Seattle City Council Select Committee on the Library Levy 3/28/19

Good afternoon, everybody.

We are here for our first meeting.

I'll do a call to order.

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

The date is March 28th and the time is 2.02.

I'm Councilmember Juarez.

I will be chair of the committee and I'll be joined by other council members in a moment.

And I will be, my co-chair for this committee will be Councilmember Bagshaw as well.

I want to thank you for being here.

It looks like Marcellus Turner has his whole office here and then some.

Before I start with the chair's report, I wanted to make a few comments.

I made the same comments this morning when I was over at King County.

Last night, our city experienced a horrific and senseless shooting.

And five people were the victims of that.

Of those five, we had two fatalities and three people were wounded.

One of those people wounded was our Metro bus driver, Eric Stark, and he turned out to be a hero.

Being wounded, he turned that bus around and he saved lives while he was injured.

I want to thank, oh, thank you, Councilman Gonzalez.

Glad you're here.

It's fine.

I want to thank the King County Sheriff that was there last night.

Mr. Fong who was there.

Seattle Police Department, Seattle Fire Department, all the Metro folks.

King County Executive Dow Constantine was there.

He also visited the victims up at the hospital.

Mayor Jenny Durkin, Councilmember Dabowski, and of course the Lake City community and all of our neighborhoods as well as myself.

So we all met at the Lake City Community Center.

There was an outpouring of love and compassion and concern for those that we had lost yesterday and those that survived.

So I'm hoping and I pray at least for today and maybe for a few more days that this city and this county can be as one, that we can be unified.

I know sometimes we get into this us and them.

If you're not with us, you're against us.

And I'm just asking that at this time, that we can really think about our country, our state, our county, our city, our neighborhood.

It's been a long time and we're better than that.

So I'm asking at this time if you can do, and I know people have heard this before about thoughts and prayers, but we are gonna begin the healing.

And as we say in Indian country, we want that good medicine to start.

So I wanted to share those words with you first.

So thank you for listening.

And again, I wanna thank Council Member Gonzalez for being here.

I'm going to start with the chair's report.

This is the first of a series of meetings to gather information, assess, and then deliberate on the 2019 proposed library levy.

Our central staff person is Asha.

And Asha, I hope I'm going to say this right, Venku Traman.

I did it.

I did it.

Good.

Who has provided extensive information to each council member, including the chronology of the library levy, its history, including the current state per district and the fiscal impact for the city, along with my policy, our policy advisor, Nagin Kamkar from our office.

Thank you, Nagin and Asha.

The offices, our offices, our colleagues have access to these materials organized by a table of contents for your convenience.

I want to highlight two items in your physical or electronic notebook.

On tab three, there's a central staff memo that lists the schedule for the committee to consider those legislation in order to meet the King County deadline to put the levy on the August 6th ballot.

If there are any issues with the future attendance, please let me know ahead of time.

In 2012, Seattle voters approved access to critical, improved, I'm sorry, to critical educational and literacy resources for every resident by passing a seven-year, $120 million library levy.

The levy funds will end by the end of 2019, so this proposal includes a new renewal of the previous levy priorities.

The new 2019 proposal is a seven-year levy during the years 2020 to 2026. This proposal allows for the successful services, programs, and amenities provided by the Seattle Public Library and the 2012 levy to continue to serve the people of Seattle.

That levy will come, I believe, $213 million.

The 2019 proposal, like the 2012 levy, Focuses on the same four component components and my understanding is that libraries has been assessing and measuring The success of those four components in the last in the last seven years those four components continue or are open hours and access collections meaning physical and digital materials technology and online services and maintenance as I said, I will be chairing the committee on the library levy with councilmember bagshot serving as vice chair and Today, we're going to hear from our chief librarian and his team on the 2019 proposed levy, followed by Q&A from council members as needed.

But before we go there, we'll go ahead with public comment.

And so, Nagin, how many people do we have signed up?

We have three people signed up.

Nagin will call out your name and as you know you have two minutes to please address the items that appear on the agenda.

And today's agenda item is about the 2019 library levy.

So with that let's start with public comment.

First individual is David Haynes.

We're here.

All right.

Seattle needs a better leadership of the board of trustees and the chief librarian should be replaced.

specifically for never opening the taxpayer financed public libraries for 21st century times.

Tens of millions of dollars have been squandered never opening libraries on Fridays in the local neighborhoods after getting $60 million extra to open libraries years ago.

When confronted, Marcellus Turner said he thought community only wanted Sundays open, not those Fridays for Yet, he only opened the libraries on Sundays for four hours in certain local neighborhoods, and they closed like four hours later.

Now, he sometimes promotes a lot of racism and some perversion.

In fact, two managers, David Valencio and Marcellus Turner, protect porno viewers who ruin the computers.

If you complain about a porno viewer, they will kick you out for bothering others about it, even if you only ask for the security guard.

They should be replaced and we need an investigation of why the chief librarian can close central libraries when he feels like having a meeting with staff.

And why he never opened libraries in certain local neighborhoods before 1 PM.

And why it's so noisy in the library, beeping books that never got checked out, but taking credit as if somebody had used them, as if they need more money for that service that's bothering everybody beeping.

City Council has been aloof and yet supportive of library the library's chief librarian who's never opened the libraries before 1 p.m.

and closing four hours later.

We should have libraries open for a minimum of eight hours on Sundays.

And that's, I think, specifically because the libraries are getting double time for working, like, four hours of the library being open on those days.

Stop giving money to those squandering taxpayer budgets, self-promoting, rebranding, and personal political agendas that get in the way of the locals getting access to the library for 21st century times.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jonna Ward.

I'm Jonna Ward, and I run the Seattle Public Library Foundation.

And the Seattle Public Library Foundation exists to ensure the long-term vitality of Seattle Public Library.

And we know in the Great Recession, that our library suffered immensely and the levy that passed in 2012 brought back so much that our library and our city needed and deserved.

And I have a unique vantage point to be able to see the work of the library every day.

And I have to say that I believe SPL and the work that the library is doing today is better than it ever has been.

We are doing so much for every community, providing social infrastructure for everyone, a place to belong.

But it's the work the library is doing outside the branches that you just cannot see that is helping so many people who have access barriers.

And so as you look at the work that's coming, you've got a big job ahead of you.

There's so much good in this, and this is about protecting our investment and keeping this library as strong as this community deserves.

So thank you for your leadership.

Thank you.

And then our last individual, Anne Sisney.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

My name is Anne Sisney, and I am the president of AFSCME Local 2083, the Seattle Public Library Employees Union.

I am here on my personal time to thank the mayor for putting this levy proposal forward and to urge the city council to place it on the ballot.

Prior to the Great Recession, the Seattle Public Library was an efficient organization doing good work.

Following the layoffs and budget cuts of that era, it became an extremely lean one.

When the 2012 levy passed, library employees worked with focus and creativity to make every penny count for the people of Seattle.

We extended lean staffing levels across more open hours and increased programming within the community.

We maintained and expanded service to existing users while reaching out to new populations where stresses and barriers are high and where we could play a strong supportive role.

In all cases, centering the voices of the people we serve.

One of our programs, Library to Business, has even become an engine for economic growth, helping to launch new businesses in Seattle and create jobs, not only generally, but specifically for women leaders within communities of color and for people with limited English proficiency.

Seattle remains a city under stress, and the library remains on the front lines helping the people of Seattle learn, grow, achieve their dreams, and contribute to a strong and vibrant city.

On behalf of the union, I ask your support in placing the levy renewal on the ballot so that the employees of the library, our members, can continue this vital work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just going to check.

Right.

Okay.

So, with that, I think we'll close public comment.

And, Nagini, you want to read the matter into the record, and then we'll invite our presenters to come on up.

2019 proposed library levy renewal.

Why don't we go ahead and start with introductions and then I have a few comments to make and then I'll let you launch into your presentation.

To the mayor's office.

Ben Noble, city budget director.

