.85 $ 892,004.00 $ 839,178.99 $ 939,907.21 12% $ 100,728.22
-
Footnotes
1 2.5% COLA and 6% increase due to conversion to 40-hour work week
2 2.5% COLA and 5% merit steps
3 Addition of one 18.75 hours admin support 0S2
4 Estimated 5% increase in fringe benefits; actual number available early Feb 2004
5 No overdue notices, no plastic cards, no barcodes to be purchased in 04-05
6 Estimated election expenses for Nov 2004; actual projected cost can't be estimated until number of items on ballot is known
7 Decrease due to replacement of oldest van with new vehicle
8 Increase due to adding one additional frame relay line to balance the load of the thin clients and one additional T-1 circuit
to the Internet to handle increased load; also $14,000 E-rate received in 03-04 is not included in 04-05 because this is not a
reliable source of revenue.
9 Increase due to cataloging ESD AV collection and uncertainty about OCLC monthly billing
10 Circulation net payment to Multnomah Co. increases every year by 25%
11 Estimates only; actual numbers available early Feb 2004
12 Replacement van purchase in 03-04
1214/2003
1
II
UI V
I %Z'91 14SE'LZL'I. $I£44'16Z'L $J I
%4'64-j S46'£9 $ 000'0£ $ Aoue8uguo3
_ - $ 000'001 $ puedxe leude3
%5'41 000'141 5 E40'191. $ x9,1 -
%EFL 6E4'9Z6 $ 000'000'1 $ ISOo 6ugejado
%E'SL- LZ5'S1L'L $ LOL'L£9'9 $ 'puedX3IE101
•
%Z'91 4SE'IZL'L $ £W 16Z'L $ asuedxe IN e6ueyo pinoo pue(Anel ou jo Juane mil u!)elewOsa ue s!la6pnq IN _ ilf
%/03Z- I ELL'469.9 5 I 99Z'94Z'g $ •ggs!p ANeign Algluow e6uey3 IPA pue suogpalaid So-40 we sill law 40/E0/11
%9'V- 981'940'1 $ £48'916 $' A11100316101 sain8g f1Sd wOu)4002 91.090 palepdn eq ll!M panics dod aleprliao
%Z'oZ- 886'94£'5 $ SL4'L9Z'I $ sapl016101 Algluow palepdn aq Il!M pue slenloe go-40 01 paAull we soil° nus'clod
up/dn 90.40 90-90 40/5121
%00'001- %00'001. %00'001
(Z4E'69Z) $ %9'1Z- 991.'94Z'1 $ £49'9L6 S 9S6'04Z $ %99111 ,66L'6LZ'1 $ 59E'EZZ $ 4£4'966 $ %E6'LL 94Z'9Z6 (08'61- 410'846 L49'L80'L %91'00 pee'Le 'W003
%4'OZ- EL1'469'9 it 99Z'94Z'9 $1 E44'1.6Z'L $ %4E'Le 10L'119.9 $ 559'096 $ 940'LSS'S $ Y.LO'Z8 99L'9L1'9 906'689'4 110'£90'9 %.ZZ'LL 90E'L9E
AM(94£'101) $ %1'61- 218'1E9 $ 9Z9'0E4 $ 086'501 $ %LZ'8 SOS'9E9 $ LZI'99 $ 9LE'LLP $ %84'9 OZl'6E4 61Z'EZ 106'51.4 999 L94 %49"9 6ZL'EZ AM
1M(992'011) $ %E'91- 9SL'919 $ 686'209 $ 81.8'EZ1 $ %69.6 LO9'9Z9 $ £L4'LL $ 4£6'999 $ %66"6 ZEE'LLS E44'EL 689'EOS 591.'909 %6Z'L 1.40'90 1M
31(9£0'1£1) $ %6T/Z- ZE4'L99 $ 961'OZ9 $ 450'9Z1 $ %06'6 09Z'849 $ Z99'9£1 S 88E'Z45 $ %ZZ"6 4ZE'LL4 900'82- ZE£'S09 601.'109 %S8'EL ZO9'64 31
VS (LS9'09) $ %.L 31- E66'99E $ 9EE'9ZE $ ZEE'09 $ %ZZ'9 999'904 $ 090'69 $ 804'14£ $ %SZ'9 4E9'EZE E99'91.- LLCM 901'58£ %40"9 Z69'LZ VS
