Seattle City Select Committee on the Library Levy

Are we on now?

Yes, we are.

Okay, great.

Okay, good morning, everyone.

Let's do a call to order here.

I was going to say good afternoon.

This is a special meeting for the Select Committee on the Library Levy.

The date is April 8th and the time is 1051. I'm Councilmember Morris, Chair of the Committee, and I'm joined by Councilmember Bagshaw, Councilmember Gonzalez, and Councilmember O'Brien.

I want to thank you all for being here today.

The rest of our colleagues will be here soon.

I'm going to do the chair's report briefly.

This is the second meeting to deliberate the 2019 proposed library levy renewal.

Our central staff, Asha, will be walking us through the council issue ID list while exploring for potential amendments to strengthen the ordinance.

In preparation for this meeting, Asha also provided a memo last week for your notebooks.

An important note to my colleagues is we are on a compressed schedule, so amendments are due no later than Tuesday, April 9th at noon to allow staff to prepare a second round of discussions at our April 11th meeting.

This meeting includes a public hearing as well.

For any other items, including the potential amendments of interest that come up after the public hearing on April 11th, I ask you to notify my office and ASHA, ASAP, or Nagin by April 12th at noon.

So with that, we will begin with public comment.

And Nagin, tell me how many people are signed up.

We have zero people signed up for public comment.

Okay, so since no one has signed up for public comment, then we will close public comment at this time.

Thank you for joining us, Council Member Sawant.

Please read the first item of business into the record.

Council Bill 119491, an ordinance relating to regular property taxes, providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on August 6, 2019, a proposition to lift the limit on regular property taxes under Chapter 84.55 RCW and authorize the city to levy additional taxes for up to seven years for the purpose of sustaining investments in library operating hours, collections, technology, and maintenance while expanding access to opportunity through additional hours, library materials, and technology, and undertaking seismic retrofits of three library facilities, authorizing creation of a new fund, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

So with that, I'm guessing, do we have everyone we need at the table?

Yes, we do.

Can you go ahead and identify yourself, and then I have a few comments to make, and then I'll let you launch in.

Asha Venkatraman with Council Central staff.

Thank you, Asha.

And first of all, I want to thank you, Asha.

You've been doing a phenomenal job.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your memos, your writing, and your research.

Just a quick recap for the folks that weren't here at the last hearing that we had.

We did a brief overview of the Seattle Public Library, which was established in 1890. We talked about in 1998, there is a Libraries for All, which was a bond measure.

And then we talked about in 2012, we did the libraries for all, which was a property tax levy, which I think was 200 and did I get that wrong?

123 million?

Yes, 123 million.

And so and what we're looking at now is for 2019, we're looking at a property levy coming up for 213 million, correct?

Yes, $213 million, so we have a $90 million difference in there.

My understanding is that of the $213 million that we'll be discussing and proposing, $167 million of that is to retain those core services that we have provided since the 2012 levy.

And then the additional $45.9 million is to enhance and improve services.

And I want to point out that the target areas and the categories and the emphasis that the library has focused on in 2012 were the same measures that we're focusing on again.

Those four dedicated categories were open hours and access, collections, technology, and maintenance and seismic.

I can never say that word.

Seismic.

Seismic.

Thank you.

Seismic.

So basically, if we get an earthquake, they can stand it.

Got it.

OK.

So I'm going to leave it at that.

I'm going to hand it over to you, Asha, because I know you know what you're doing.

Okay, so as Councilmember Juarez mentioned, today is the first of two sets of issue ID.

So both today and at Thursday's committee meeting, I'll be talking about issues that I've identified as requiring clarification, potential additions to the levy, and items that Councilmembers are interested in discussing.

Both CBO and the library have been really great about getting me responses to both my and your questions.

Because of the tight schedule, I may need to follow up on further questions you have today and hope to answer them on Thursday when committee meets for the public hearing.

So the first issue that's identified in your memos, as needing clarification, is around funding for maintenance and capital costs.

There's some confusion around which funds have been supporting these costs and which funds will continue to support capital projects moving forward.

Before the passage of the 2012 levy, a combination of real estate excise tax, or REIT, and general fund supported capital projects and maintenance.

Essentially, the bond measure passed in 1998. The projects in that were completed in 2008. So between 2008 and 2013, the REIT and the general fund supported these projects.

As of the approval of the 2012 levy, starting in 2013, levy funding replaced the majority of REIT for major maintenance.

For the 2012 levy period, $31.8 million was anticipated in collection of levy funds, and $7.8 million of REIT eventually ended up being collected.

The REIT was anticipated to be between $500,000 and $700,000 annually between 2013 and 2019, and this was mostly true except for in 2016 and 2017 when there were some unanticipated costs that are associated with the central library.

Those costs were not accounted for in levy planning, as well as the expiration of a lease for storage facilities, which resulted in the library wanting to acquire a multi-use off-site facility.

Essentially, the costs for the central library included replacement of some worn flooring, assessment of the curtain wall, which is the non-structural face of the building, accommodation of a lift so that that assessment could take place, installing some anchors to facilitate cleaning of the curtain wall, and inspecting the fire suppression system.

That work ended up costing $1.25 million extra in REIT funds in 2016, $750,000 in 2017. And then an additional $600,000 of REIT was allocated to support construction of public restrooms in the library, one of which was an all-gender restroom.

For the multi-use off-site facility, at the time the library was looking to acquire a permanent location to consolidate its building maintenance, custodial services, landscaping, generally storing where the library vehicles were.

At that time, the lease that the library currently had for building maintenance was going to expire at the beginning of 2016, and planned expansion of a storage facility was not the best use of Queen Anne storage.