Mike Fong, mayor's office.

Chris Ruffini, director of administrative services for the library.

Jan Oshwitz, Library Levy Administrator.

Marcellus Turner, Chief Librarian.

Jay Rich, President of the Library Board.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central Staff.

Nikki and Comcar, Councilmember Juarez's staff.

Great.

So before we begin, I want to do a little bit of, before we get started, a little bit of a historical context here.

And I discussed this with MT as well, mainly for our viewing public, but for people to understand why we're moving forward and what this means for our city.

Our library was established in, I believe, 1890. And in 1998, we did have a $196 million bond.

In 2012, we had the $123 million levy, and now we're looking at a $213 million levy.

So I want to talk a little bit about what Libraries for All means for our city.

And what I've understood, and I want to thank Asha for her great research, is that in 1998, when we did the Libraries for All bond measure, The total project cost was $239 million.

Of that, $196 million was bond funds.

And the remainder, the $43 million, came from private donations, public funds, and other sources.

But what I found interesting is the Seattle Times article, which is actually really illustrative and, quite frankly, refreshing.

We did the $196 million bond measure, which passed by 70% in 1998. And then this article came out, and it addressed particular libraries, Beacon Hill, Ballard, Capital Hill, and South Park.

And so when they talked about Libraries for All, one of the things that I found very interesting and I wanted to share with people is that Libraries for All became the catchphrase for a $196 million bond measure to rebuild Seattle's public libraries.

It wasn't just a cute moniker.

It was meant to drive home a sense of ownership that communities, all communities, could take part in their libraries.

Deborah Jacobs then, our city librarian at the time, attended 100 community meetings in three and a half months to start building that public support.

Quote, unquote, we asked people, what do you want in your new library?

In a city that debates public work projects to oblivion and tends to resist investing lavishly in itself, the ballot proposition avoided typical Seattle rancor passing with 70% of the vote.

Library hoppers will see a system of uniquely tailored heavily used buildings that has returned the library branch to its rightful place as the bedrock of a neighborhood.

Now the article could goes on to talk about unexpected compliments and successes and then some said Some complained that the high use had made the branches too noisy, but Libraries for All is considered a rousing success.

Paul Schell, sales mayor from 1998 to 2001, said Libraries for All was not dragged down by typical Seattle divisiveness, such as what occurred over building sports stadiums, because people view libraries as an investment in healthy communities.

The article goes on to address Beacon Hill, Ballard, Capitol Hill, and also talks about South Park.

The days of the Sheshing Librarian are over, Johnston said.

There are much more interactive places.

They are basically, and they have morphed into neighborhood centers.

At the end of the article it says, at a community meeting in South Park, Johnson recalls meeting an older man with a perfectly trimmed mustache.

He gently took her hand and said to her in Spanish, I want you to build us a beautiful library.

And so she did.

That article was published in September 2008. So now we're going to fast forward to March of 2019 where we're going to embark on and hear from our librarian and their staff about, and I think what spoke to me about that article is that libraries for all wasn't just a cute moniker.

It really is a statement about who we are as a city.

the information you're going to give us, how you measured those goals, why you stuck with those four components, and how we're looking to the future.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to the library folks and let them go through their PowerPoint, and I believe you have a video for us.

We do.

Thank you so much.

We're going to have Deputy Mayor Fong kick this off, but before we do that, I did want to read into the record that the screen title has been changed.

The new title is Library Levy Proposal, 2019 Libraries for All Levy Renewal.

So that is the correct title.

And with that, we'll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Fong.

Councilmembers, thank you for having us at the table this afternoon.

I want to first start by, and my comments will be brief because I'll turn it over to Chief Librarian Turner and Board of Trustee Jay Ridge to go through the details of the proposal, but I want to emphasize the incredible work that Chief Librarian Turner and his staff have done in terms of the lead up to the engagement with the mayor's office and the mayor directly with regard to consideration of components for renewal of the library levy.

I mean, for the better part of A year plus, the library has initiated a significant amount of community engagement in terms of identifying priorities and latest thinking from their patrons as far as what community needs and interests are.

And those being paired with the library's own assessment of their priorities in order to inform the robust conversation we've been having with them over the last several months.

From the get-go, the mayor identified a couple of specific priorities for us to focus on and anchor around as we develop this proposal.

And I'm going to just briefly touch on those for both the executive and for the council to keep in mind as we go through the executive presentation.

I mean, first of all, the mayor was very explicit with us and I think is consistent with what we heard from the library.

was the importance of maintaining and preserving the basic core elements of the library's operations.

And in the mayor's definition of that scope, it includes to the extent that this involves the library system's physical infrastructure as well as their ongoing safety needs going forward.

And you'll hear from Marcellus and others some discussion about that in the proposal.

Second is anchoring around pursuing any opportunity possible that would advance equity and expansion of access for patrons.

And we are particularly proud of our ability in this levy to look at options to not only extend library hours at a number of facilities, But at the same time, advance what we think is a key equity measure with regard to library fines.

And again, Marcellus will speak more to that as we get into the details.

Third is in an ever-changing environment, both technologically as well as the way Our patrons and residents interact with the library.

The mayor wanted us to make sure that we're looking at how we would be stabilizing, expanding resources in the realm of digital technology, e-materials, and other online services.

And this proposal took a very extended look in terms of both patron usage patterns, as well as the cost of electronic materials and trends.

to try to recalibrate the budget needs in order for us to meet an ever-evolving approach from our patrons in terms of how they're interacting with the library.

And finally, the mayor reinforced in any context when we are going to voters seeking property tax levy resources to keep in mind the potential property tax burden for our residents.

And we think we, with the city budget office and the library and the board of trustees, carefully calibrated this levy to what we felt represented the core needs going forward and to maintain the Seattle Public Library System as one of the preeminent library systems, not just in the country, but in the world.

So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Chief Librarian Turner, unless you have any questions for me.

Just a quick comment before Marcellus.

I'm going to first of all acknowledge President Bruce Harrell.

Thank you.

And just one comment I know that we're going to talk more about this because there is some some comments made about this in the actual legislation on page 5 line 4 we do address the overdue fines have little impact on returning materials and such fines have a disproportionate impact on low-income families and communities and which discourages library use.

And also that when you eliminate fines, the studies show that you have higher usage, and that is the purpose of having a library, is the benefit outweighs the burden in that you want community to use their libraries.

And following after that, of course, you guys also addressed the race and social justice policy and the history of underserved neighborhoods and also increasing use and access for those particular neighborhoods, not only in use of the library, but computers and Wi-Fi.

And kudos to you, Marcellus, for doing that.

But I just want to point that piece out in the legislation, which is going to come up, I'm sure, again.

So with that, I'll let you.

And I know that we have quite a bit to cover, but I also wanted to acknowledge and give President Jay Rich, the Board of Trustees, an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Board of Trustees with regard to the proposed levy.

Thank you, MT, and thank you, Councilmember Juarez and members of the Select Committee on the 2019 levy proposal.

Thank you so much for your general support of the library.

and also for the opportunity today to discuss with you the proposal for the 2019 levy.

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I also want to thank Mayor Durkan and her staff for her tremendous support.

in leadership in developing this levy renewal package.

While sustaining current service levels, the proposed library levy renewal also provides funding to address critical needs identified by the community, including the library's work in addressing equity of opportunity for all residents.

As you know, the library board is a five-person citizen board of trustees established by the city charter, appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the city, and as set forth in the charter, we have fiduciary responsibility in oversight of the library's assets and operations.

While we have exclusive authority to make library expenditures, we are, of course, dependent upon the support of the city council and the mayor for appropriation of funds.

I know I speak for the entire board when I stress our strong commitment to the careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The board is committed to ensuring the responsible use of levy proceeds to support the library services that the public uses and values.

And I'm pleased to note that the library has a strong track record of successful stewardship.

The 27 projects that you mentioned that voters approved when they passed the $196 million libraries for all bond measure, were all completed on time and on budget.

