Loading...
City Council Packet - 11/16/1989 TIGARD CnY COUNCIL W 1GIDA NOVBMEEt 16, 1989 - 5:30 P.M. TIGARD CL`7IC C32um 13125 SW BATT BOUEVAM TICS, C RMW 97223 1. COUNCIL WORKSHOP (5:30 p.m.) A. Washington County Cooperative Library Service (Levy Proposal) Discussion B. Council Discussion and Update on City Events/Issues 2. E EC[TITVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (h) & (i) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues, and City Administrator's evaluation. 3. DARTMOUTH 10CAL IM1WVEMENT DISTRICT DISCUSSION - COL 4. ADJOUR101ENT cca1116 COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 6, 1989 - Page 1 3.1 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L HEMIM p DK= - NMMM 16, 1989 1. ILL CAIL: Present: Mayor Jerry Edwards; Councilors Carolyn Eadon, Joe Kasten, and John Schwartz. Staff Present: Patrick Reilly, City Administrator; Irene Ertell, Librarian; Ron Goodpaster, Chief of Police; and Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder. 2. WASffDVXK CO[EM COOPERATIVE LTH MU SERVICE (WOCCS) LEVY PRWOSAL DI.9COSS'IQd a. Peggy Forcier, staff membex of the Washington County Cooperative Library Service, and Herb Drew, Chairman of the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB), were present. b. Councilor Eadon opened the discussion by advising Ms. Forcier and Mr. Drew that council had received the Executive Summary Draft of the Report to the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the WCCLS Proposed Three-Year Serial Levy. The CLAB proposal rem adoption of a new formula based strictly on circulation. The Tigard City Council has fiscal and philosophical concerns with the proposal. The fiscal concerns relate primarily to the fact that Tigard taxpayers would pay in a significant amount more than would be received back from the Cooperative library operations. The philosophical concerns rest with using circulation as the only criteria measuring a library's level of service. Tigard recognizes this formula would be an easy one to use, but not necessarily an accurate or fair representation of service provided by any given library. C. Ms. Forcier explained the County's position on library funding in general. She noted the County 2000 report considers library services to be "urban" services which would be better provided by cities. The County does not contribute any general fund revenues to support libraries. d. Mr. Drew advised he understood the issues raised by Tigard, but wished these had been expressed earlier in the process. Librarian Ertell responded that concerns had been noted early-on at the professional level of WCCLS. In addition, CLAB only recently selected the final formula. (Councilor Johnson arrived at 6:42 p.m.) e. Iexrj by discussion followed. Council consensus was that the Mayor forward a letter to CLAB outlining Tigard's concerns (see Exhibit 1 attached). CITY COUNCIL MEET r.. MnR= - NOVE14BER 16, 1989 - PAGE 1 r 3. NOR AGENDA ITEM: a. Council discussed several non-agenda items including the following: o The discussion on the Dartmouth Local Improvement District was cancelled. The attorneys for the Martin family advised they would not want to discuss the issue unless the discussion was held in Executive Session. The City Attorney's office, after review, determined this issue would not qualify as a topic for Executive Session. o Council consensus was to authorize support of and signature on an amicus brief being prepared for the Tigard School District. Said document would be in reference to the School District's position on a recent Employee Relations Board determination concerning class size and workload issues. o Council discussed the Trammell Craw inquiry concerning urban- renewal-district formation. Council discussion was limited; consensus was to schedule this discussion topic for more thorough deliberation at a future meeting. o City Administrator noted exterior windows would be installed tr" in the Police Department if the Council had no objection. t~ There were no objections. 4. DTSPATCH DIaS+CUSSICK a. City Administrator referred to a recent newspaper article which reported the County may be submitting a ballot measure to the voters in March for a $6.3 million levy for public safety improvements. These funds would be earmarked for development and purchase of equipment and facilities for a consolidated County wide dispatch center. He advised he has been a member of a subcommittee which was concentrating on formulating an intergovernmental agreement. Presently, they were focusing on cost allocations; consensus on this issue had not been reached. other areas to negotiate include standards for levels of service. b. Chief Goodpaster has been reviewing the issue by concentrating on ramifications of internal impacts to the City of Tigard. The Chief noted overall issues including: CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mn UrE'S - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - PAGE 2 o cost; ~r o levels of service; o type of governance; o internal acceptance; o impact to Tigard's dispatch employees; o Tigard's record-keeping function (70-80% of which is performed by dispatchers); o hours of operation for the Tigard Police Department (because of current dispatch center, Tigard Police Dept. offices were open 24 hours). Chief advised there was a major push to request the $6.3 million on the March ballot. He noted concern that even if Tigard was willing to switch to the consolidated dispatch center immediately, the center would not be