So at that time, in 2016, the library entered a lease, a five-year lease, at a new facility so it could sell Queen Anne storage, and a little over $500,000 in REIT support was needed for tenant improvements to that location.

As of 2018, $2.9 million in proceeds is currently being saved for the acquisition of a permanent facility, and those proceeds come from the sale of Queen Anne storage as well as projects done during the Libraries for All capital project campaign.

Essentially, what this means is For the proposed 2019 levy, the amount of REIT funding is anticipated to stay at between $500,000 and $800,000 per year.

The levy funds collected for these projects is $55.7 million.

So as compared to the REIT funding of $4.8 million, it is primarily levy funding that will continue to fund capital projects and major maintenance for the library.

The point here, I guess, is that it's not that levy funds are replacing a decrease in REIT support.

They continue to be the primary support for these projects, and REIT continues to be a limited source of funding for capital projects for the library.

Chair?

Yes.

May I?

Council Member Gonzales.

Thank you, Chair.

Asha, I think it would be helpful if you spoke a little bit more about the uptick that seems to be a bit of an outlier when we're talking about REIT funding and allocation of REIT dollars to capital projects.

So I think that was in 2016. I think in 2016, there was a significant increase that went up to $1.25 million in REIT.

And it has been argued by some in this town that REIT is a more appropriate source for supporting the library and all of its needs rather than a property tax as proposed by this proposal.

So I just, and I think that people, some of those folks are hanging on to this REIT bump of $1.25 million in 2016 that we see and I'd like to have you speak to why there was a $1.25 million REIT allocation in 2016 in the sort of fuller context of what appears to me to be a more traditional contribution of somewhere in the 500 to 700,000 range as it relates to REIT.

So the $500,000 to $700,000 essentially accounts for the reimagined spaces, which is sort of a restructuring of the libraries for newer or enhanced uses.

And so baseline, that's what REIT funds.

And in addition, it also funds ADA improvements that tend to come up year after year.

And so that's the majority of it.

The addition in 2016 essentially was to account for the fact that in 2012 it wasn't entirely anticipated that there would be these needs at the Central Library.

The worn flooring was a new thing.

The curtain wall, because it was new architecture from when the downtown library was renovated, there were a variety of needs that didn't end up being worked into the anticipated planning for the levy.

Because of that, REIT funding ended up being the mechanism by which those necessary improvements happened in 2016 and 2017. And so once those improvements were taken care of, REIT funding dropped back down to what its average source was in 2018 at about $550,000.

So in 2016, there was unexpected additional capital project-related costs that were not in existence in the years that were leading up to the planning for those capital improvements and projects, et cetera.

And that required the city, both the mayor and the city council, to reevaluate how to prioritize limited REIT dollars to meet the unanticipated capital project costs of the library, as you've just described.

Is that, is my understanding correct?

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

And I understand that part of the capital project, and I'm looking to library folks right now, is there was an actual issue with the floor sinking, and that was not anticipated.

So, I mean, I think it's really important for us to make sure that the public understands that yes, there is some discretion related to how we can appropriate and allocate REIT dollars, but not all of the library needs will and can be met to the scale that is needed by simply relying on REIT.

And in my opinion, that's an oversimplification of the availability of dollars that exists for for this really important use.

I think it's really important for us to make clear to the public that that $1.25 million in 2016 shouldn't be read as a signal that there are limitless amounts of money available in that bucket for the library to meet its capital costs.

That was a discretionary decision made by the city council and by the mayor in order to meet an unanticipated cost that wouldn't have otherwise been able to have been met through levy dollars.

and really sort of don't want us to be put in a situation where we are creating a fallacy in terms of options available to us and the library to meet the real needs.

Thank you.

I will move into the second issue which is about the proposed elimination of fines.

So was the library previously Sorry.

No, go ahead.

We're just signaling to each other up here.

I'm ready to battle Council President Harreld.

As the library previously described, the levy includes funding to support a fine-free policy, and the context of this policy is rooted in the purpose of the library, both its mission and what its principles are.

And so the primary functions of the library are to provide free access to information, and it also includes eliminating barriers to access.

Historically, children's materials and English as a second language materials have been fine-free.

Between 1990 and 2009, that was the case, and those fines were reinstated because of the financial constraints created by the recession.

Currently, ADA patrons and mobile services patrons are exempt from fines, and e-materials as a general category do not have fines associated with them.

For all their patrons and all their materials, overdue fines are charged at 25 cents per day per material, and access is blocked when fines reach $15.

As it stands, 20% of the library's current accounts are blocked.

So as a policy goal to achieve the library's mission, the idea is to increase access.

And for a long time, it was believed that fines were the mechanism by which people would be incentivized to return their books on time.

But in reviewing research and the experience of other libraries, it turns out that fines, rather than incentivizing books being returned on time, decrease access.

Because the fines accumulate, accounts end up being blocked, and people with lower income communities often cannot pay those off to get their access restored.

So patrons with more resources can pay, resulting in a disproportionate impact on those communities who score lower on the equity index, which is a measure that the Office of Planning and Community Development uses to evaluate opportunity.

Aisha, before you go any further, can you just share with us, we know there was a study in San Francisco and I think Kitsap has that same, just maybe briefly for Council President Harrell, so he understands that there's just not going to be a run on the library and everyone's just going to take books and never bring them back.

Let's just clear that up so the Seattle Times understands that.

I wouldn't bet on them understanding, but we should say it anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Solante.

So as an initial matter, this is about eliminating fines and not fees.

And the distinction between those two is that fines accumulate for overdue materials.