The library did not go back to the city or to voters for more money.

And as was the practice during the building program, the library provides regular updates to the council and the public on implementation of the current 2020-2012 levy and would continue to do so with the levy renewal.

And just last week, we presented to the Chair Juarez and the council its report on the last year's expenditure of a 2012 levy proceeds.

On October 26, 2016, the Library Board of Trustees passed a resolution that authorized the chief librarian to begin initial planning process in preparation for a library levy renewal proposal in 2019. As you mentioned, the current levy of seven years expires at the end of this year.

In April of 2018, The library undertook a program and services assessment survey, which was available in eight languages, to help understand residents' priorities for their library system.

We received more than 26,000 responses in which residents reaffirmed that the library should continue focusing its investments on the four critical areas that were contained in the 2012 levy.

Those four are open hours and access, collections, technology, and maintenance.

Based on that community, extensive community input, the library worked with Mayor Derkin to develop a levy renewal package that reflected community priorities.

On March 19th of this year, the library board of trustees passed a resolution recommending that the Seattle City Council approve a 20 $213.3 million levy renewal and enhancement for the August 2019 primary election ballot.

The levy proposal being presented today includes several features.

The largest, really the bulk of the levy, is sustaining open hours, collections, technology, and maintenance funded with the 2012 library levy.

This is the bulk of the proposal, approximately 79% of the funding.

is a continuation of the successful four areas of investment for the last seven years.

In addition, it provides for 5,000 additional open hours per year to provide more access to library programs and services.

It also provides IT infrastructure updates needed for internet and technology access.

Some of our critical infrastructure is approaching or beyond its useful life.

It also increases electronic or e-material investments.

a growing demand by the public, which now represents I believe about 30% of all the book borrowings are now electronic, which incidentally are significantly more expensive than regular books.

And it also provides something very critical to me and that I think you would appreciate too is seismic retrofitting for our three most vulnerable libraries, all historic Carnegie-era buildings to make sure they are safer in the event of an earthquake.

They are composed of unreinforced masonry at this time.

In addition, the levy proposes to remove barriers to access by eliminating overdue fines, a proposal that furthers the library's commitment to race and social justice.

So thank you, Mayor Durkan.

and Councilmember Juarez, and members of the committee for your leadership and support.

And thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal today.

Thank you.

And just a quick note, my understanding is that it was in 2016 that SDCI went out and looked at the earthquake, and those three libraries were the Columbia, the Green Lake, and University, correct?

Yes.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about the proposed levy.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Fong, thank you, Jay, for your comments on the process and the proposal that is going forward.

Our thanks also to Mayor Durkan for her support in partnership with the Board of Trustees on this.

I'm going to move you through this proposal that has been the culmination of some extensive public engagement, and I'm happy to take questions along the way or at the end, however you wish to proceed.

As noted, our mission is bringing people, information, and ideas together to enrich lives and build community.

We've been doing that since 1890, and this proposal will allow us to continue doing so.

One of the things that we do very well is that we listen to our community.

It's actually in the DNA of the Seattle Public Library, and we have a community engagement team whose job it is to go out and listen to our community and understand their interest, needs, and the voice that they would like to have projected, and then help us deliver that through our programs and services.

Over the past two years, I've had, thank you, over the past two years, I've had opportunities to go out and speak to different communities about the work that we're doing.

In speaking with those communities, we've done that in a couple of ways.

One of those is with a survey that we conducted in 2012 that queried 33,000 people, 33,000 plus Seattle residents, who told us what they wanted from their libraries.

And the things that they wanted were The components of the 2012 levy more open hours, more robust collections, updated technology, and clean and safe buildings.

In 2018, we had an opportunity to go back out and do another survey, our library programs and services survey, and what we found with the response of 26,000 residents is that they affirmed the four areas that they would like to have assistance.

They wanted a robust collection of books and materials.

They also wanted us to provide computers and internet access and provide programs and services to high needs communities.

And I will say that in that survey, we were able to do so both in online and print format.

And we were able to deliver it in eight languages, so we felt very good about what we were able to do and gain from that.

In addition, what we also really found out is how much our Seattleites love and value our libraries.

They believe that we are an essential service, that we are worth the investment.

I probably should have spoken about the statistic 9 out of 10 Seattle residents.

agree the library is an essential city service, we'll work on that one out of 10 each time we go along, that we're worth the investment, we're an improvement to the overall quality of life, and we're a critical educational resource.

And what is also important about that, not that it shows only the value of it, but that they also love it with two out of three residents saying they had used the library within the last six months.

And so one of the things that I wanted to show you through a video is just how we impact our communities and what they value for us.

And this is a video that was created by our marketing and online services department to talk about how technology works for our patrons and residents.

What I'm doing at the library today is I'm working on some music.

I come up here to charge my stuff because of my living situation.

Working on my Excel sheets, preparing my presentations.

Check my email in some of the documents that I'm expecting.

If they've come through, then I will print them off.

I'm here to do some job searching.

We come here to do homework, so we come at least three to four times out of the week.

To entertain my grandkids.

They're a wonderful facility here.

I love art.

We see the public library as the people's university.

It's a place where you can come and get free instruction, a place where you can come and get free resources.

So we want to be the place where you can also come and get technology skillset.

By focusing on equity during the Website Redesign Project, we addressed language barriers and we also tried to address that issue of people having inequitable access even to technology.

It's a matter of human basic right to have an access of websites for all people.

I have done a lot of web accessibility testing and consulting services to the library.

I am looking if the webpage is accessible to people with vision impairments.

So the end result with a website is that we now have a website that is accessible to everybody, no matter what language you speak, no matter what device you're using.

A lot of people don't realize the scope of what we have in our online services.

You can learn a language through our services.

You can learn how to program a computer.

We have lynda.com that has all sorts of instruction on computing, how to use programs.

We added music, films, videos, TV shows that you can download or watch online.

At the library, we offer many free computer classes.

And they vary from digital literacy classes up through digital creativity classes.

This is my phone.

It's a smartphone, and it's smarter than I am.

I didn't know how to use it, and they put on a class of how to use the new technology.

We specialize in information literacy, so not only showing folks how to find information, but how to evaluate that content.

The Fake News Survival Guide is a two-hour class that we have here at the Central Library.

It's essentially just an overview of misinformation and disinformation, and how you can evaluate and have best practices with engaging in online information.

One-on-one tech help is offered weekly in most locations.

And so they're quite regular.

And at Central Library, they're offered three times a week.

It's going to do a scan of your computer to make sure it doesn't have anything.

We just help them troubleshoot basic tech questions with their computer, phone.

We can help with email, social media.

One of the things that I'm doing here is I'm taking tutoring at the library.

And the tutoring is preparing me to go further in my goals, which will be technology and on to back to college again.

The library also offers free Microsoft certification exams.

And currently, we offer Microsoft Office Specialist and Microsoft Technology Associate exams that you can take for free at the library through a partnership with the Washington State Library.

And you can sign up and hopefully get better jobs as a result of it.

We really believe in narrowing that digital divide for the citizens of the city.

We like to provide job resources, access to social services from local, state, and federal departments.

I'm using the housing resources that they have.

If I didn't have internet access, you know, I'd be completely closed out from the world.

I mean, you know, I couldn't talk to my family and friends and stuff like that.

It helps a lot to have that access and really not have to pay anything.

It's free, right?

We've upgraded the network, including Wi-Fi.

We replaced all of the available public computers in the system.

We upgraded the size of the monitors.

We've offered upgraded printers, copiers, and scanners at all the branches.

We have meeting rooms that have been expanded upon with widescreen TVs.

We also have the FlexTech equipment, where people can check out iPads and laptops and use that throughout the library.

As far as creating music goes, it's super expensive.

There's not a lot of places around here that have this, where you have your mic and your music program.

It's really huge for the patients to have free access to the equipment.

