Hennepin County Government Center, Monday, December 11, 2006, 10-12 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Gunyou, Randy Johnson, Peter McLaughlin, Barbara Johnson,
Sandy Colvin Roy, Anita Duckor

ABSENT: John Gibbs

COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT:
Amy E. Ryan, Katherine (Kit) Hadley

INTRODUCTIONS AND WELCOME: 

Commissioner Peter McLaughlin thanked the participants and audience for attending this problem solving activity between the city and county government to ensure that we have high quality public service library systems.  This needs much attention at this time and there is a lot of enthusiasm on the County Board toward this resolution.  It is the responsibility to the future and the legacy for the 21st Century to make progress on the relationship between the two library systems for decades to come.            

Committee Chair John Gunyou commended the various people who have come together to consider options, and indicated he would do his best to lead the group to a positive conclusion. 

AGREEMENT ON PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES

1. HCL & MPL are both valuable community assets for all county residents and businesses. 
2. Any changes in the two systems should improve library services by recognizing shared similarities and building on complementary differences.
3. The unique resource and archival role of the MPL Central Library should be preserved and strengthened.
4. The capacity to provide 21st Century library services throughout the county should be assured with sound, long-term financing.

The committee agreed to keep these principles in the forefront of their discussions and use them to determine the best way to serve the public.  It is important that the city and county continue to work together within their positive relationship.             

OVERVIEW OF THE LIBRARY SYSTEMS

• Similarities of the Two Systems (HCL Director Amy Ryan)

Our common ground is in our mission to link people with the transforming power of knowledge, offering full and equal access to information and ideas.  Both systems have had similar missions for generations.   Both library systems are active, engaged, and involved with the community.  On life long learning and literacy which goes back to the turn of the century, our libraries were the cornerstone of success for people coming into this country. 

Both systems emphasize the importance of partnerships, community connections and how to leverage public dollars with private initiatives to strengthen and enrich services.  

Libraries are now articulated as a vital community center; as a gathering place, as the heartbeat of the community.  Library designs are following this commitment.  Citizens have a full and equal access to the power of information in a democratic society.  There are places where you have to pay to access the Internet where libraries are the free intellectual heartbeat of the community.

Both systems recognize the importance of sound stewardship of the public trust.  Both understand the value of public access to collection and technology.  

• Unique Role of the Central Library (MPL Director Kit Hadley)

The nature of the collection has 3 aspects; 1) the diversity of the collection as defined by the number of unique titles, 2) the historic and special collections, and 3) the three depository collections for patents, foundations and Federal Government documents.

The collections at most public libraries are not archival.  As titles age they are withdrawn from library collections.  Minneapolis maintains a historic collection in certain areas.  For example, there is a fiction collection and a biography collection dating back to the 1880’s.  MPL decides what should be kept each year whether people have checked it out or not.  Retention decisions at Hennepin County Library are driven more by demonstrated customer use than by maintaining a historic record of publications. 

MPL Central Library is the only patent depository library in the state. Law firms, paralegals who do copy work, and inventors all use the patent collection.   MPL is one of six libraries in the state with a Foundation Center.  It is used by grant seekers and others researching nonprofit organizations and foundations. MPL has the second largest collection of Federal Government documents. The University of Minnesota has a larger collection and documents can be checked out.  At MPL, the Federal Government Documents collection may be more readily to customers available since the documents are for use in the library only.

With each of these depository collections, contractual relationships exist which involve pledges to support the development and accessibility of these collections.  

The Wilson Library at the U of M has a more in depth collection than MPL.  The University collects materials at a PhD level where MPL typically does not.  Materials at the University cannot be checked out unless you are a student or professor.  Members of the general public may use the university’s collection onsite or obtain materials through interlibrary loan via their public library.  MPL Central Library and the James J. Hill Reference have the most significant business collections in the metro area.  The next meeting will include a more in-depth discussion regarding the Central Library. 