Fees are incurred when an item becomes lost or in need of replacement.

And so moving into the San Francisco study, essentially what they did is collected data about all of their users, about the communities those users were from, which accounts had access, limited access or blocked access because of the fines that had made, that had activated that blockage, what the economics of those communities were like.

And they spent a lot of time talking to other libraries that had either already implemented a fine elimination policy or were in the process of eliminating fines for either all materials or very specific materials.

And essentially what they found after talking to all of these libraries is that either returns ended up being the same or the timing on returns was shortened.

There was an increase in circulation that happened at multiple libraries.

as well as data collected that said that it was the negative interaction of people having to go and pay off their fines that decreased incentive to go back and get access restored.

So it's not only the existence of the fines, but the actual interaction with the library that was negative and that people wanted to avoid.

In looking at that, they also looked at common concerns about eliminating fines.

And one of them was about fines as incentivizing returns, but also as instructing people on what their civic responsibility was in terms of returning those things on time.

And one of the things that they noted, which is in line with the Seattle Public Library's mission, is that the mission is to provide free and equal access.

And so the policies that the library puts in place are intended to be in line with those.

If they had found, if San Francisco had found or Seattle had found that the responsibility of a patron was to return items in a timely way and to teach them to do that, fines would be necessary, and that actually worked, the policy would be to keep those fines because that's what would lead best to free and equal access.

As it turns out, given all of this research, it seems clear that the route to free and equal access is in incentivizing people to return books, but that isn't a policy outcome that is driven by fines.

And so I just read from one of the quotes from the study.

Overdue fines do not turn irresponsible patrons into responsible ones.

They only distinguish between patrons who can afford to pay for the common mistake of late returns and those who cannot.

If I can just have you hold it one second there, because I believe Council Member Sawant has a point to make, and then I have a few follow-ups.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Juarez.

And sorry, I missed what you said last, Arshad.

Maybe it relates to one of the questions I had in terms of the San Francisco study, first of all.

And maybe if you mentioned it, I apologize if I missed it.

But what was the period of time over which they studied this?

And clearly they did it, the data they're using is not only the library sort of the library systems data about which books were checked out and how many and circulation, because you mentioned circulation went up, but also there was a survey component because it was really interesting.

You mentioned one of the things was not only the fines that are deterrent, but the negative interaction of having to go and pay the fines.

I think that's a good insight into what people are thinking.

If you could go a little more into how, like for example, by how much did the circulation go up?

Like what's the, just as a guideline for us here in Seattle?

And I think this alludes to the last point you made also, is in terms of income, like do we see Do we see a significant change in circulation as far as low-income households are concerned?

And I don't know what, and if they did measure it, I would be interested in knowing what kind of factors they used to measure it, like what, how did they classify someone as low-income?

And then the last thing is, did it have any positive impact, for example, for circulation of books by children and young people?

Thanks.

Yes.

Go ahead, Asha.

Sorry, I'm just making sure I get all your points down.

So this study was done to make a case for moving forward in a fine free process.

So I'm not entirely sure what happened specifically in San Francisco.

I can go back and check.

But in talking to some other libraries, they found that the Salt Lake County Library experience an 11% increase in the number of borrowers, 14% increase in the number of items borrowed in the year after they eliminated fines.

So it increased circulation there.

Let's see.

In Nashville, they found About 50,000 cards were blocked out of 300,000 users.

And once they had eliminated fines, it doesn't have a percentage, but a number of people returned to the library after that policy change happened.

I have a question, Chair.

Yes, go ahead.

Were you finished answering that question?

It's fine.

There's no problem.

So in our first meeting, when the issue of having a fine-free environment was broached, I just want to make it clear that I fully support not in any way penalizing people without the resources to pay the fine.

I fully support that.

I want to better understand the issue as I look at what all the possibilities are.

Because, again, there could be people willing to pay fines.

And I think the fine revenue is around $8 million per year.

And if you look at the administration of the new levy, it went from 1.4 to the old levy.

The baseline is 2.2.

And I did have some questions is why does the administrator I still don't fully understand why the administration goes up just because the loan Rather the levy amount goes up.

It will seem to me Aren't there economies of scale in play?

I just don't understand why it keeps going up just because the amount goes up.

So do we assume that if we push the amount down and we didn't support the full proposal of the executive that the administration fees go down just because of the dollar amount?

So maybe I could understand offline why that goes up.

But the fine revenue, even if it's, and I don't know if it's a pilot or if we look at how you could still capture fine from those willing to pay without penalizing those that can't?

Is there a middle ground?

Because even if we captured 20% of those that are willing to pay, you're paying for the administration.

So I don't understand why, and I think still most libraries still have some kind of fine mechanism.

Now can you tell me the fee is when they just don't turn it in at all.

That's the fee.

So what is the fee revenue and the fee structure still in place?

It seems to me that Why not get away with the fee penalty structure then?

Because if they don't turn it in, wouldn't some of the same folks that are unable to pay the fines not turning the books in and they're prohibited from borrowing again as well?

So I don't, I mean, it seemed like we should either go all in or look for some kind of pilot or something.

So the fee revenues is what do we get?

Or is the fine, the $8 million, does that include the fees?

So as from the past levy period, the 8 million includes both fines and fees.

But moving forward, the projection is that fees will create about $200,000 worth of revenue in each year moving forward.

So most of its fines is just a small segment of fees where people just don't.

They just, for whatever, they might have lost the book.

Is there a forgiveness if they just lost it?

I mean, or they always say they lost it, right?

It's not like they say, yeah, I took it.

You're not getting it back, right?

Well, it depends.