able to provide services for approximately 18 months. He said it would be extremely difficult to operate his organization, over this 18 month period, with this impending change which would affect his employees. Councilor Schwartz said, according to his understanding, the dispatching function could be accomplished within 60-90 days; however, the total system (i.e., computerization and facilities) would not be completed for 18 months. Chief advised he will seek clarification on the issue. C. Lengthy Council and staff discussion followed on areas to be worked through. It was noted Washington County would be placing the issue on the ballot because the Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) was not a public agency; therefore, they could not place a bond or serial levy on a ballot. Also discussed was equipment compatibility and the need for all jurisdictions to have the same radio equipment. d. Chief also noted concern over potential impact to those neighboring jurisdictions for which Tigard now provides contract dispatching services. e. There was discussion on the history of the consolidated dispatching issue and Tigard's record of participation. There was a period of time when there was no Tigard representation at meetings where this issue was being discussed. Since the arrival of the current City Administrator and subsequent employment of Chief Goodpaster, Tigard has become more active in the consolidated dispatch deliberation. f. Mayor advised his stance all along on this issue was that he would be an advocate of centralized dispatching so long as it would mean cost savings; there was an agreement on governance; and service levels could be maintained adequately. I CITY COUNCIL MM=G MINUTES - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - PAGE 3 5 5. E UITM SESSICN: Cancelled. 6. EAKUNOM IDCAL DIsmcT Dl<9Qbsxom Cancelled. 7. ADJOURNKENT: 9:15 p.m. w Catherine Wheatley, City Recd er AT=- ~ Aeziz y City of Ti CCm1116 l c ti S w ff f! 9 CITY COUNCIL MEETING NIIN[TnN - NOVEMBER 16, 1989 - PAGE 4 Exhibit 1 to 11/16 Council anu es , CITY OF TIGAUD OREGON November 20, 1989 Cooperative Library Advisory Board P. O. Box 5129 Aloha, CR 97006 Dear Board Members: I am writing to you on behalf of the City of Tigard to express our concerns- both philosophical and financial about the recommended selection formula for distribution of non-fee access funds; namely, Model 1. We respectfully request reconsideration of the recanzierxled distribution formula decision and reecuraend the selection of either the current formula in place, which we favor, or model 2, which we can accept as a compromise. We support the current formula. We do so because it clearly eliminates double taxation concerns and avoids any inconsistencies and potential adverse consequences associated with the circulation-distribution model. Our response to concerns about shortages due to the diminicl,ir,g unincorporated pool is that Washington County can contribute general fund dollars to eliminate any shortage. Accurate information about residence of patrons can be addressed throuxz periodic audits and checks. We recognize that the current formula is eouplicated, but advocate that it is a formula which is successfully in place. Our apposition to Model 1 is based on several premises. First, we believe that circulation is a flamed basis for.distribution. For example, we believe that circulation represents only one facet of a quality library, and that a true- service based formula would take into account the full range of library services. We are concerned that there is no differentiation between a three- day circulation or a three-week circulation. We are also worried about the adverse, mintended consequences of a formula dependent upon circulation numbers. In order to improve one's fiscal standing, for exile, a library could employ collection-building practices which are circulation enhancements, while neglecting other elements of library service. We recognize that circulation is a simile measure., but do not accept it as the appropriate measure of library services. Second, we are concerned that there are jurisdictional issues which confuse the situation. Banks Library is within a city, as is Tanasbourne Town Center, but neither is supported by the city in which they are located. .7he role of Washington County in the provision of library services is also unclear to us. 13125 SW Hal! Blvd., P.O. Box 23397, Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 . s. Cooperative Library Advisory Board November 20, 1989 2 a Third, we recognize that this is a cooperative and that compromise is vital to its success. We have concerns about double-taxation and we do not believe that our taxpayers should subsidize other libraries simply because of a formula change. We believe that model 1 pry a district approach, which we ` obviously reject. We simply do not understand why some cities pay an excessive share of funds while others receive more than what their taxpayers f contribute, especially when funds are distributed on the basis of total F circulation far beyond the notion of non-fee access, a primary objective of our cooperative. E, t Although we favor the retention of the current formula and are skeptical of F' any formula dependent exclusively upon circulation, we can accept Model 2 as a ecvTmx=i.se. We do so on the basis of the existence of city and unincorporated - pots and the corresponding elimination of double-taxation concerns and the nullification of reimbursement