30 (480'961) it %9W- 9411,99 $ 499'91.9 $ LL9'LZL $ %69'6 1.4£'949 $ 964'£41. $ 44L'ZOS $ %90'6 14E'894 954'61.- 961'194 LZL'E99 %49'41. OZCZ9 30
OW (999'L0 S %4"61- 449'L6Z $ 98L'6EZ $ LZ0'6S $1%LS'4 £L9'96Z $ 1.94'E9 $ Z£E's4Z $ %I.VP £49'13ZZ 102'61- 44L'LIZ 699'E9Z %94'9 984'61 OW
IW(mom) S %9'EZ- 941'419 $ 1Z5'9E4 $ 846'[01 $ %9E'9 OLP'949 $ 688'08 $ 099'E94 $ %4E41 LS9'LE4 150'1 009'424 EEL'664 %54"8 LOZ'OE 114
01 (Z60'4LZ) $ %1'ZZ- 009'6EZ'1 $ 101'996 S CZL'LEZ $ %L4'8l 0£4'£00'1. $ 591'111 $ 519'980'1 $ %49'61. 09E'110'I 6LE'L1- 69L'9ZO'1. ELO'90E'1 °/.1.0'01 406'24 01
OH(4E4'6Z) $ %I:1OZ- 4E8'L61 $ 00£1811 $ LZL'6Z $ %SZ"Z 104'141 $ L9Z'9L $ 49L'ZE1 $ %9E'Z OZL'EZ1 LE9'9- L99'6ZL L99'6Z1 %99'1. 699'9 OH
10(960'49) $ %9'61- SZO'6ZE $ 6Z6'49Z $ 91Z'99 S %50's 941'0££ it Z69'45 $ £99'9L2 $ %96'4 L69'99Z 194'£ 94Z'E9Z 466'0LZ %L5'5 L69'61. 10
S3(16£'os) $ %6'00- 49£'49£ $ 496'EOE $ 9Z9'4L $ %6L'9 691'91£ $ 940'05 $ 141.80E 5 %06'9 940'90£ 914'84 69L'LSZ 9ZO'LLZ %01"9 SEZ'81. S3
03(ZLS'ZOL) $ %Z'EZ- 61.6'044 $ LtE'O4E $ 19L'E9 $ %64'9 901.'604 $ 94Z'ZL $ 289.19E $ %EE'9 ZO9'LZE LLL'41 980'£LE 081'05£ %LE"L EZ£'9Z 03
V3(699'95) $ %9"91- ES9'1£E $ 466'9LZ $ 046'19 S %9Z's 4£6'£4£ $ 690'69 5 999`48Z $ %EL'S 1LE'99Z 44£ LZD'99Z £01'982 %ZO'9 ZZ9'1Z V3
I up/do up/In -g14sl0 'g1i1s10 uolingpjs1P 'g1-11s10 '(1Jlslp NS'dod grJLsIO'0-03 '0•10 33N11 '0J13 sill 'on3 '3u!3 pnis•dod paniag
S V. 50-40 90-90 >NOMieN 911 10°/. ssou0 •/.S 4 °/.Se io•/. paisn(pV laN Pela4olei 1e101 )o% •dod
81 103 L1/03 91/00 91/00 Zl 703 11 103 01 103 6 700 8'103 L100 9 703 9 700 1,100 E 700 Z103 1100
-- 890'940'5 5 Lunowe'qulsla
--
c544'160'15 =spaaN 184I09 IN ssal
%91. %5B 90-90 101'1£5'9 5 anuanallelol
LO1'LZ $ anuanau owl/
000`1E $ >alauanbulleppano-Ane3
10114/1--6 1 000'001 $ ;sanbai dO leuollIPPV
- 000'99£'9 5 001.pun)mai;Jelsueil
%91 =uo!lelndod
°/.98 =uopejnoul3
0 _FP11)11 j_iy V/r) V0 W.9 011 e9Q3 .. .
i NA
VVV 11' \
L %6's- 11,99'121'1. $1 000'990'1. $
%9"99- 1 916'£9 $ 000'0£ 5 Aaua6uguo3
$ 000'001 $ puadxa lel!de3 -
%0'001- 000'L>1. $ x!yy - -
%Z'0- 6E9'9Z6 S 000'936 $ Ism 6ugeiado -
%E'SL- LZ9'91L'L 5 LOL'L£9'9 $ 'puadx31e;o1
%6"9- 4SE'LZ V L $ 000'990'1 $ asuadxa IN ebuego pinoo pue(Anal ou Jo;uane a4;u!)elewgse ue s!ia6pnq IN
%6'91- I EL 1.'1769'9 $ 101'389'9 $ •ggslp tieiq!l A14;uow eeue4o IILM pue suo!loa(oJd 40.60 ale sill leN VO/E0/1.1
%0'BL 584'892'l $ 996'330'l $ Alunoo lelol swJn6g f1Sd wny 6003 41.oa0 palepdn eq ll!M panus dod alep pao
_ %9'91. 996'999'5 $ 991.'694'4 $ se!lr0letol A14;UOW palepdn eq g!M pue slenlae SO pp of pe�lu!l We sap NS'clod
up/dn SO-pa 90-90 40/91Zl
%00'001 I %00.004 %00'001.