It's very encouraging for the youth in our area.

A lot of patients have been coming in to use it as a interview room.

There's a camera that the patients are able to check out.

They have to check it out at the front desk.

They'll bring it in and put it on top of the screen, and they're able to project themselves and be able to see the person that's interviewing them and vice versa.

A lot of people that come to the library are homeless and they have nowhere to go, nowhere to charge their stuff or fill out applications.

It really helps them.

So that way, if a job calls, they have their stuff charged.

A lot of us take for granted that we can just pick up our phones, we can go online, we can see what news is happening, we can call our family, we can email.

It's important to remember that not everybody has that same access.

The public library has Wi-Fi hotspots available.

For anyone to check out, these are small devices that connect to a Wi-Fi signal and you can take them either to your home or outside the building and it will keep you connected.

Through our Wi-Fi hotspot outreach and the programs that we have at the library, we are able to build those people up, give them some support and stability so that they have these same opportunities that we take for granted.

Seattle Public Library is dynamic.

The Seattle Public Library is a safe haven for me.

It's a valuable asset that the people need.

Seattle Public Library is my future.

As long as the library is around, I will be too.

Thank you for giving us space to share that, and I think it speaks to one of the service areas or components of the 2012 levy.

which is related to technology that we want to continue through this effort.

And with that, I'll move into maintaining the current levy investments.

And in order to do that, we do need consistent and sustainable funding.

The current levy represents 25% of our overall budget and renewing this levy is crucial to that.

Two weeks ago, as Jay mentioned, we were here talking to you about the 2018 levy report with the many accomplishments that that levy investment provided.

A 2019 baseline levy renewal would allow the library to deliver that 2019 service level over the next seven years, and the cost of a baseline renewal would be $167 million when adjusted for inflation.

That being said, I'd like to walk you through how we got from $123 million to $167 million.

First of all, as you're familiar with, state law limits property tax growth to 1% per year, and inflation is almost always higher than that.

When a levy is up for renewal, we need to do a reset of revenues collected to the cost of services in the last year of the current levy.

And in order to provide that at least that same level of service in the last year of the levy that we provide in the first year, we structure it so that more money is collected in the beginning for use at the end of the levy.

The families and ed levy was structured in the same way.

And in the case of this levy renewal proposal before you today, It adds and addresses emergent needs such as Friday hours or additional hours, additional security and custodial support, and additional investments in the collection.

The proposed new levy investments.

I'll move into that now, and we'll address the critical needs over the course of the next seven years of the levy.

So we'll be talking about that.

I'm sorry, go ahead, Chancellor.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, before you move back, I just want to have a better understanding, for me at least, on what the baseline means.

I mean, I understand in concept that if we did nothing but just renew it, that number would be 167. Correct.

That much.

But I don't fully understand if the cost of how, Just explain it again.

Is that the cost of living per year on?

You confused me a little bit when we front-loaded and we're collecting more money how that ties into the number we have at 167 sure sure and I'll defer to Chris from that of the bin.

Okay, probably only one in room confusing I Don't think so.

It's a good question.

So there are two things that are going on.

One is purely inflation so that since we passed the last levy, 2% to 3%, 4% per year compounding, that actually adds up pretty quickly.

And the other is that we structured the previous levy so that we spent less of the money in the initial years and more of it in the later years in part to deal with the issues of inflation because the revenues to the levy were essentially flat.

And we knew we were going to have higher expenses at the end of the levy.

I'm trying to do this in a way that you can see it.

So the levy, if you will, is tipped up in terms of its expenditures.

So as we reach the end, in order to renew for the next year, we have to renew for an amount that is well above the average amount for the levy, and then there's future inflation beyond that.

So it's a function of the levy having been structured so that there's relatively more spending in the latter years, and then also anticipating inflation over the coming seven years.

So, Ben, let me ask a quick follow-up.

So, in 2012, we used general funds and REIT funds.

And we continue to invest both general fund and real estate excise tax funds in the library, and we will going forward.

So is the reason why you front load that money is because?

Well, the levies and on the operational side, the levy is essentially supporting the same set of activities over the course of the seven years.

But the annual amounts are fixed in dollar terms, in nominal terms.

But what we know is that costs will be increasing over the seven years.

So we underspend in the first half of the levy, anticipating that we'll need to spend a little bit more in the second half of the levy.

Current levy is $123 million.

You could divide by seven, but in the latter years, we're not spending that average amount.

We're spending more than that.

And in the initial years, we spent less.

So as we renew, we have to take on the higher costs that we are experiencing in the latter years of the previous levy.

And then we also have to look forward, recognizing that there'll be inflation over the next seven years as well.

So just a few follow-ups, and let me sort of preface my questions with a little introduction.

Again, I want to thank both the mayor and the five trustees and the friends of the Seattle Public Library and the foundation for all of the great work they've done historically and very recently in putting this package together.

I certainly don't even have to be remotely sold on the benefits of the library system.

I think you know my relationship with the library.

So all I'm trying to focus in on is the improvements from the baseline.

I mean, I love those videos, and I love the stories, and I know the lives that are touched by the beauty of the library.

So I'm good there.

Can you explain to me why the administration costs seem to go up based on the amount of the levy?

Because it would seem to me that the administration is somewhat constant regardless as to the amount of the levy.

So I'm missing something.

So because it was, even to renew it, you're saying it's 2.2, but the administration are just employees administering the levy.

So I'm apparently missing something why it doubles and even increases with the improvements.

I turn to Marcellus for this one.

One of the things there is we would have some of the same issues that Ben just addressed, which is the cost for delivering an administration will rise faster than the 1% that the levy will grow.

So that's one component of it, but there's also money set aside to do a study or libraries of the future that's in there as well?

I saw a strategic component of that.

It's planning for the future.

I saw the breakdown.

But I still was confused as to even on the baseline renewal, it moves from 1.4 to 2.2.

If we just renewed it, why would the administration costs go up so significantly?

Well, again, it's in no small part the same factors that we were describing so that the The inflation, we're talking about wages and salaries and related costs, so that's a component that is driving costs.

And I want to drill in better, and I don't have the information in front of me to answer your question in detail.

I want to be sure we give you a full answer.

Okay.

We can figure it out.

One other thing that we added an additional finance person as we have converted to the new accounting system for the city it's more complicated and we've had to have staff to prepare for that transition as well as operate in a more complex accounting world so there is additional financial help to do the tracking in the new system.

So my knee-jerk reaction to just and this is the first meeting of many as we prepare our levy packages when I look at I think we're smartly increasing our monies in technology and online services and we're trying to get more technology oriented in how we administer these kinds of levies, I was hopeful that many of these administration costs would go up.

I think we have to be sensitive to what we're asking the public to pay for.

And when you see administration costs going up on asks like this, it gets a little harder to sell.

I agree with the sensitivity.

And again, I think there is good reason.

I want to make sure we give you a full explanation.

Sure.

Okay.

I'm through.

Thanks chair.

Sure.

Thank you.

And we'll follow up on that as we go along.

So right here you have a cost accounting of the seven-year levy.

As we move through the rest of my presentation, we'll be able to circle back to this page or this screen so that you can see the allocations attributed to that.

What we're walking through now, as I just shared with you, we were doing the baseline to cover those four components that were, are a part of the original 2012 levy.

We're now going to talk about some of the additions to the levy package that is being proposed.

And we believe these additions cover two things.

First of all, they address some critical operational needs for which and life safety issues and they make our libraries more equitable and more accessible for Seattle residents.

So we'll be talking through the ads to the project as we move along.

The first one is with regard to open hours.

One of the things that we're doing, we recognize from our community conversations, is that the number one priority from the survey was that we have more open hours.

And adding these allowers that we are going to talk about in a few minutes equate to about 5,000 additional open hours across the city, but they also help us approach our pre-Great Recession levels of open hours.

We are not exactly there by doing this, but it gets us closer to that.

And we're doing so through an equity lens, which covers a couple of components.