for a library's own citizens. Before concluding, I want to emphasize our support of and coamitment to the Washington County Cooperative Library Service. We believe that our Cooperative is perfcrming vital services admirably. We do not want anyone to interp cur cca¢nents in any way other than we are expressiuxg ourselves as all have a right. We hope that our fellow members listen. `.1 t_ f Y, J z 1120 s r k 3 c CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION In the matter of the proposed WDrkshv,o Cvunal YYI,Pft; O9 0~ t (/j&/'Sg STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss City of Tigard ) I (LA~Xjne being first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I notified the following persons by phone or personal contact of the lUorK5hap e Council Meeting of co 5 a copy of said written notice being hereto attached an by reference made~a part hereof on the 13'!~4 day of 1\10y e M b-e j , 19'R~. CONTACT METHOD: PHONE PERSONAL TIME Tigard Times Reporter at 684-0360 l Name: Sc,`nmNa~- 3:d o p rr~ . Oregonian Reporter at 297-8861 or 245-6997 Name : (`Cl ri r kti ex~ x : d S 0 ► King City Regal Courier, at 639--5414 Name: A ! I-~> Q h _ _ X 3; a 7 p. m~ . Subscribed and sworn to before me this !,L/-'-day of L~c~72G~ . 19~ Notary blic for re on Commission Expires: { iti !557413 r MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council November 14, 1989 FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder` G SUBJECT: Material for WCCLS Discussion on 11/16/89 Attached is some material for your discussion scheduled on the above subject at the November 16, 1989 Council meeting. cw Report to the Washington County Board of Commissioners on the Wash~on County Cooperative Library Services (WCCIS) proposed Three-Year Serial Levy ( EXECUTIVE SiMMRY Background WCCLS is currently funded with a three-year serial levy that expires June 30, 1990. A new three-year levy is being proposed by the Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB). Levy money currently funds county-wide services (Outreach to the Elderly, Books By Mail, Reference, Courier, Automation), using approximately 1/3 of the annual budget. The remaining 2/3 of the funds are used to provide or contract for the provision of public library service to all County residents without charging a fee, hence, "non- fee access", at 7 city libraries and 4 comunity libraries. Non-Fee Access Formula The distribution of non-fee access funds is based on a formula designed several years ago to pay contracting agencies (cities and corm-mity libraries) for library service to County residents living outside their jurisdiction and to provide a City Base Refund to address the issue of city residents paying two library taxes (double taxation). The formula has problems that need to be addressed, including the fact that nearly half of the money paid to city libraries is for tax equity not directly related to a specific level of library service. The current formula bases payment for non-residents on $1.50 per circulation which was an estimated average cost. The fixed amount of serial levy money available and the continually increasing circulation have caused the formula to be almost $600,000 short of having adequate funds to reimburse the $1.50 per circulation this year. All contracting agencies received 23% less money than projected, reducing the per circulation reimbursement to approximately $1.17. Issues/Alternatives Two major issues have been identified: 1) the need to reduce or eliminate problems in the current non-fee access formula and 2) the need to increase the total amount of money available in order to fund non-fee access and county-wide services. Several alternatives for improving the formula have been considered. Two models are included in this report. One refines the current method of payment for service to non-residents and one approaches reimbursement strictly from a service basis. The CLAB's preliminary recommendation is to adopt a new formula based strictly on circulation funded at a marginal rate ($1.13) for service to all County residents. Full funding of either formula will require a significant increase from the current WCCLS levy. The CUB recommends $5.2 million to fund reimbursement to service providers ($3.9 million), to fund existing county wide programs ($900,000) and to add countywide program improvements ($400,000). Purpose of Worksession Appointed last fall, CUB members have been reviewing countywide programs, the non-fee access formula, and the amount of money needed to adequately fund these programs. Before taking the above mentioned recommendations to their governing bodies for approval, CLAB members want an opportunity to share the process and the results with your Board to make sure there were no major obstacles from the Board's perspective. The CLAB is seeking conceptual approval of the total amount of the levy ($5.2 million) and a change in the non-fee access formula for service to all county residents. Issue #1: The need to reduce or eliminate problems in the current WOCI.S non-fee access distribution fornmal.a to member public libraries. The current WCCLS serial levy first funds county-wide services (Outreach to the Elderly & Handicapped, Books By Mail, Reference, Courier, Automation and Adminstration), accounting for approximately 1/3 of the annual budget. The remaining 2/3 of the funds are used to contract for public library service in 11 locations in the County. These contract funds are divided into a city "pot" and an unincorporated "pot", based on assessed valuation. The unincorporated monies pay city libraries and community libraries for service to unincorporated residents in lieu of a fee to the user (non-fee access). The city monies pay city libraries for service to residents of other cities and pay community libraries for service to city residents. The remaining city funds are divided among the cities based on assessed value. Problems in this formula include a decrease in the unincorporated funds as annexation occurs, no "base" for small libraries that have certain fixed costs, and no attempt to address the "true cost" of providing a service. Marginal or full-cost reimbursement for library services by contracting agencies is discussed under Alternatives. A significant portion of the levy funds go to cities based on their assessed value and not on library serer. lc-e provided to C~u~nty residents. Contracting agencies need to be reimbursed -at a reasonable rate for the service they provide without eliminating or significantly reducing service to special populations like senior citizens, the handicapped, or rural residents served by programs like Outreach and Books By Mail. Some cities have expressed concern that if more than 50% of a city's library budget comes from the County, the question of local autonomy regarding library policies or procedures could arise. Cities are concerned that their residents pay both city taxes and county taxes to support library service. Alternatives: More than 25 models of distribution formulas were developed by a committee of the CLAB. Of the two models that survived the process, the first reflects a significant change in the method of distributing non- fee access funds and the second is a refinement of the current formula. 1) Model 1 reimburses contracting agencies based strictly on circulation as a measure of service. It pays libraries for service to all County residents and residents of neighboring counties with which WCCLS has reciprocal borrowing agreements. It includes no refund to cities based .on assessed valuation. The model has been computed using both county- wide average marginal cost ($1.13) and full-cost ($1.61) reimbursement rates. The four smallest libraries (Banks, Cornelius, Sherwood and West Slope) receive full-cost reimbursement for the first 30,000 circulations as a "base" regardless of the rate used to reimburse additional circulations. These libraries are not large enough to see any significant savings based on economies of scale and have certain fixed costs associated with operation of a library outlet. 2) Model 2 is based on the current formula. After funding county wide services, monies are divided into an unincorporated "pot" and a city "pot" based on assessed valuation. The unincorporated monies pay city libraries and unity libraries for service to unincorporated residents. The city monies pay for service to city residents outside their city and divide the remaining funds among the cities based on assessed value. The model has been computed using both county wide average marginal ($1.13) and full--cost ($1.61) reimbursement rates. The four community libraries (Banks, Cedar Mill, Town Center, West Slope) receive full-cost reimbursement for the first 30,000 circulations as a "base" regardless of the rate used to reimburse additional circulations. Ooouerative Library Advisory Board reccmmendation: The CIAB committee reviewed the current distribution formula and created options that addressed the following: • current projections for annual growth in library circulation to eliminate or reduce the possibility of a "shortfall" between the funds available and the funds necessary to reimburse contracting agencies at the agreed upon rate. • marginal and full cost reimbursement rates for circulation • annual increase in countywide program expenditures to maintain service levels to member libraries and special populations • reimbursement for net lending of library materials among public libraries • a "base" for small libraries that do not benefit from economies of scale that apply to larger libraries • reimbursement for circulation to residents of neighboring counties with which WCCLS has reciprocal borrowing agreements The result of the ccmmittee's work was two models (copies attached). Pre- liminary recommendation of the CLAB is to support model 1 that reimburses contracting agencies on the basis of circulation to all residents. The CLAB feels model 1 is equitable to both the contractor (the County) and the ser- vice providers: It applies a countywide average marginal cost rate ($1.13) for the three-year period. Model 1 addresses the double taxation issue by reimbursing cities for circulation to their residents in addition to other county borrowers. It also eliminates the constant need to update patron residence information with regard to political jurisdiction which serves as the basis for payment to contracting agencies in the current formula. Issue #2: The need to increase the total amount of rcaney available in order to fund continued non-fee access and to fund county-wide library services. The current formula for distributing non-fee access funds falls $598,583 short of having enough money to reimburse contracting agencies at the agreed upon rate of $1.50 per circulation. A fixed levy amount combined with annual increases in library circulation of more than 18% have caused the reimbursement to decline from a planned rate of $1.50 per circulation to one of $1.17 per circulation. Contracting agencies