So once a certain period of time has passed, so I think, I believe it's 40 days.

After 40 days have gone by, anything that is currently in overdue status turns to fee status.

So it would essentially be, you've lost it.

It requires replacement.

And so the fee policy, from what I understand, is in place because the library does have a vested interest in getting its materials back.

And so the difference between the fines and the fees is that with fines, it's primarily an overdue issue.

So it's about getting the item back in a certain period of time.

As far as fees go, because you're looking at lost or replaced books, they need to be able to replace that copy of the book.

And so it's the balance between if you can pay to bring something back in a timely way or not.

So I don't know if we could put this together, but I'd actually be interested in waiving the penalties for fees.

Because usually some people are operating in a higher theft area than others, and I don't want them prohibited from being able to borrow.

from this public asset just because they couldn't afford to pay the book back.

So I think we should look at waiving the fees.

But I also think that on the fines, we should develop a process by which we don't enforce it in terms of they can't borrow anymore, but if they're willing to pay for it and you have parents using the library.

I mean, I grew up in the library and it was just something, you know, I'm probably projecting here because It just, you know, I thought I had to get the books back.

So, and we probably could capture millions of dollars on a voluntary basis.

So one of the things that the San Francisco study had brought up was the piece around a negative interaction in terms of coming to the library to pay off fines.

And so it could be assumed that that negative interaction would also include what it looked like to have to provide your income information in terms of if there are some people that pay and some people that can't, those people that can't pay would have to be able to prove that in some way.

There would have to be some sort of threshold.

I wasn't suggesting that they apply for like a discount at the utility.

I was simply suggesting that it could be a positive interaction.

You know, you're a few leagues ahead.

We try to encourage people, but you would have owed this, but if you can't pay or you're even unwilling to pay, you can still borrow.

Here's what it would have been had we had a strict policy in place.

So I wasn't talking about an income eligibility.

Just a voluntary basis by which people could pay for late books if they choose.

Because my guess would be, don't most people pay for the fines?

Is it the delinquent amount, just like 10 or 15%?

What's the delinquent amount?

It's 20% of current accounts are blocked at the moment.

20%.

of the people are unwilling to pay.

And I wouldn't suggest we penalize them at all.

But if you have, and even if those people, even if the 80% are people that are, it really, you know, affects them adversely, be willing to waive that.

But I just don't understand why, I don't understand the policy reasons for waiving millions of dollars when there might be some people willing to pay.

And I don't know if they looked at that at all when they developed this.

Just one moment here.

Council Member Sawant.

I think it would be good to draw out the research that we have so far in terms of these questions, but I would say you, I don't see, I mean, just speaking from a study angle, I don't see how, and study and enforcement angle, I don't think, I don't see how we can have a system where we say you don't have to show your income information, but if you're able to pay, you should pay.

So what's going to happen if you introduce that kind of policy, which seems completely wrong-headed to me, what would happen is people who can afford to pay would pay, and that would be, it would sort of be an implicit shaming of people who can't pay, and then there are children who shouldn't have to figure out whether their parents are able to pay or not that just seems to put the onus on the individual families to decide what they should do and I just don't think that that is it is worth and if we're worried about millions of dollars then and yes that's a valid thing to be concerned about but then the council should be talking about progressive ways of raising those revenues and more than that but not trying to accomplish that on the basis of applying fines for library books.

I think this is the correct direction to go in.

I'd also note in terms of fiscal impacts, the revenues from fines and fees have been dropping over the past seven years.

So back in 2013, I believe, we were collecting about $1.6 million.

And as of 2017, that had dropped to $1.2 million.

And some of that is due to the increase in usage of e-materials rather than physical materials.

And so assuming that trend is going to continue, the projection is that those revenues are going to continue to fall from e-materials.

Excuse me, not from you, materials from fines.

So I don't want this discussion to dominate the larger issues.

I just think it's a significant part.

And I want to make it clear, I'm not talking about having a fine structure on people that are able to pay.

I'm talking about a fine structure that people are willing to pay.

There's a huge fundamental conceptual difference there.

So not penalizing or shaming anyone, just people that are willing to pay.

And the last point is we are going to ask these voters to pass a levy from that was once $122 million all the way up to $213 million.

And we have to impress upon the public that every property tax, every levy dollar that we're asking them to pay is part of a large scheme of intelligence here, so.

Thank you.

Are you, Council President, are you finished?

Yes, I'm finished.

I'm off that soapbox.

I'll be back in a minute, but Councilor Sawant has to respond and I'll, some comments.

I don't think we want to be on the soapbox where we're talking about willingness and not ability.

I think we have to talk about ability and not willingness.

I really think that this is just in terms of having a sense of proportion.

in a city and state which has the most regressive tax system and in the context of some of the biggest corporations actually paying a net negative tax rate, meaning they get more from the regressive tax system than they pay into it.

In the context of the Trump tax cuts where corporations are getting more subsidies, I don't think we should be talking about the willingness of, you know, the quote-unquote willingness of households to pay library fines.

We're talking about essential services for families, especially families who have no other options and rely on libraries for various needs, not just the books, but also for internet access.

I think we should make the access to libraries as obstacle free as possible and really not engage even in a conversation which sort of implies nickel and diming these households.

Okay, so what I'm going to do.

I have one last comment.

I'm sorry, Council Member Herboldt.

Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this very quickly.

I first just want to highlight the fact that it's my understanding that the library system serving Snohomish and Island counties has been using this approach for over 35 years.

As to the issue of allowing people who have costs associated with overdue or missing items, I think the structure that we have created allows for that, because people will still be charged for an item that is not returned.