It takes into account education, economic health, housing and neighborhood quality, transportation, mobility, and health and environment.

So we use the same components of that as the King County uses with this opportunity maps.

And what we're also trying to provide is not just 5,000 more open hours across the city, but we're trying to provide 5,000 more hours of access, access to the spaces for our patrons to work and connect and engage, access to our staff for assistance, access to our materials and collections, and access to the resources that we have in our libraries, such as our Wi-Fi, computers, tablets, printers, and copiers.

Madam Chair, may I ask a question before MT moves along?

Thank you.

I wanted to draw a connection here on sort of this next series of slides.

So we have slide 14 through 17 that really spent a lot of time talking about how this levy is responsive to community desires to want to have more access and for longer periods of time at our neighborhood libraries.

But I want to connect that to a point of information that you provided to us on slide six, which gave us a little bit more insight into what some of the community priorities were as identified and articulated via the survey of more than 26,000 residents as part and parcel of the community engagement process for shaping and developing this levy.

And in one of those things that talks about how the Seattle residents told the library that they wanted more programs and services to meet the the needs of high needs community members.

So can you share with us a little bit more about how this levy is responsive to that community interest?

Sure.

Thank you for that opportunity to clarify.

As you know, the program of service is what we offer our public.

That is the access to our collections, the assistance that our staff provide to do anything.

One of the components that came out of the survey was that they wanted us to meet and provide programs and services to the high needs communities.

We do that through staffing.

And so in order for us to do that, we have to, two things.

First of all, we're straddling a river where we have one foot in the libraries and one foot out in the community.

And in order for us to serve both of them, we have to have the libraries open and then we have to have staffing to go out in the community.

So this is what this allows us to do.

We are able to provide more staffing and that staffing then is able to go out in the community and help.

So we would have both the libraries open as well as going out to deliver programs and services to our high needs communities.

As well as when they are open, more of our high needs communities can come into the libraries during the open hours.

and use the services that we have available, the copiers, the computers, more access to, in the case of the technology video, the resources of the media lab room.

So that is the connection that we're trying to make there.

And how does the library in this levy or in the prior levy define high needs communities?

So we define high needs communities using the same components that are used for the opportunity map, education levels, economic health, housing, neighborhood quality, transportation, mobility.

We look at all of those things.

One of the other things that we're able to do is when we go out into our communities with our community engagement teams, We're able to hear firsthand from the communities themselves with the types of things and services and programs they want to see.

And in some instances, it's just a matter of giving them voice.

A lot of times they have not had an opportunity to be heard, so they need spaces to even come together and mingle is not the right word, but connect with others in their community.

Socialize.

Yes, socialize.

Thank you.

But the opportunities to gather with their neighbors, and that's that opportunity there as well.

And the reason I have a particular interest in this space is because early on, MT, we had an opportunity to have a conversation about some of the other interesting wraparound work I would call that the library provides to folks who, to patrons.

And we had that conversation in the context of Chair Juarez's Parks Committee, which includes the library.

And one of the things that I remember you talking to us about were a lot of the literacy programs and services that the library provides to patrons.

And a lot of those programs are really innovative opportunities to create early learning opportunities for our littlest learners, but also creating opportunities and pathways for parents who are also patrons to be able to socialize and support each other in parenting efforts and in just socializing their own children and their own family to the value of reading and learning.

And I remember in the context of that conversation, this was probably a year, a year and a half ago, you described that you all were doing that work with basically a shoestring budget, but it was also one of the programs and services that people sought, that folks sought really sort of aggressively wanting to access those services.

And I think at the time you mentioned to me that the foundation was primarily funding that type of program in service.

Are we, through this levy, creating an opportunity for there to be a more consistent revenue stream for those types of literacy programs at the library?

And if not, why not?

Sure.

So a couple of things.

One, The first is the answer to your question.

Yes, all of those are the types of programs and services that we offer to serve needs of our communities, either parents and caregivers who have children and need this opportunity for their children to have.

additional learning experiences of informal learning that doesn't come through the school program of formalized Head start type programs.

We do offer that we do story times and We do that through the use of our staff with these additional hours We were able to look at opportunities where we're able to go out in the community more in some instances to engage with these parents and caregivers who may not come in, get to more daycares, get our mobile services out in the community as well.

But we also look at this as opportunities to partner with other institutions who help us deliver some of these services.

We have a very, we have a diverse staff who speak several languages, but a lot of times some of the languages that we need to have engagement opportunities with our communities.

We do not have that language capacity on our staff and so we partner with other agencies to deliver world languages story times for parents who have kids that speak other languages.

And so we look at those opportunities both as partnerships and this.

Again, what this opportunity allows us with the open hours is to be open to the public for those people who want to come into the door through the doors of the library and use that space.

But it also gives us opportunity to look at more chances for us to do more programming along that line.

as well as go out into the community and do that.

In fact, just this past Saturday, I was at our Columbia library and witnessing or attending a baby's story time and had an opportunity to listen to some of the parents who were just there and they were talking about how they were headed to a different story time in a different neighborhood because it was convenient on a Saturday and had just found out that it was available at this location on Saturday.

So we were able to look at these opportunities as Friday story times where we're adding some of the hours we'll be able to do that.

Okay.

Well, I really appreciate that.

I'm always on the lookout for an opportunity to better support families and children and and their ability to learn both in the classroom but also outside of classrooms.

And this is a priority that I think has really developed in my mind in large part due to a lot of the interaction that I have with folks in community who really express a lot of interest in wanting to be able to continue to use libraries in that manner.

And so I'm hopeful that with the assistance of central staff, we'll be able to explore this area of investment a little bit more.

And I have a really strong interest in making sure that The library continues to have the support and the resources you all need to be able to continue to invest in those particular programmatic service areas.

Sure.

We're appreciative of that.

And as we move into the Friday hours, you might see an opportunity where I think you were attended the program we had at South Park a year and a half ago.

That's right.

opportunity and even being open on a Friday allows us to have more schools come into the library on those days that would have been closed in those neighborhoods.

I have some particular models in mind that I'd like to provide Council Central staff and happy to provide those to you as well that are a little bit more intentional than just having space available but happy to have a conversation with you about what I'm thinking and what might be be a unique opportunity in the renewal of this levy to really capitalize on the important network and fabric that libraries provide to be able to support communities who don't ordinarily have access to the enrichment activities that occur within the four walls of our libraries.

We'd certainly welcome that and then it gives us an opportunity to do 26,001 surveys to our public to make sure that we're meeting the needs, but we'd welcome that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One of the things that we're looking at is more open hours on Sundays, and this again gets to the physical access to the buildings themselves, but currently the neighborhood libraries are not open until 1 p.m.

on Sundays, and this would give us an opportunity through this proposal to open at 12 noon.

at every library across the system and then brings us to all 27 locations opening at noon on Sundays and giving people more access to the computers and staff assistance that we've talked about in general.

We'd also look at an opportunity to add more open hours through Friday hours at four of our locations, Delridge, New Holly, Green Lake, and Wallingford Libraries.

This would bring us to seven-day service in these locations and move the system to 22 libraries that are open on seven days a week, and with five only remaining as not being seven days per week library services.

So we're really excited about that.

That equates to an additional eight hours each Friday for those locations.

Marcellus, I'm not giving up on my coffee shop in Lake City.

I know you're not and we will keep thinking about ways to make that happen.

The last of the open hours is morning and evenings.

And what we would be looking at is adding morning and evening hours to three of our locations, High Point, IDC, and South Park Libraries.

They would have 10 a.m.

openings on two of the mornings.

and 8 p.m.

closing each week, which brings us more in alignment with that.

So we're continuing to look at opportunities to bring our libraries back up to pre-recession levels, as well as to provide access or more opportunities for access to the materials and resources and the staff that assist our patrons with their work.

With that, I'll move into the next bucket, into the next component, Jay.

Unless there are questions about that.