have continued to provide service to all County residents and non-reimbursed costs have been borne by cities or non-profit associations. Both of the new models being proposed were applied to the current levy ( amount ($2.6 million) with current cciinty-wide program expenditures and the current circulation (2.3 million) and produced a shortfall between $452,139 and $731,244. Over the last three years circulation has increased at an average rate of 18.1% annually and any non-fee access distribution formula will require considerably more money than the current levy provides to fund circulation-based reimbursement for library service to all County residents if an average marginal rate ($1.13) is applied. Whether contractors would agree to continue providing service for less than the recently computed $1,13 average marginal cost is undetermined. The non-fee access reimbursement model reconmiended by the CIAB will cost an average of $3.9 million per year. The cost of maintaining current county- wide programs is estimated at $900,000 per year. 40 enhancements to county- wide programs have been defined in the Professional Board's Long Range Plan, including improvements in the automated circulation system, the purchase of books and other materials for public libraries, faster and more comprehen- sive reference service, and improved service to the elderly and handicapped (list and estimated costs attached). Funds to implement all of the enhancements in a single levy would be unrealistic in terms of potential resources. Enhancements in the amount of $400,000 per year have been included in the proposed levy, bringing a levy total to $5.2 million. While a comprehensive data processing business plan has not been completed, staff believes WCCLS needs to plan for a major upgrade of the WITS central muter. When installed in 1986, the original computer, an Ultimate 7200, supported 112 ports and the vendor made contractual guarantees for specific response times for that configuration under anticipated workloads. Since then, member libraries have purchased many additional terminals. WCCIS, on a shared cost basis, added computer memory and ports to support these terminals and by the end of the current fiscal year, the system will have 170 occupied ports. We have exceeded the vendor's recommnxr ation in the number of terminals but have not experienced significant degradation in response time. An incremental upgrade of the system (to an Ultimate 7400 configuration) will cost $132,000. Our turnkey vendor, Dynix, says that configuration will support 230 terminals. Member libraries' plans would bring the total number of terminals up to 256 by the end of the proposed levy. The current central computer will be 7 years old by that time and maintenance costs can be expected to rise 10-15% per year; seven years is the expected lifespan of one of these minicomputer systems. To support more than 230 terminals and to maintain reliability while containing maintenance costs, WCCIS should purchase a new minicomputer. Cost estimate from Dynix for a new system with 300+ terminal capacity is $600,000. County wide services provide direct support to member libraries as well as direct service to special populations. As circulation continues to increase in public libraries, the need to maintain and increase support services in Automation, Courier and Reference grows proportionately. Requests for service to the elderly and handicapped in residential facilities continue to increase each month. Books By Mail fills a need for rural residents with limited access to public libraries. Although these services make up less than 20% of the proposed levy costs, they represent one of the primary reasons WCCLS was originally created. Alternatives: 1) Increase the total amount of the levy based on 28.1% annual continued growth in public library circulation and 6.6% annual increase in county-wide program funds. Use a rate levy to help reduce the possibility of a shortfall and/or to establish a fund for upgrading the central computer. Based on the county's increasing assessed valuation over the last three years, the amount collected each year with a rate levy would increase by 3- 4% or $156,000 to $208,000 on a levy of $5.2 million. 2) Reimburse contracting agencies on a basis other than circulation or at less than countywide average marginal rate per circulation ($1.13). 3) Discontinue countywide non-fee access to public libraries (approx- imately 82% of proposed levy). 4) Discontinue support services to member libraries (approximately 12% of proposed levy) or charge the member libraries for these services. 5) Discontinue Outreach and Books By Mail service to special populations (approximately 5% of proposed levy). Cooperative Library Advisory Board recammendation• Countywide average growth in library circulation from the last three years / provides a reasonable projection of public library use during the next three t years. Applying the $1.13 county wide average marginal cost for reimburse- ment (computed on the same basis as the GFA report findings but with one year's more recent data) to the 18.1% annual projected increase in circula- tion will bring the cost of non-fee access to all 11 public libraries in the County to $3.9 million. Add to that figure the cost of maintaining most countywide services and improving some, and the average year of a three- year levy is estimated at $5.2 million. The current levy is $2.6 million for a tax rate of $.24 per thousand. The proposed $5.2 million