They will be charged the replacement value.

And people who are able to pay for that replacement value will have the opportunity to pay that replacement value.

And nobody will be blocked from accessing library services, as I understand it.

Thank you.

I'm going to make a few.

Oh, I'm sorry.

But I thought we said that if people can't pay the fees, they're blocked from access.

If they can't pay the lost or replaced fees, their accounts may be blocked, but they can work with the library if they are really unable to afford those fees.

So they're not totally blocked, they could just possibly.

I'm not understanding.

Are they blocked or not?

It's they are automatically blocked, but there's an opportunity For that person to talk to the library about getting those fees waived, okay So I'm gonna I'm gonna wrap things up just in one point here because I want to get back to the the whole philosophical point

First, I'm going to just start with just the basic legislation on page five, line four.

Talks about overdue fines have little impact on returning materials and such fines have a disproportionate impact on low income families which discourages library use.

We know that eliminating fines equals higher usage.

And so this is the more philosophical point, which actually has its roots in just basic fact and common law and history, is that libraries are not a revenue-generating essential governmental function or service.

By nature, libraries are public institutions that are most intensively used and valued in every community across this country.

So we can go back and forth about 8 million or fines or fees, but the point is, going back to our four categories on open hours and access.

And I believe we have attachments to the legislation on the heat maps and what communities are not being able to get back into libraries.

And that is the focus of this.

I'm not trying to make light of a $213 million levy, but there is a greater good here.

And the greater good is public libraries are public.

And the whole point of having them is to have people come in there and use them.

We have learned that public libraries are what they call the people's university.

That is their whole point.

And so with that, I would hope that we keep that is the narrative in which that we should be looking at how we would look at this levy.

And then second of all, I do appreciate that it will be $213 million, which, Council Member Baggio, what was the math on that?

$1.50?

Do you remember what it was?

No, but we did go through it very quickly.

We did do the math really quickly, and I can't remember how much.

Maybe you could help me.

How much was it?

MT, how much was it a month or a year?

I believe it's $84.92 per household, per average median household annually.

84 per year?

Yes.

Which is about $1.50.

$7 a month.

$7 a month, okay.

So, that's what we're talking about here.

So, and I think that's just important because that is the history of our country and why so many people have become, including me, had an opportunity.

It's because we use public libraries and without a public library, I do not believe I would be sitting here today.

So, with that, can we move forward or is there any other questions?

Oh, Council Member Ryan.

Just a comment on the math, Asha.

I'd be interested in just some quick analysis to look at what inflation has done in the seven years since we did this levy, and then also at population.

We're clearly serving a lot more people in the city.

My back of the envelope math shows that when you account for population change and inflation, that we're talking about a 35% increase in the levy amount after those adjustments.

But I'd love your analysis to check that map for me.

And then the question is just, we're talking about making some changes and providing more services.

And that's a question we'll have to wrestle with in the next couple of weeks and let voters wrestle with.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's move forward.

So the third issue is slightly related to this in that it deals with the rising cost of e-materials.

So as currently proposed, the levy would provide $5 million over seven years to support the increasing cost of e-materials.

This is at the low end of the estimate for what would be required to maintain the most critical needs to keep up with demand.

If the growth and use of e-materials, if you take a look at Appendix B, which is attached to the end of your memo, there are two figures.

The first talks about physical materials and digital materials as part of total circulation.

And essentially it shows that there's been a steady increase in the use of digital materials that compares with the decrease in the use of physical materials.

And then the second figure essentially shows the difference in circulation by format in which the electronic materials have increased quite a bit more since 2013. These are 2017 numbers.

And then the last figure, figure three, shows the difference in cost between a hardcover book versus an e-book or e-audio.

And for this particular book, which is Becoming by Michelle Obama, a hardcover is $16.90 to own it versus paying $55 to lease it, essentially, for two years.

And so the costs are quite a bit more for e-materials.

Throughout the period of the 2012 levy, there were shortfalls associated with the increase in acquiring materials, which were filled primarily by private donors getting donations to cover those gaps.

Moving forward, the $5 million in levy funds would support the e-materials costs.

But because of the rapid fluctuation both in the market and the constant changing of licensing conditions, for example, what's a 24-month lease now could be a six-month lease for the next copy of the e-book that the library purchases.

Because of that, it's really a constantly changing number as to what's going to actually support the demand for e-materials.

With that, Council Member O'Brien.

Actually, a couple questions on the e-materials.

The first, do we have any good information on the demographics of who uses hard books versus e-materials?

Obviously, it takes some sort of technology on the user end to do that.

And I'm curious if e-materials are disproportionately supporting one population versus hard materials.

And then I'm also curious, I know the library does some really amazing things with technology.

e-reader loaners or things like that, or policies in place, or I don't know, maybe working with a big corporation in town that could donate e-readers to low-income people so that they have access to it.

But I'd be curious if there are options like that.

And the other question really has less to do with the levy.

And I keep looking at our folks from the library out there.

As we see the cost go up for these, and I assume there are probably some additional costs for digitizing, but I can't imagine really they're much.

It's got to be more expensive to print a book than to simply email a file.

And we're paying three to four times that amount for that access.

Do we know if that additional money is going to authors to support writing, or is it all being captured by technology companies and distributions and publishing houses?

And again, this is not terribly relevant to the levy, but...

It'd be great to know that we're really supporting riders out there in the world as opposed to this is another world where riders are starving and we're paying a lot more money and it's all going into the hands of the folks that are controlling the industry.

It's probably not a lot we can do in the city to change that, but if there are things we can highlight about that trend, it'd be good to flag it.

Thank you, Councilor O'Brien.