(9ZZ'93Z) S %0'91- 991.'993'1 $ 896'ZZO'I. $ 149'961. $ %99181 66L'61Z'L $199E'EZZ $ 9£4'966 $ %E6'LI. 993'936 9Z9'6L- 910'846 1.99'1.80'1 %LIEZi 99E'19 'AGunm
%6'91- CLL'669'9 $ tOL'Z99'9 $ 000'990'1. $ %6£'49 10L'LE9'9 S 999'096 5 990299'9 $ %L078 991.`91.1'5 806'689'6 113'E90'9 %ZZ'LL 50E29E
AM(966`1.8) S o%6"91.- ZLS'l£S $ 926'649 $ LL9'98 $ %1Z'8 909'9£9 $ LZ 1.'99 $ 8LE'LL17 S %8b"8 031.'696 61ZEZ 106'91-4 898'L81' %69'9 6ZL'EZ AN
1M(160'06) S %9'61- 991'91-9 $ 899'939 5 691.'1-01- $ %69"6 L08'939 $ UV'IL $ p£E'SSS $'%66"6 3E£'119 £99'£1 689'909 980909 %63L 190'93 IN
31(16L'EL1) $ %EZL- 394'199 $ 499'£45 5 609'401 $ %36"6 093'849 5 399'9£1 5 88£'31-9 $ %33'6 93E'LL9 800'93- ZE£'S0S 601.'1.09 %98'EL 309'69 31
VS(666'56) $' %6.11- £66'989 5 E90'149 $ 939'99 5 %ZZ'9 899'904 $ 093'69 5 801'L1E $ %93'9 _4£9'93£ £89'91-- L4£'6E£ 99L'999 %1'0'9 369'13 VS
30(801'20) $ %Z'Li- 99/'999 $ 060'369 $ 1-09'901. $ %69.6 49£'999 $ 969'941 $ 44L'Z09 $ %S0'6 19£'899 999'61-- 96/./817 LZL'E99 %49.91 029'39 3C
OIN(190'1.9) $ %9.51- 1,p9'L63 $ E6S'09Z $ OZZ'99 $ %L91, 919'963 $ 1-89'69 $ Z££'SpZ $ %W 9 £99'933 103'61- 991.'193 6S9'E9Z %99'9 994'61 ON
IIN (098'911) $ %Z'03- 991'419 $ 983'894 $ 991'89 5 %99'8 01.4'969 5 689'38 5 08$'£99 5 %9£"9 199'LE9 LSO`L 009'939 EEL'661 %56.8 LOZ'OE IN
01(699'0E3) S %9"91- 008'6£3'1 $ 1E3'600'1 $ 006'961 S %19"81. 0£9'£03'1- $ 99L'Ll1 $ 919'9804 $ 0179'61. 09£'1.10'1 6LE'LL- 691'830'1. El0`90E'1. %1-0.31 906'39 O-
OHaZOZ'9Z) S %Y"91- l£9'L91. $ ZE9'£ZL $ 06L'£Z $ %937 1.29`1.41 $ L93'91. $ 991.'391 $ %9£'Z O31.'E34 L£9'9- £99'631- LS9'6ZL %99.1 699'S 01-
10(991'39) S %6"9L- 930'63C $ OL9'9LZ $ 91.3'69 $ %90.9 941'0££ S 369'179 $ 999'913 $ %96'6 169'993 !SVC 943'993 P66'OLZ %LS"9 168'61 1-E
S3 (169'99) $ %1,1 1- 99£'48£ $ 999'L LE $ 931.'1.9 5 %6L9 691..91.E $ 890'09 $ 191.183£ $ %36"9 993.90E 91.9199 69L'L9Z 930113 %0L'9 993'91 Sc
03(923'L8) S %L"61- 61.6'394 $ 999'999 $ 399'89 $ %66"9 831'9Z4 $ 91'3'3L $ 399'1SE $ %99'9 309'139 L1L'1L 990'ELC 09L'09£ %LE'L EZE'93 OZ
V3(033`E6) $ %0'9i- £99'1-££ $ ££9'893 $ 109'99 5 %93.9 9£6'£9£ $ 690'69 5 9991793 $ %Et's 1.19'993 179E LZ0'99Z £OL'98Z %30'9 Z39'1Z V:
uP/dn up/dn gNis!O gl.oslO uo ngmslP •gPLsIO •qtlslP nigdod g113s10'3.1I3 340 03NI1 •0-113 sill 0ll3 3;!3 pus•dod paniag
$ V. 50.90 90•SO )J0MlaN qll Jo% ssa0 %9L %S8 Jo% Palsn(PV laN PalagoleM lelol to% 'dod
91/03 LI/03 9i 100 91100 el 703 11100 01.703 6 Too 9 700 L 703 9 100 9 700 9 700 E 700 Z 700 L 703
1.01'386'9 5 ;unowe'gplsl0
000'990'1- 5 =spaaN;a6pne IN ssal
%SII• %58 90-90 LOL'1E9'9 $ enuanai le;o1-
I0L'13 $ enuenaJ ss!!ry
000'1.9 $ ;e!ouenbu!lappano-Lue3
000'001. $ ;scribal jO Ieuo!;lppv
000'58£'9 5 001 Pun;wot;iaisueJ1
%S4 =uollelndod
%S8 =uo!;elnoil3
Circulation= 85% _
Population= 75%
Transfer from fund lOC`$ 5,000,000 -- ` -- - -_-- ---- ._--