levy would increase the tax rate to $.46 per thousand. This is a large increase compared to the current levy but the WCCIS annual levy amount has increased less than $400,000 or 18% in the last six years while the circulation of library materials has increased 104%. Registered library borrowers in Washington County include almost 50% of the County's residents. The owner of a $75,000 home pays less than $18.00 per year for county wide library services through WCCLS. The proposed increase would provide the County with adequate funds to provide or contract for the provision of good library service for a growing population at tax rate of less than $35.00 per $75,000 home. A fixed rate levy would allow funds to upgrade the WILL central computer near the end of the three-year period. The $600,000 needed for the upgrade could be obtained with a 3-4% annual increase in assessed value. f ASSESSED VALUATIONS (in 1,000's) Fall, 1989 figures % OF ~ AMONG TOTAL 8 CITIES Total county AV $10,865,417 100.00% Beaverton $2,056,033 18.92% 35.66% Cornelius $122,046 1.12% 2.12% Forest Grove $310,766 2.86% 5.39% Hillsboro $1,177,971 10.84% 20.43% Sherwood $85,558 0.79% 1.48% Tigard $1,423,136 13.10% 24.68% Tualatin $516,361 4.75% 8.96% Wilsonville $73,692 0.68% 1.28% Total for 8 cities* $5,765,563 53.06% Remainder of county $5,099,854 46.94% * These are the 8 cities in the county that provide public library service. Tax rate countywide for FY 89-90 $0.239 Amount raised if fully collected in each participating jurisdiction: . Beaverton $491,991 Cornelius $29,205 Forest Grove $74,364 Hillsboro $281,878 D04 Sherwood $20,473 Tigard $340,544 Tualatin $123,561 Wilsonville $17,634 Total for 8 cities* $1,379,649 Remainder of county $1,220,351 TOTAL $2,600,000 Change in Assessed Valuations (in thousands) Fall,1986 Fall,1987 Fall, 1988 Total county AV $9,690,728 $10,000,571 $10,344,826 Beaverton $1,631,892 $1,702,140 $1,872,067 Cornelius $120,826 $122,317 $117,921 Forest Grove $309,559 $310,307 $302,481 Hillsboro $955,724 $1,025,543 $1,099,893 Sherwood $76,834 $79,047 $82,439 Tigard $1,111,182 $1,176,775 $1,326,114 Tualatin $414,369 $485,453 $472,529 Wilsonville $62,703 $62,341 $65,796 Total for 8 cities* $4,683,789 $4,963,923 $5,339,240 Remainder of county $5,006,939 $5,036,648 $5,005,586 Total for 8 cities* 48.33% 49.64% 51.61% Remainder of county 51.67% 50.36% 48.39% CC C.,G\~j~ C~AQ C - ;~CC~o C` 19~~ (JAL - uJ~ r y c.~\ \ ~~n cu e v c . 4 •~1,~~v~c~~.cw~~r~~ G+ri11~9S~Q•tn"~S c~v.~s'~~p ~~.Qt.)t C.~ Sad n v ~ ubs G<'~j d. ~-N-~ n car ata ~a~ i v y rri f v G*~ o c CS , i h l C(VlinCfX libr SmP for fc ~s 30~~ 1Cyt,U~2c C~ Ci rc~.~QGc~-civ~D l~4~n (,-,i ri i Ci -`i.~, ds d ;v ~ a~rn a R~ ~ ~ s a ssPS~ as.~rs v /~!o aS Y'P l • u + 11. 16. 89 02:36 PM *WASH CO COOP LIBRARY P01 Washington County Cooperative Library Services DATE: FAX COMMUNICATION To: "Irl From: ~/Ilt~.e_~YGfilr Re : l1R LS r►It Number of pages (including this cover): OUR FAX NUMBER IS (503) 591-0445 •#°~ou wa c' JIi1c~ Sty -~1~5►` 64"40 lpt6i 1 1. 1 6. 39 02:36 PM *WASH CO COOP LIBRARY P02 Washington County Cooperative Library Services COOPERATIVE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Wednesday, November 8, 1989 7:00 PM / WCCLS Offices MINUTES Members: Beaverton - Larry Cole (Alt.) Cornelius - Maggie Firey County at Large - Russ Mickiewicz County at Large - Ed Ohlmann (Alt,) Cedar Mill - Jim Johnson Forest Grove - Herb Drew & Connie Fessler (Alt.) Hillsboro - Jim Lushina Sherwood - Virginia Hite Tigard - Yvonne Burgess Town Center - Gall Schultz Tualatin - Steve Rhodes WCCLS Staff: Peggy Forcier, Mike Smith Audience: Debra Brodie, Irene Ertell, Pat Reilly, Carolyn Eadon, Bob Deis Chair Herb Drew called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Approval of Minutes Forcier noted a correction on the last line of page 3 the word "opposed" should be substituted for "conceptually". Minutes of the October meeting were approved as corrected. Additions/Deletions to Agenda Rhodes will report on the Attorney General's Opinion on Per Capita State Aid (added as an information item under Old Business). REPORTS Coordfnator g Regort Forcier announced receipt of the LSCA contracts from the State Library for the North Valley Library Link and the Community Resource Directory, both at 90% of the expected amount. The other 10% will depend on whether Gramm- Rudman limitations impact LSCA funds. A new statewide library courier is expected to .11.16.89 02:36 PM *WASH CO COOP LIBRARY P03 begin in 60.90 days, replacing the Metro area courier for approximately the same cost. "Guidelines for Admission of New Libraries" were revised by the Professional Advisory Board based on CLAB recommendations and will be on the agenda in December or January as time allows. Items related to the new levy: 1) Marginal costs were recomputed and mailed with the agenda. The new figures were based on receipt of the State Library reports. Figures that had been received previously via telephone calls included some capital costs which were removed, accounting for the $1.13 figure. 2) The Children's Committee of the Professional Advisory Board recommended a half-time paraprofessional to work with children's librarians as a less costly program enhancement for Youth Services. 