Anyone else?

Go ahead, Asha.

I'll have to get back to you on your latter two questions about where the money is going and whether the library has e-readers on loan.

But in terms of the demographics, in conversations that I've had, I believe that the use of e-materials is higher in areas that are higher on the equity index, so better off communities are using e-materials more.

And I can get some numbers on that for you all.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I just note for these, not the capital issue, but the elimination of fines and the rising cost of e-materials issues, there are proposed options in the memo about what you can do.

Obviously, you can do anything, but specific options that are laid out here.

to the extent that anyone is interested in pursuing those.

For the elimination of fines, it would be to accept the mayor's levy proposal to eliminate fines and keep the proposal as is.

Modify the proposal to decrease how much levy funds supports those operations and then eliminate the $8 million altogether from the levy.

And on the e-materials, the options are to accept the proposal as is at $5 million or modify to provide more or less than $5 million.

The next piece of this is potential additions to the levy.

The first is around providing air conditioning and or elevators at the three libraries that are scheduled for seismic retrofit.

For the Columbia City Libraries, for Green Lake and the University branch, to add air conditioning, it would be an estimated $500,000 per branch for a total of $1.5 million.

And to add elevators to Green Lake and University, it would cost $500,000 each.

And to add one to Columbia would be an additional $100,000.

This is an item that was discussed but didn't get added to the mayor's levy package.

Essentially, to add air conditioning and elevators to all the branches would cost $2.6 million.

Adding air conditioning would increase the levy proposal in terms of average annual median home by $0.60, and adding elevators would increase it by $0.44.

And that's added to the $84.92.

The options that I've laid out there are accept the levy proposal, which doesn't include funding for air conditioning or elevators, or modify the proposal to add air conditioning or elevators to one or more branches.

I'm sorry, Chair Juarez, it's a question from the earlier section on the basic proposal.

On the question of what the policy should be if the materials are lost, what you said, I think, is the current proposal is for Is the membership to be blocked and then the person can talk to the librarian?

I'm just curious as to what other cities or counties have done from the study that you're referring to.

Is there any sort of consistency in their policy on that?

I'm just curious.

And if you don't know, that's fine.

We can...

I'll have to get back to you on that.

Sorry, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Because we don't have the central staff memo being scrolled through on the screen, what page are you on?

I am now on page six.

Okay, thank you.

So the second item here as a potential add is the potential for library space at Denny's substation.

As I think you are all aware, Seattle City Light has been working on constructing this new substation in Denny Way and one of the free spaces in that substation is some community space.

And there's some potential that that space could be used as a non-traditional library space.

It could provide programming.

It could be a pickup location for hold materials, just a place where there's Wi-Fi access or places to rent out a laptop.

Any kind of renovation that could use the library this way would not open until 2021. But as it currently stands, there is no levy funding proposed for this use.

there is not sufficient funding to support this use in terms of the library's budget.

So I asked the library to provide some projections about what using that space as a library space would entail, and it looks like it is about $6.1 million to provide maintenance and staffing, furniture, books and materials, and to provide any kind of tenant improvements.

And so that would, if that were added to the levy, it would increase the average annual cost to the median household by $2.44.

Chair?

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

I appreciate it.

Why this location?

Has there been like an assessment of the city and the different locations throughout the city that would benefit from these additional sort of non-traditional library services, and this rose to the top?

In my understanding, it didn't come so much from an assessment of those kinds of spaces as it did from the opportunity that having the substation in that location and that sort of empty space had.

So this is not the only proposal for that space.

It could be used for public art.

It could be used for any number of things.

This is just one of the potential things that it could be used for.

It just seems to me that We should not be led to make investments purely on opportunity, but we should be led to make these library investments based on where the greatest needs are.

Yes, this isn't something that the library proposed.

This is something that has just been in conversation about a potential space usage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So before we move on, Asha, have you wrapped up?

Because before we move into the next item, Are you ready?

Because there's something I need to say.

Okay.

I'm going to allow Council Member Gonzalez, this is an issue that's important to her.

It's on page 7. And she has to go, so I'm going to give her the courtesy of allowing her to talk to this issue, and then hopefully you can follow up with us.

How's that?

Yes, that sounds great.

Thank you, Chair Juarez, and thank you, Asha, for letting me go before you.

I know you have remarks that you're going to make here, but I have to leave in five minutes, so unfortunately, I won't be here for the ongoing conversation.

I wanted to talk about the specific item of interest to Councilmember The first one, which would be adding programming for children birth to three years of age.

I want to thank the library for the work that they have historically done in this space.

They have an early learning section on their website.

this is a critical part of their programs and services at the library and really it's an opportunity to nurture childhood development through a much more creative accessible way to early learning and this is a program that I think is very popular across the city and in fact When we requested additional information from the library around usage, I was blown away by the numbers in terms of who and how these services are used.

So, in the last year, there have been 2,866 events that fall into this bucket of early learning and literacy programs for children birth to three years of age.

And there are over 106,000 people who have accessed these programs at the libraries.

across the city, and we have more granular detail.

The table that is included in the memo that Asha prepared is a condensed version.

There's a lot of other tabs and really interesting, rich data and information that was provided to us by the library as it relates to this kind of a programming.

So this would be programming that would facilitate the ability of parents and children to engage in these early literacy, early learning programs that include playtime, for example.

And in my research, I have noticed and found that there is actually a paper, policy paper that was written for the Association for Library Service to Children that talks about what constructive play looks like at libraries, and they point out that these types of programs are absolutely critical to making sure that children are ready to learn when they show up at kindergarten.