But the next component is our collections investments.

And one of the first things that I really want to talk about is that having a great collection really depends on our having a mix of formats to address the differing needs of our public.

There are many patrons who still believe in print and want us to continue buying print materials.

But as Jay referenced a moment ago, we do have a growing interest in our digital collections.

When I joined the library back in 2011, Our circulation of electronic materials was about 8 to 10%.

of our total circulation, which meant that 90% of our users were still using print materials.

Here we are in 2019, and we're now at about 28 to 30% electronic use.

So year over year, electronic access is growing.

And my only point about that is that there has to be a combination of the mix of materials that people want.

There are people who are diehard print readers, and there are people who are diehard electronic readers.

And in order to meet both of those needs, we have to keep both going.

It also helps us address the needs of our patrons so that they're not intentionally long wait lists and we can get to them as quickly as we can.

Jan is rushing me along, so I'll move over.

Normally, I'm rushing her along, but she's rushing me today.

I'm happy to report that I'm now down to four weeks.

before I get my e-book.

You know you're going to get two surveys because we really like what we're hearing from you.

That is good to know because our team and many of them are represented behind me. they really do work hard to get that right mix of collection materials and that balance to meet the needs.

And some of the programs like our Peak Picks programs helps drive that effort.

There are people who are waiting for it to come in, but there are people who walk in and are able to grab the book right off the shelf.

And so that in turn changes the wait time for the other books that are on hold.

So it's really a great combination of meeting that.

The component that I just spoke about was with regard to electronic materials and resources.

This is one of the areas that is an add in the proposed levy package.

And that's because not only is our usage of electronic materials increasing, we've seen a 284% increase since 2012, but it is also one of the higher cost collections that we maintain at the library.

I think several of you have seen this example before, but you'll note that our e-books cost three to five times more than a print item.

and that we work with the different and complex and changing licensing and pricing agreements with the five different publishers that we use.

I also want to just do a lean-in to some of the conversation that's going to follow with regard to fines, but I'll also note that with our electronic materials, they are all fine-free, so when you finish using that item, there is no fine attached to it because the item is returned, so we are already working in a fine-free environment.

Which moves us to the big conversation on eliminating fines on physical materials, and there's quite a bit to cover in this, and I think one of the first things that I would share is that Jay and the library board and the library staff are very, very much committed to ensuring equitable access to library resources by eliminating the barriers that patrons encounter to using our materials and resources, and one of those barriers are financial barriers.

The fact that we currently have fines and fees attached to an item indicates to many of our communities and users that this may not be the route that they want to take to access our collections.

We've had some research done, and it shows that fines have disproportionate impact on our low-income patrons, and that it also shows that there are higher average balances and greater numbers of blocked accounts in lower-income areas.

So I think that's the lead-in to this conversation, but then I'd like to reset the stage and help share what we're talking about when we're talking about eliminating fines on our patron records.

In the library world we use both the term fines and we use the term fees and For some of our public, that may be confusing, but for us, there are two different things.

Fines are the amounts of monies charged to an item when it is not returned on time.

You check out a book at the end of three weeks when it is due back at the library.

If you do not return it on time, we assess you a fine of 25 cents per day.

That fine amount can reach up to $15, which then becomes a blocked account.

The second thing that I wanted to speak about is a fee, which is different from a fine.

A fee is the cost of an item when it is lost or damaged or not returned.

In this proposal, we're talking about eliminating the fines.

The fees would still be in place such that they still perform an incentive to have patrons return our items.

The fee is something that would block their account, which means they would not have access to any of the materials or resources that we have in the library.

And it also serves as an incentive in and of itself to return the item so that it doesn't become lost or damaged.

I think a couple of things that I should also add to this just to help perspective about this is that this is not our first time at this in this arena.

Some of you, Bruce, you may, I'm sorry, Council Member Harrell, you may remember that we had a library director a couple of years ago named Liz Stroup and Liz at that time decided along with the board that the Libraries should eliminate as many barriers, much like our current board does, eliminate as many barriers as they can to access to children.

And so at that time, we actually remove the fines attached to children's materials.

And so we have had fine free materials in our collection and worked under that practice before.

And in fact, it was for 19 years, we did it from 1990 to 2009. So it was only in 2010 that the board reinstated the fines and that was because we were having a dwindling, the city was facing some economic challenges.

And so the library was looking at opportunities to increase their revenue.

I'll add on to that, that there are two other, collections that we, collections and patrons that we provide fine free access to.

If you are on our mobile routes, where our bookmobile goes, those are fine free items as well.

So we have a part of our collection that is fine free there as well, and that continues to this day.

And then the third group is that for any approved ADA allowances, we do not attach fines to any materials that are checked out there.

So the library has some great experience using a fine-free model in place.

Again, I just want to reiterate that the fees would remain in place if a person did not return their item and their access to use of the library would be curtailed until that was remedied.

I just wanted to add, and thank you for clarifying, and I'm sure we'll have more discussions about that.

Two things.

Fines do not make up a significant portion of a revenue stream.

They do not.

We currently receive about $1.1 million in revenue from fines.

And that money is used to help cover operational cost of the library.

So that is how it's used, but that is in an $80 million budget.

One million over seven years?

Over one million per year.

One million per year, okay.

I wanted to point out if we're going to get to this and if you are then I'll just be quiet.

In the summary and fiscal note you attached some what we would call heat maps or maps and of course one that Councilmember Gonzalez referred to and we had discussions about in committee is that when you line up the percentage of blocked accounts by library location It aligns exactly with the OPCD race and social justice equity map, the percentage of patrons who computers by SPL branch locations, which means basically that people who are being blocked are the same people where we're trying to reach our race and social justice equity measures.

and access issues.

And so if we were to have a library and have an essential governmental function as a library or school or any of these institutions, the whole goal is to get people in the building and to have knowledge and to have access to knowledge and to all of those issues.

That is, you've said it better than I would say it, that is exactly what it is trying to do, to equalize that playing field so that everyone has access to the materials and resources and that the application of a fine does not challenge their ability to do that.

Two quick things I'll add about that.

I should also note that that 1.1 million we collect per year is a gradually declining revenue source.

As more and more people move into print, move into electronic use of materials, we're uncovering that the fines, because they are using digital or electronic materials, there are no fines attached to it.

So we're seeing that decrease and that was something that we were going to have to address at some point in time soon enough.

Well, Councilor?

Just a question along these fines.

I'm not trying to be the fine cop here, but 1.1 million per year is a nice piece of change, though.

I mean, especially when I was looking at that for administration costs.

So I guess my question is, I understand the idea behind having a fine-free atmosphere.

I get that, and the disparate impact.

Was there any discussion about Another possibility as opposed to just waving them all together because I think the it's about eight Is it eight million that we're being asked to put in the levy to have a fine free environment?

Are there other cities that have looked at this issue?

I mean, I'm trying to see what the possibilities are because I That seems to be fairly supportive of people that can't pay the fines, but there could be people that say, you know, I forgot, I'll pay the fine.

they may be somewhat of means.

And so in trying to address the problem with the disparate impact, we're just waiving everything.

So are there any other possibilities?

And I'm sort of curious about the discussions that led up to find free.

Were there any people that said, ah, that's not a good idea?

Try and get a feel for it.

So there are a couple of components to your question.

The first one is whether there are other libraries that are doing this.

We have uncovered that there are about 50 libraries across the country who are looking at this, and I would dare say that many more libraries have looked at it, thought about it, and tried to figure out the best way to do it.

We have a list in front of you that identifies several urban libraries that actually have fine free environments, and I'll also note that the two libraries in red are local Washington libraries, both the Kitsap Regional Library and the Snow Owl Library System, who do not currently collect fines.

With regard to your question about other options, I think we look at options from any different angle.

We look at looking at different age groups, whether we should just have it for children or teens, should we have it for this group.

I think one of the challenges that we uncover is that- I was thinking of voluntary as well.

Sure.