3) No worksession was scheduled with the Commissioners based on feedback from the city managers meeting In late October where Tigard expressed serious concerns over preliminary levy recommendations. OLD BUSINESS Lgvv Recommendation / Tigard Oblec ion Pat Reilly, Tigard City manager, ad- dressed the CLAB about their disagreement with the selection of model 1 for distribu- tion of non-fee access funds. Tigard's concern is both philosophical and fiscal. He does not believe that circulation alone is a reasonable measure of service. Reilly said that circulation-based reimbursement tends over the long term to reduce the quality of library collections. He expressed opposition to averaging full and marginal costs saying it works to the detriment of libraries with higher costs that reflect a broader range of ser- vices. Reilly supports model 2 that includes a city base refund because it resolves the double tax issue. Jim Lushina said Hillsboro looks at the models with a broader viewpoint and examines the benefit received from being a member of the cooperative as well as the levy dollars collected within their city limits. A considerable portion of the recently added assessed value in both Hillsboro and Tigard reflects commercial property, not households with in- dividuals that use library services. Hillsboro does not believe they could duplicate the services they receive from the cooperative for the same money. Even though Hillsboro does not fare as well as Tigard in model 1, they support reimbursement based on ser- vice. Reilly said the advantage of a city/unincorporated "pot" is that it maintains WCCLS as a cooperative and not a county library district. Tigard's philosophy is different than Hillsboro's. Tigard does not want a library district. Cole said he supported the decision of the group recommending model 1. He philosophically supported model 2 with a city base refund even though Beaverton would receive fewer dollars. He would like no contracting agency to loose and thought that was the case. The need for consensus before going to the Commissioners was ex- pressed by several members. Schultz explained that an effort was made by the models committee to include factors other than circulation but they were extremely difficult to 11.16.89 02:36 PM AWASH CO COOP LIBRARY P04 quantify. She asked Reilly to propose an option that met the city needs and those of the community libraries that have no taxing authority. Burgess asked if the CLAB had considered giving cities with high assessed value a boost In their circulation count. Drew asked Smith to explain the mechanics of the two formulas that cause so large a swing from one to the other. Smith gave a quick overview of the models and said model 1 does not compensate for assessed value since It is not a measure of service. Rhodes noted that model 2 creates a proportlonately'greater loss for two cities than the loss for Hillsboro and Tigard in model 1. Drew asked If cities with large assessed value that may not gain in the library arena gain in other areas like transportation. Deis responded that countywide taxes are not usually assigned in terms of benefit to a par- ticular jurisdiction. Reilly added that the cooperative is not a county-wide library district. Cole noted that support for other services like reference does not necessarily relate to the circulation refund. He wanted the record to show that the Issue of using only cir- culation for reimbursement may have to be revisited down the road. Cole added that tax payers, individuals or businesses, should receive services back for their money. Rhodes said that approach, if taken to conclusion, would be to have cities just levy the same amount as the WCCLS tax inside their city limits. He feels all the libraries are stronger because of the cooperative and that members need to factor in the gains they would have to buy is taxes came straight back to them. Lushina noted that if cities levied all library money locally and exchanged funds and services, unincorporated resi- dents would have no library service. Rhodes urged members to look deeper at the ad- vantages of the cooperative and not just the dollars. Reilly said he supported the cooperative and wanted to maintain it but did not see model 1 as an option for Tigard. He was not seeking to hurt other members but to protect Tigard's interests. Deis suggested looking at model 1 as a business decision does Tigard receive benefits from participating in the cooperative that offset the $25,000? Eadon (Tigard City Councilor) expressed concern over circulation being the only service measure. Fessler said the CLAB recognized that other services are being provided at various levels in all libraries but they cannot easily measure or account for other factors. Cole asked what Tigard could offer in an effort to reach consensus. Reil- ly responded that he had not come prepared to make an offer but to express concern. Drew asked if the Tigard Council would agree if the dollars came out even, if money was added to the levy to assure Tigard and Hillsboro of receiving as many dollars back in services or reimbursement as their city contributes to the levy. Eadon was not sure whether that would be favorably received and expressed preference for model 2. Several members expressed concern about Tigard's opposition to the recommendation at this late date. E Drew asked Deis about the Commissioners reaction to a $5.2 million levy request. Deis said given the dynamics of the past and the other demands for county services, $6 mil- I lion (model 2) would be extremely difficult to sell. Even $5.2 million (model 1) would be very difficult. The Commissioners will want to look at lower cost options and the related _ impact on the cooperative. Drew asked Cole if he still was in support of model 1 and t the $5.2 million amount. Cole responded affirmatively to both. He added that if the L 1 1. 