So one of the things that we are doing here at the city is investing a significant amount of money in our quality preschool programs, and we have also found ways to support other early learning programs under the leadership of former Councilmember Tim Burgess through our sweetened beverage tax is an example of some of those revenue sources.

So again, these programs I think are really important for us to continue to support to make sure that children have a maximized opportunity to learn how to read and to be ready for for classroom time when they arrive to kindergarten.

And I think this is a really unique opportunity for us to braid this type of an investment into the library levy over the next several years.

I just like to remind myself and other folks that I gave up on adding more funding in the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy program with the hope and promise that we could include some early learning funding in the library levy.

So this one is a really big priority for me as the chair of the education committee and as somebody who really strongly believes in how smart these investments are in our littlest learners and their parents.

And there are so many amazing examples that are evidence-based of play-to-learn programs across the country that are also being used by the library currently.

And I think this is a really amazing opportunity for us to continue to invest in that area.

I'm hoping to be able to pull together a set of resources for you all colleagues to take a look at and hopefully be able to garner your support as we evaluate the potential of making an amendment to this levy to add some dedicated revenue to support this type of programming.

We are still waiting to get some cost estimates from folks over at the library, and I certainly want to be conscientious.

and attentive and careful about how this could impact people's pocketbooks, but I really do believe that the people of the city would find a lot of value in investing additional dollars per month in this type of programming at our libraries, which again, is heavily used.

Almost 170,000 people use this programming at our libraries already, and I just, I'm hoping to be able to Get folks support in this space.

So thank you chair Horace for allowing me a moment to talk about that.

Thank you Thank You customer Gonzales Go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Councilmember Skater Thank you very much madam chair, and I want to thank councilmember Gonzales for putting this in the central staff memo I want to also indicate our interest in expanding upon this concept as well I'm not specific to the program which I absolutely support and would love to work with you on the dollar amounts and there, but we're also in the midst of doing additional research on what it would take for additional capital investment for space for child care facilities to be run out of our public libraries across the city.

As folks know, one of the biggest issues that's creating lack of access to high-quality child care is the actual physical space, and when we have those spaces, we can do incredible programs like the type that Councilmember Gonzalez alluded to, with our professionals in the early learning field.

One of the things I think that we are interested in doing is seeing if there is an avenue, and Asha we haven't had a chance to talk about this yet, if there is an avenue for these type of capital dollars to be included in here and in partnership with the libraries and the union folks who work at the libraries to see if that is something that they would be supportive of to include additional dollars for building out the space would be very interested in working with you all to see if that's a possibility.

So I apologize that it's not in the briefing memo and we'll be looking forward to sharing more information with you on that so that we can build out additional space for traditional infant and toddler facilities throughout the City which I think is a nice complement to the proposal item number one here as proposed by Councilmember Gonzalez

The second item that's listed here is a discussion of adding more hours system-wide.

Essentially, before the recession hit, libraries were open for a little over 1,400 hours system-wide per week.

When the recession hit in 2010, those hours were cut by an additional 200 hours.

But with levy funding, the library was able to increase those hours in 2013 and then again in 2016 to the point where currently libraries are open 1,377 hours per week.

The additions that are currently in the levy package to increase hours would increase one more Sunday hour at all branches.

Well, that's not specifically levy funded as it is an item that can be added without levy funding.

But that would increase hours, 26 hours per week, open four branches on Fridays, and add evening and morning hours to three other branches.

There's one additional proposal that was not in the levy package as transmitted by the mayor, which would be to add an open evening hour Monday through Thursday across the system for an additional 108 hours per week.

And currently that's estimated at $5.6 million.

The libraries are getting me some more detailed information about that amount.

But essentially it would allow each location to stay open that one additional hour.

You mean each, all 27 libraries?

Yes.

Can I speak to that one?

Yes, absolutely.

I'm likely to bring an amendment to do that, to extend the hours for midweek for an extra hour.

A couple reasons I want to highlight for colleagues.

One is just those evening hours can be really important for users to access the libraries, and more hours are generally better.

The other thing is we have community spaces that are often co-located at libraries.

And community members' ability to use those for meetings, it's a great free space to use for community meetings.

But in the evening, when libraries are closing at 8 or earlier, it makes it really hard to schedule what's often an hour and a half meeting, because people need to be out of that room a half an hour before.

And so we've run into problems I'm most familiar with at the Ballard Library, but around the city, where folks have scrambled to find new locations to hold community meetings.

And we've struggled, because we used to manage that by by using some of our district coordinators to have keys and access to libraries but it seems like we have an opportunity here which I think would be fairly straightforward to serve a couple needs which is extending libraries at a lot of places basically on Monday through Thursday to 9 p.m.

and also essentially opening up making much more realistic that people could use free community space for meetings in that case if the library is open till 9 till about 8 30 which would facilitate the type of some of the community gatherings that we'd like to support.

We're still working on the actual dollar amount that would be.

It's a few million dollars for sure.

And so hope to have those specific numbers by Thursday.

And I'll loop you in on the amendment proposal.

Chair, just to understand, so the mayor's additional proposal and Council Member O'Brien's interest, that's in addition to the mayor's or is there some overlap there?

So the mayor extended some hours, but the closing hours in the evening still, I think most libraries are open till 8 on Monday through Thursday.

Some close a few hours early.

This would add an additional hour till 9. The problem with an 8 p.m.

closing on Monday through Thursday means a 7.30 meeting in time.

And that means if you have an hour and a half or two hour meeting, you need to start at 530. And most community groups are starting their meetings at maybe 6 or 630. And so it's not impossible, and some folks have made it work.