It's a fine, but it's voluntary.

I think that if we were to move to a fine-free environment and a person felt that a person kept a material longer than the return period date and felt a need to give or pay their fine, we would welcome that as a donation to the library and could use it that way.

So it's still an opportunity for people who are of means to do so, but we would be removing that because the challenge would be setting up the standards for who falls or who qualifies into which group.

My thinking, and I'm making this up on the fly here just because I started studying materials, was a system by which there's still a fine, but people know that it's not going to go to a bill collection agency.

It's not going to ruin your credit.

You're not on the blocked list.

But it is a fine, and we're trying to promote.

good behavior here.

I mean, I grew up in the atmosphere in school.

You had to get that book back in time.

But even if it's not enforced, it still tries to encourage timely return.

Sure, it will encourage timely return because we will still have the fee attached to the unreturned item.

We'll look at opportunities to actually consider what happens when a person doesn't return a book and the timeliness of it.

I think the opportunity to address fines, and I see Chris leaning in, I don't know if he was wanting to speak, but I think the opportunity to look at other alternatives.

With this current proposal, we feel very good about what is put in front of us, but certainly we've learned from other libraries as how they have implemented it.

And in an effort to not reinvent the wheel, in an effort to honor that we have had a history of working with fine free environments, we feel that this is a good proposal to move forward on.

Okay.

We put it in our information packet for our colleagues as well.

The study in San Francisco, long overdue, eliminating fines on overdue materials to improve access to the San Francisco Public Library, which came out in January 2019, which is a very compelling study and it is written and was done by Jose Cisneros.

who is the treasurer for the city of San Francisco.

And in response to Council President's questions, which were, thank you, Council President, those were a lot of the issues of calls that we had been getting about that.

And the financial justice project, and we Googled it and looked at it, It really lays out what a city does and how and why other cities are moving to this model.

And some cities had already been doing it, so it isn't that groundbreaking.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

No, you're so true.

And there's another one by Denver Public Library that speaks to that much shorter.

But again, these are the spaces where we're looking to our colleagues across the country who have looked at these opportunities, done some extensive study, combined with the fact that we have a history of having a fine free environment that we feel very good about what is being put forward.

But certainly they have looked at all of the options and opportunities to do so.

Yes, Council Member Gonzalez.

I have a couple of points I wanted to make, and one of them is a question, which is that, you know, it's my understanding that the total fines, the revenue to libraries from fines is approximately a million dollars a year, correct?

of just two of our libraries?

Of the library system.

Of the system.

Is $1 million total a year.

Yes, correct.

Okay, and so that represents, in terms of the context of the library's full budget, what percentage is that $1 million per year?

Less than 2%.

Less than 2%.

Overall, I did want to make two comments on there, one of which is research suggests that late fines don't actually impact in any kind of significant way the timeliness of people returning materials.

So it's just there as punishment.

One of the things I would say, it is a chunk of change to quote, but one of the reasons is we have one of the higher per day fees in library systems.

So like if you were to look across the country, 25 cents per day is actually pretty high, and that was raised, and I'm not sure, Andrew.

We raised it during a time of austerity to try to make sure that we could preserve library services, because the money does fund open hours and books and materials.

That's what it's used for.

So if that makes sense.

You mean in 2008?

2010. 2010. OK.

That's what it is.

So I think you're sort of headed in the direction that I wanted to head.

And while I appreciate that a million dollars is a lot of money, I think There's no question that a million dollars is a lot of money, but I think in the context of the overall operating budget and budget for Seattle Public Libraries, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize a million dollars as a big significant chunk of change in terms of our considerations in proposing a new levy for the ballot.

That being said, I have also had conversations with MT and the mayor's office around this issue that is bubbling up around what is the correlation between fines and the timely return or eventual return of of material that belongs to the Seattle Public Library.

And I have been persuaded that there is no strong correlation between the two and use a lot of, the analogies that I use a lot in my head are sort of analogies that exist in the criminal justice world around sort of what is a, you know, what does bail actually have a connection, for example, in causing somebody to return and appear in a court hearing?

Does a warrant have that same effect?

You know, I think there's a lot of new studies out there that sort of question the effectiveness of utilizing finances as the stick in a carrot stick model to actually achieve compliance.

And so while I appreciate the line of questioning around around this particular issue I think there are other cities that have really innovated in this space that have done a lot of research and a lot of study that leads me to believe that that the fines at this point are probably more likely punitive towards communities who are of low income and who are people of color and and aren't actually achieving the desired effect of of incentivizing people to timely return materials to the collection.

And in fact, I think the fact that we're even having a conversation that there's a million dollars worth of fines collected in a year proves that the fines are actually resulting in people returning their books and the fact that people are actually being blocked out of access, again, is proof in and of itself.

that the fines aren't an effective deterrent to incentivizing people to return materials to the collection.

I think there are a lot of non-financial ways that the library can look at and utilize and implement that will effectively achieve the library's goal and the city's goal of incentivizing people to return materials back to the library in a timely manner.

And it's my understanding that the proposal in this levy does continue to include accountability requirements.

So if, for example, you do not return a book, that will ultimately result in you losing your library privileges.

And we don't need to shame people by having them feel like they have this money they owe to the city.

in order to accomplish that accountability.

From my perspective, that's how I'm feeling about this issue and that's how I'm looking at it.

The last thing I'll say is that we also don't have to look as far as Denver or San Francisco to identify whether or not a fine is appropriate or not appropriate or has disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color.

It's my understanding that the library also did a similar pilot here at the Seattle Public Library and learned quite a bit as a result of that pilot.

And so perhaps this is a good opportunity for the library to talk to us about that pilot if you're prepared to do so at this moment.

And if not, perhaps at a future committee hearing we can hear a little bit more about the pilot that you all did around fines and the the question around accountability as it relates to returning materials.

Sure, certainly.

And you've given us many opportunities to share a few things.

Before I get into each of those, I'd also say one thing, which is the library has a vested interest in getting our materials back.

Our sole business is the loaning and sharing of materials.

We're not a very good system if we can't get the materials back to circulate to the next person.

So we're very interested in that.

The second thing that I would say about that is that We're very fortunate here in Seattle that we have a population that believes in libraries, that loves libraries, and that, for the most part, return their materials on time.

We don't expect those ideal patron and users to not continue returning their materials, so we're expecting that to continue occurring so that we keep the materials in circulation.

I just want to clarify something on Councilman Gonzalez's point, and that is, In the no fine atmosphere, I think Councilman Gazzella said that if they don't return on time, then they still can't.

So they're on the block list.

Sure.

So what happens is that, uh, we currently have a blocked account list at $15, which means if your fines or your fees, you lost an item and it did, you did not return it.

If it reaches $15, your access is blocked.

That fee would still be in place.

Um, even if we eliminated the fines program as such, what council member Gonzalez is saying is that yes, if they did not return the item, uh, within a period of time, That item would set to lost and then the patron would be responsible for that item.

And until they paid the cost of that, they would have their use of the library restricted in some ways.

That seems punitive to me.

I was trying to head in a different direction.

Well, there's the difference between lost item or damaged item and the difference between just failing to return it on time.

Okay.

Part of the reason we have the lost and damaged item is a gift of public funds requirements in the state of Washington.

So we're actually not allowed to not, if you will, charge those.

I still look at it.

It's $1 million per year, but $7 million over the life of the levy.

You're asking for $5.8 million, which is in improvements, to open up all the access and the hours.

I mean, this actually affects, again, I look at it as a sizable budget impact, just because, again, if you look at the improvements, just a million here, a million there, really goes to credible access to the patrons.

Again, I'm not trying to follow my sword over whether we find it, I'm just trying to better understand the issue.

No, and that's the point of this, so we're happy to answer any questions and whatever you feel that we have not answered or you still have a mingling interest, please certainly follow up with that.

I think that one more thing that I would say, And I just lost my thought, but it'll come to me in a minute as we move forward on it.