16. 89 02:36 PM *WASH CO COOP LIBRARY P05 r amount was lower than $5.2 million he would have to go back to his board, council, etc. and may not get their support. (Cole had to leave for another meeting.) Eadon said the Tigard council meets Nov. 16th and she will talk to the mayor to ask if the WCCLS levy can be added to the worksession immediately prior to the meeting. WCCLS staff and/or other CLAB members will be asked to attend if Tigard representatives feel it would be helpful. Johnson added that the CLAB was Interested in getting everyone on board and able to support the some recommendation. PrIgritlzation of Countywide ro rg ams Forcier explained the numbers and ranking on the county-wide programs handout. Some members ranked all 43 base programs and enhancements; others provided a list Including the programs and enhancements they preferred but In no specific order. Forcier counted each member's vote (11 total possible votes) for all items and ranked them from 11 votes down to 3 votes. All items receiving 7 votes or more made up the $1.3 million limit that members had imposed. Items receiving less than 3 votes were not included on the handout. It was generally agreed that members were comfortable with the method and the result. Ohlmann asked Forcier if there were any significant differences between the CLAB priority and ` the staff priority. (Staff priority items are in all capital letters on the CLAB priority list.) Books By Mail was the only base program that received less than unanimous support. Forcier reiterated her concern about a significantly larger levy that reduces or eliminates ( service to any portion of the population. She also pointed out that "Recapitalize Central Site Computer" did not receive votes from some members because they believed that was already taken care of with a rate levy. Fessler suggested that if the CLAB has to look at options of less than $5.2 million the cut backs be from the bottom up. Johnson mentioned another option was to cut the reimbursement or to cut some from county-wide programs and some from the reimbur- sement. Fessler also noted than an increase of this size for the library budget in Forest Grove may be hard to sell to her council when other services are not growing. Deis said there are two ways decision makers will approach the levy request. One says library service is growing and revenue should be Increased to meet the demand. The other says what else could/should an additional $2.6 million be used for. No other services are able to increase dollar for dollar based on workload. There is a maximum taxing capacity the voters will accept that we may be approaching. Cities should ask what their library budget would look like if they were not serving people from outside the city limits. The difference between that amount and their projected budget for the next three years is the amount needed for reimbursement. Drew stressed the impor- tance of libraries as they contribute to the livability of the County and asked if the Com- missioners support libraries. Deis responded that they indeed support libraries but he could not say to what extent they can fund libraries and fund other programs as well. If they do not fully fund the CLAB's request it is a reflection of competing interests not lack of support for libraries. i 11.16.._89 02:36 PM *WASH CO COOP LIBRARY P06 Rhodes, referring back to the earlier discussion about 71gard's concerns, could not sup- port adding money to the levy to make sure they get all their tax dollars back In services or reimbursement. This time Tigard and Millsboro do not receive total dollars back. If Tualatin's assessed value increases dramatically, they could be in the same situation. A quick fix is not a good long term approach. Tualatin's library board is strongly In t favor of model I as a more reasonable basis for payment. Schultz asked what the ap- proach should be if Tigard does not agree. Drew suggested that would be discussed and probably decided at the next meeting. The next CLAB meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 7th and a worksession with the Commissioners was tentatively scheduled for Tuesday. December 12th at 8:30 AM. Attorney tener l's 0121nIaLl Regarding Per Coolta Rhodes reported that the prelimi- nary opinion supported the way the State Library has been interpreting the statute rela- five to eligibility (city support must be maintained or increased for city libraries). The for- mal opinion should be available next week. Senator Phillips will introduce corrective legislation looking at the total amount of a library's budget rather than where the E revenue comes from. i i NEW BUSINESS Minimum Budget Requirement Hite asked if the "Minimum Budget Requirement" in the present non-fee access contract will be difficult for libraries to meet under either model 1 or model 2. Forcier said staff will project the numbers in each case and dis- tribute the result but she did not foresee a problem. (memo attached) E Adjournment / Next-Meeting- The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. The next meet- ing will be at 7:00 PM at the WCCLS offices on Thursday, December 7th. (Note change from regular meeting date.) Handouts from the meeting have been Included for those members and/or alternates not in attendance. i E is Respectfully submitted, f'. v Y~ L ~ C Peggy Forcier r` F WCCLS Coordinator t {i 7