New levy revenue_ $ 8,019,009 -
Carry-oveddellnnuenci $ 31,296 - - - -. -- --- - -
/Also revenue $ 21,701 - '- ---
Total revenue $_ 13,072,006 05-06 85% 15% - ---
less NT Budget Needs $ 2,213,241
less Future reserve $ 602,000 ----- ---- - - ---- ---
Distrib.amount-- $ 10,256,765 -
Cd.1 Col.2 Cd.3 Col.4 Cd.5 Col.6 Col.7 CoL 8 Cd.9 Col.10 --C-iii Cd.12 Col 15 Col 16 Cot 17 Co/18 - -Col 1 I_ Co/20
Pop. %of Total Ratcheted Net Adjusted %of 85% 15% Gross %of Lib Network 05-06 distrib 04-05 distrib % 104/054o-05-08 05-06 distrl6 05106 0l 05108
Served Pop.srvd Circ. Circ. ILLs Circ. 184CC circ. Circ.Distrib Pop.Sry distrb. Distrlb. distrib &Futr.Reserve with levy - upldn S$upldnno levy with!wlo levy
IF i Si VIM
CA 21,734 6.08% 281,784 261,338 -747 260,591 5.04% $ 559,846 $ 119,200 $ 678,847 5.19% $ 146.199 $ 532,648 $ 331,653 60.6% $ 200,994 CA $ 277,19 - $ (255,454)
CO 26,323 7.36% 353,205 314,904 13,344 328,248 8.34% $ 704,947 $ 144.368 $ 849,315 6.50% $ 182,912 $ 666,403 $ 442,919 50.5% $ 223,485 CO $ 346.81/)__5 (319,602)
ES 18,235 5.10% 273,238 254,929 48,062 302,991 5.88% $ 650,705 5 100.010 $ 750,716 5.74% $ 161,677 $ 589,038 $ 384,354 53.3% $ 204,684 ES $ 306,5 1;a_ $ (282,_49_8)
$ 192,399 $ 271,3.:
GL 19,891 5.56% 274.901 256,176 2,461 258,637 5.00% $ 555,450 $ 109,092 $ 664,542 5.08% $ 143.119 $ 521,424 $ 329,025 585% GL
° $ ( 1)
HO 5,559 1.55% 130,777 130,777 -6,590 124,187 2.40% $ 266.705 $ 30,488 $ 297,193 2.27% $ 64.005 $ 233,189 $ 147,834 57.7°S $ 85.355 I10 $ 1 '853 $ (11111183,835)
LO 42.904 12.00% 1.318.413 1,038,810 -17,508 1,021,302 19.74% $ 2.193.355 $ 235.309 5 2,428,684 18.58% $ 523,047 $ 1,905,617 $ 1239.800 53.7% $ 665,818 1.0 5 991,698 $ (913,9199)
MI 30,201 8.45% 500,461 425,346 11,438 436,784 8.44% $ 938,041 $ 165,637 $ 1,13,678 8.44%k$ 237,693 $ 865,985 $ 574,145 50.8% $ 291,841 MI - •50,666 $ (415,320)
MO 19.486 5.45% 258,638 243,979 -17,730 226,249 4.37% $ 485,893 $ 106,870 $ 592,763 4.53% $ 127,660 $ 465,103 $ 297,644 56.3% $ 167,459 MO ''.,043,.$ (223,060)
00 52,320 14.63% 579,888 484,915 -18,268 466,647 9.02% $ 1,002.174 $ 1.011.491 $ 654,748 545% $ 356,744 OC ;:,35.• $ 485,103
SA 21.592 6.04% 380,544 335,408 -14,901 320,507 6.19% $ 688,323 806,742 , (303 -1)
$ 632.999 $ 388,993 63.6x6 $ 246,007 SA r'=4S•c'$ (303,581)
IC 49,502 13.85% 603,645 502,734 -28,191 474,543 9.17% $ 1,019,131 $ 271,492 $ 1,290,624 $ 1.012.670 $ 657,432 54.0% $ 355,238 IC - $ (485,668)
WL 26.041 7.28% 602,831 502,123 13,031 515,154 9.96% $ 1,106,348 $ 980,145 $ 615,755 59.2% $ 364,390 WL 10,0 $ L4470,070)
WV 23,729 6.64% 488,849 416,637 21,285 437,922 8.46% $ 940,484 $ 130,143 $ 1,070,627I $ 840,052 $ 531,872 57.9% $ 308,180 WV 437,17,',1 $ (402,883)
357,518 77.24% 6,047,173 4,585,379 5,173,760 82.08% $ 11,111,205 i8013,07Z006 $ 10,256,765 $ 6,594,173 55.5% ..,:„.7..337,70Tr