But with regard to Councilmember Gonzalez's interest in the Fresh Start program, which she was referencing, the library has had a program for teens called Fresh Start that allows them to speak with the staff and work through a process to eliminate the fines on their accounts.

However, if they had fees attached to them, their accounts could still be blocked.

Working with our foundation and private dollars from our donors, we were able to enhance the Fresh Start program such that Patrons or donors are able to give money to support the Fresh Start program in helping us eliminate those fees.

So that program allows us to remove the fees, and in turn, I know that number is higher than what my statistics currently show, but we had eliminated the barriers to using the library and restored 700 patron accounts to teens using the library.

She's looking for a place to write me a note.

So it is 1,000 now accounts that have been opened for our teen program.

And so that, again, shows what the pure goal of all of this is, which is to open or eliminate the barriers to use of the library.

And that program in and of itself, thanks to the private dollars, allows us to have 1,000 more teens using the library.

And what we've also found is that the incidence of their returning materials on time is certainly understood and appreciated by them, so they are not abusing the program as some might think it would be.

And then I did think of the point that I was going to add, which is this effort that we're putting forward to eliminate the barriers.

I know that some view that as paying the fines of patrons and they don't want to cover that.

I think it's important for us to understand that this is a replacement for some of the operational costs that you were referencing a moment ago Council Member Gonzalez.

So it's not a matter of paying the fines of patrons who, for whatever reason, can't do so.

This is actually an opportunity for, through the assistance to help us fund some of the operational cost of the library.

I think I would just sort of say that in my mind the way that I look at this policy decision is pretty simple.

The policy decision before us is how do we want to support the library's goal of creating incentives for people to return things that they check out of the library that need to be returned.

And so to me, I think that the policy solutions And answers to that particular policy question are very different than the answers or solutions to how do we generate additional revenue for the library that is connected with our collections, right?

And if, for me, on that latter question, if what we are trying to do is generate revenue, then I think we we double down on the fines and continue to use that as a revenue source.

And if that's what it's going to be, we just have to be transparent that we are utilizing fines that are disproportionately imposed upon low-income communities and communities of color as indicated by all the maps and heat maps that you all have provided us, and that we're doing that in order to generate additional revenue for the library.

And to me, if I'm asked that policy question, I'm going to say no, thank you.

That is not what we're trying to do yet.

Is there the first point that you made, which is we are trying to eliminate barriers for use of the library?

So just to wrap up, we all understand that the purpose of a library, any library, since the 1800s, unlike a casino, is not to generate revenue.

Don't make me have to quote Jefferson, because I will.

But if we can move on, that'd be great.

And I'll try to move through this quickly.

So that is what is being proposed there.

One of the other components of the current levy that we're hoping to extend through this renewal is with regard to technology and online services.

Currently, the program that we have in place through the 2012 levy allows us to change out computers, update them, printers, all of the hardware and software needs that are attached with that.

However, we are also looking to enhance or address some of the challenges we have with our current infrastructure for our program of IT.

And that is that we have switches in both our central and 27 locations that need to be corrected.

We're in year 2000, we're in year six of the seven year expected lifespan of the switches that we currently have in place and know that they will, give out sometime during the course of this levy, and there is a component built in to address that.

The other item that you will see is that the operating system, the ILS, by which everything that pertains to how a patron uses the library, meaning how we buy the materials, how we log them in, how we catalog them, how the patron discovers them in terms of finding something to read, use, or view is run through our ILS.

Our ILS was last replaced in 2005, so we're about 14 years out on this item, and it is greatly in need of replacement, either from the lack of support that is coming from the vendor who we purchased it from, to meeting the needs of our patrons who want and expect a different discovery layer for use of materials.

So those two components are there.

There's also the matter of our digital equity program.

The digital equity program is currently funded by the cable franchise fee and that covers our Wi-Fi hotspots, digital equity programs in the library buildings and out in the community.

The cable franchise fee is a declining revenue stream for the city.

The library is not the only recipient of these funds.

And at the current rate with which that revenue is declining, the library would have to make some serious decisions about how we would fund that so valuable program that you heard about in the technology video that was just shown.

So we would be looking to address that through the digital equity program to continue the Wi-Fi hotspot program.

One of the other items of the proposed levy package is to continue the maintenance of our buildings, but also to address seismic retrofits for three of our most vulnerable Carnegie libraries.

They are the Columbia Library, Green Lake Library, and the University Library.

We are greatly in need of addressing that and so this is an opportunity for us to go in and make the seismic retrofits to ensure that this library can withstand an earthquake and ensure the safety of the patrons who are using it.

And then I think this sort of plays into the area that Councilmember Harrell was referencing with regard to the administrative costs.

Attached to the administrative cost is a effort that the library is looking at to understand the future of libraries.

It is not the next two years.

It is not the three years.

It is not a strategic direction in that effort.

It is actually an effort to understand the role of a library in a changing environment 10 years down the road.

We want to understand what is the impact of education, communication, and technology, and affordability, and accessibility combined with the space and access to information that the library provides.

So with that, we're now moving into the proposed package and what that looks like.

My favorite slide.

Ah, wonderful.

The proposed levy renewal package, it reflects the community's priorities.

It looks at investing in more hours and access, collections, technology, maintenance, and levy administration, and also takes into account the fine-free access, which for the average Seattle homeowner would come to about $3.19 per year or $0.27 per month.

So again, that is not in relation to anything but looking at a way to eliminate barriers.

MT, can you say that again?

Sure.

So the cost of the fine fee program will cost the average Seattle homeover over the course of a year $3.19 or about $0.27 per month to assist with eliminating barriers to access.

And with that, I am at my last slide, which reiterates what I spoke to at the beginning of the presentation, that the Seattle Public Library, as evidenced by our surveys and the support that we gain from our city, is that we are an essential city service, we're a worthy investment, we're an improvement to the overall quality of life, and we're a critical educational resource.

And when we have a community that believes in us so critically and so forcefully about that, our goal is to deliver on that interest.

I should add, if you had a coffee shop, you would have a revenue stream.

If we had a coffee shop, if we were really, I, you know, I have heard you every time, and we will continue looking for opportunities to do something about that.

Say it.

Okay.

Yes.

Is there any more questions for my colleagues?

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Was there anything you wanted to add?

Nope.

Nope, nothing additional.

Certainly, if there is anything that wakes you up in the middle of the night screaming, we will take an email and get on that just as quickly so that we will have those answers for you at the next meeting.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I just want a little historical note that I'm going to close this down.

I just think that people forget.

And I'm only saying this because I'm really not that smart.

I just happened to run across this article like two weeks ago in The Medium about how the Library of Congress got started and how Thomas Jefferson and everyone fought him to have a library.

And I had to laugh reading about it because at the time people thought that even though he was saying that obviously books are a vehicle for knowledge, there is this whole societal fear of books and that it was a luxury and that ordinary people shouldn't have that luxury.

that only the learned people should have that, and it certainly shouldn't be free.

And the quotes were that it was a frivolous use of public funds, and there wasn't a necessity of books for ordinary people.

And of course, it's now, now we see how libraries have grown.

Obviously because certain people believed in the civic mindedness that you know Government should fund institutions such as a library like we do schools and courts and everything else So I'm gonna leave it at that and what I want to say is thank you very much Before we adjourn I want to share that I'm gonna lay out the next meetings and then so my colleagues will know as well So the next meeting of the select committee on the library level will be Monday April 8th at 1030 a.m.

Or after council briefing And at that meeting, we will work with central staff and identify potential issues about the levy.

The third meeting will be April 11th at 5.30.

We will be hold a hearing at our meeting so we can hear from the public.

So that's a public hearing at 5.30.

The fourth meeting will be April 17th at 2.30.

So we can hold a potential vote in committee on the levy.

And finally, our fifth and final meeting will be April 22nd at two o'clock for a full council vote.

And with that, we stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez and President Harrell.