But I think this would allow a lot more flexibility for community meetings to be happening there.

And of course, it would add an extra hour in the evening for folks to be using the library for a variety of needs.

So, Asha, the 213 million number, that's the old number.

So we're looking at another 5.9 or so, and maybe another one or two or so.

So that, I add all that to the 2.13, right?

2.13.

Yes, any additional potential amounts would add to the 213 million dollar number, which is over seven years.

Okay, and the mayor's proposal, Has that been submitted in writing already?

Yes, that's the 213 million dollar number Oh, no, I thought I understand you were just describing what's already in the 213 on the mayor's I thought in addition to that after it was submitted.

There was another five point.

Okay, this would be Okay, I got it.

I got it.

So I understand it's 213 million but with councilmember Gonzales what her concern is We don't have the numbers yet on hollow what the cost would be so it would be 213 as a baseline plus whatever those costs would be and And then what Council Member O'Brien is suggesting, that would add 5.6 million over the 213. But right now, baseline is 213 for the base legislation.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, so you'll come back to us to what those numbers look like.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Chair?

Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Wall.

It's okay.

Just a question about the numbers in the memo for the additional hours per week.

The way I read this, and I think it's maybe supposed to be a cumulative number, but the way I read this, it looks like the extra hours would add additional 108 hours per week.

Yes.

Or is that all of the ads?

Nope, that's just the opening system-wide.

Essentially, it would be one more hour per branch.

Hold on, I can add this up.

How does that get to 108 hours per week?

It's one additional hour per day for four days.

So it's four hours, four hours per branch, including the central library.

So that's, if you open it for an additional hour, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, times 27 is 180.

So the total of all three options together would add 150, about 210 hours per week over and above what is currently budgeted, 60, No, that's 60 hours short.

It's okay, we can do this offline.

I just wanted to make sure that this was an addition, not a cumulative number.

Yes, it's additional.

2 to 1473 that's listed there.

Thank you.

Can you remind me again when the deadline is for amendments?

Tomorrow at noon.

So, I need your stuff tomorrow at noon.

Councilmember, President Harrell still has his library background in him.

Is there anything else you want to say, President?

Nope, I'm happy.

Okay, good.

Oh, Councilmember Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Are there scenarios in which any of our public libraries right now partner with nonprofits or community organizations to keep libraries open later?

I will have to get back to you on that.

I'm not sure that the partnerships are specifically targeted to keeping the libraries open for longer.

So one of the things that I'm constantly thinking about, and I know Councilmember Bagshaw is always doing this brainstorm as well, is With all of our both public facilities and then private partners as well where we have space where people could potentially be sheltered especially in our harsh winters and cold and wet weather who are sleeping unsheltered outside.

I know we have to be sensitive to adding additional dollars to this levy because we want it to pass in order to be good stewards of the public dollar.

We in many cases, I think, for example, here at City Hall, we have partnered with nonprofits to keep our first floor and a basement floor open for those who need a warm place to stay at night.

I don't believe that that has actually been a huge hit to our city budget to have those facilities open.

And so one of the things I might want to do, and Madam Chair, this might actually not apply to the levy if we could figure out a partnership scenario, but if there was a way for us to identify spaces across the city where unused space in the evenings, I'm thinking of our large facility downtown, were to be used as a shelter and we could partner with non-profits to do such housing that could be a potentially good use of public space and it could also not add dollars to this levy.

I'm supportive of Council Member O'Brien's suggested amendment here.

I had considered whether or not we could add additional hours in especially to create that space in the evenings I recognize that would be a large price tag, Madam Chair.

So in an effort to think of creative alternatives, maybe partnering with nonprofits to run additional spaces in the evening is something I'd be interested in.

If we need authorization in this levy, that might be something I'd like to chat with you about, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Before we wrap up, is there anything else from my colleagues?

Okay, so just so we understand, this levy only is for 25% of the total library budget.

The rest of the money to run our 27 libraries come from the general fund.

And MT was shaking his head no, that we do not currently partner with nonprofits for the question that Councilor Muscata had posed.

Now, I have my own ideas about how we can have revenue streams in the brick and mortar that we own.

Just saying some coffee shops, maybe, I don't know.

But I think we shouldn't just focus on nonprofit groups.

I think there are a lot of, There are a lot of profitable groups in the city that have the funds if they were civic minded and good neighbors, that maybe they would consider contributing and assisting us in some of the issues that were raised today, whether they're extended hours, whether they have extra space for sheltering, whether we have longer hours for more people can get to a library, anything that focuses and contributes to the four issues that we have been focusing on since 1998. Open hours and access, collections, technology, and then of course the maintenance.

And I can never say that word.

Seismic.

Thank you.

Earthquake proof.

And so I really want to thank MT and his team, our head librarian, because he's been so accessible with all the information.

getting us the data, hiring a social worker, a full-time and a part-time person in the downtown library.

Ideally, libraries are, like I said, are people's university for books and for learning and for access, but they are the most public of institutions since this country's founding.

And so I'm hoping that as we are in the 21st century, that we continue to look at libraries like we do at other institutions, that they're just not your library of the 20th century, that we provide other services as well.

And so with that, if there are any other questions, I am going to move, well, I got to make a, wait, let me see what my sheet says.

Oh, I have to make a statement.

Wait, Ash, is there anything you want to wrap up with?

You good?

Good job.

Okay, so let me do this before I adjourn.

The next meeting of the Select Committee on the Library Levy will be Thursday, April 8th at 530. At this meeting, central staff will host a second round of discussions on issue ID, and the committee will include a public hearing on the levy proposal.

And with that, we stand adjourned.

Thank you.