Canty 81,384 22.76% 1,087,627 948,414 -21,437 926,977_ 17.92% $ 1,990,783 $ 446.349 $ 2,437,132= 18.64% $ 524,871 $ 1,912,262 I$ 1,248,185 53.2% $ 664,077 +$ 995,156 $ (917,106)
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% WITH LEVY _ _ NO LEVY
1 - - -- -- -- -- 05-06 04-05 Upldn 05-06-' up/dn
LX) .sryCires are linked to 04-05 actuals and wii be updated monthly _Total cftiies $ 8,344,504 $ 5,345,988 56.1% Total cities $ 4,342,545 $ (4,001,959)
certdate4 --_ Pop served will be updated Dec 15 2004 from PSU figures Total cow y $ 1,912,262 $ 1,248,185 53.2% Total county $ 995,156 $ (917.106)
0
Net Ills are 04-05 projections and will change monthly Ltirary distil 10,256,765 1 5 6,594,173 55.5% Library distlb_ '$ 5,337,701 $ (4,919,064)
_- jkr - _ NT budget Is an estimate and could change - NT expense $ 2,213,241 $ 1,121,354 97.4% NT expense $ 1,100,000 $ (1,113,241)
------- - -- --- future reserve $ 602,000 1 future reserve- $ - $ (602,000)
- ---_ ----- -------._ ---_-.__ Total Expend. $ 13,072,006 I$ 7,715,527 69.4% Total Expend. $ 8,437.701 $ (6,634,3051
- -- `- -_-_-• -- --- operating cost $ 1,310,798 $ 926,439 41.5%
- - - -- -------- Mix $ 161,443 $ 141,000 14.5%
- -- -- - - - Capilalexpend $ 675,000 $ •
- - -- -- --- -- Contingency $ 66,000 $ 53,915( 22.4% 1-- - ---
$ 2213,241 ($ 1,121,354 1 97.4% I 1
CLAB Formula Decision for FY03-04 le1ale
At last night's County Library Advisory Board meeting a formula for FY03-04 was
agreed upon. o�lher-r
1. Of the reimbursement distribution 70% would be based on circulation. The
remaining 30% will be broken down as follows:
Number of Volumes Added 5%
Collection Expenditure 5%
Open Hours 5%
Internet Use 5%
Population Served 5%
Program Attendance 2.5%
Reference Questions Answered 2.5%
2. The Agreement will be in affect for one year. If the new formula is found suitable
after a year's experience it can be renewed for future years.
3. After running the numbers it was found that four libraries (Cornelius, Banks,
Garden Home and Tualatin) would actually receive more revenue in FY03-04
than the current year. It was agreed that no library should receive more than the
current year since the cooperative as a whole is in a cut back mode. It was further
decided that the funds realized by the rollback would go to Hillsboro Public
Library since they were hit significantly harder by the new formula. (This
formula distribution was the best scenario among many not very good for
Beaverton)
4. The amount of revenue that Beaverton City Library will lose is somewhere near
$350,000. The final amount will change depending on how much WCCLS
contingency the County will spend down and how much of the revenue will go to
Central Services or be re-directed to member libraries.