• New Developments in Libraries (HCL Director Amy Ryan)

Over the past decade, our libraries have been in the forefront of change in Hennepin County.  The population has increased by 200,000 and the library has new customers from all over the world. 

There is an increasing demand for library services and materials in a wide range of formats.  Ten years ago there were probably three or four public access computers in all of Hennepin County. The Internet was a sleeping giant.  In 1995, HCL had the first two Internet computers at Plymouth Library.  Today, the 41 public libraries throughout Hennepin County offer over 1,500 public access computers and wireless Internet access. In addition to traditional library material, today’s library collections include DVD’s, CD’s, materials in many languages and subscription databases. Downloadable audio books are replacing books on tape and Internet access supplements print copy.  Print reference materials such as Standard & Poor’s and automotive repair manuals have largely been replaced by subscription databases.

Today libraries are essential active partners with people as lifelong learners.  Libraries have a commitment for early literacy for preschoolers, classes and tech sections.  There is much demand for classes in genealogy, languages, key boarding, digital cameras, health services for seniors, and people learning from each other.  Classes are taught by librarians and others in the community.  The learning environment today is increasingly about teaching and learning from one another.   

Libraries are the gateway for computer technology especially for those who do not have computer access elsewhere.  Today, essential information is often accessible and transferable only via the web.  Whether it is a college application, job application, or financial form, people are often required to complete forms electronically.  For many in our community, the library fills this essential role. Recently in Rogers when the community had a devastating tornado, people relied on the library for information on faxing insurance forms and library hours were expanded to accommodate those needs. 

The next generation of computer technology is more interactive. It is about content creation, blogging, online book clubs, and virtual community gathering places.  Our children are growing up accustomed to working in groups, as a team of learners.  Twenty first century libraries will be designed to meet the needs of children and teens and include interactive learning environments.  Examples include homework helper space for teens or a discovery wall for preschoolers.  MPL and HCL are in the leading group of libraries nationwide with these efforts.

Libraries are bridges to the future; the services, the buildings and the technology all are designed with an eye to the community they serve and toward the public good.  This is something the two systems share. 

• Background information and services (MPL Director Kit Hadley)

There are significant similarities between the two systems with regard to mission, service, and programming strategies.  There are also complementary differences which frequently reflect national, city and county patterns and the challenge in funding levels.

A common model for library governance, structure, and staffing in large public library institutions throughout the country is for the library to be a department of city or county government. It typically has a governing board appointed by elected officials and has no independent taxing authority. HCL differs in that its Library Board is advisory.  MPL differs from the model in that it is an independent entity with an elected, not appointed, board. 

At HCL, 65% of the staff is represented by 4 different unions and the county, not the library, negotiates the contracts.  At MPL about 96% of the staff is represented by 5 different unions and the library, not the city, negotiates the contracts.

HCL has a separate Foundation and 26 Friends of the Library organizations. MPL has a single Friends group which has developed an extensive private donor base.  It also raises significant funds, applies for grants and delivers programs.

MPL has a large central library and 14 branches.  HCL has 3 area libraries which are in the 50-70,000 square foot range and 21 other locations.  None or the MPL branches are as large as any of HCL’s resource libraries.  HCL has more branches per 100,000 residents than the national average.  MPL with its existing 15 libraries is above the national average and offers more branches per 100,000 residents than HCL. If the number of MPL libraries is reduced to 12, there will be fewer branches per 100,000 residents than HCL but it would remain at the national average.

The MPL Central Library is right sized for the metro area, smaller than average for the 8 most comparable city library systems in the country, but considered very large for the number of people in Minneapolis.  The square footage of total library space per capita in Minneapolis is very large and this factor alone illuminates a number of operating challenges in Minneapolis.

MPL is significantly below HCL and national averages in hours of service.  In respect to usage, HCL is a circulating giant.  Its per capita use is much higher than national averages.  MPL is at the national average for all libraries and city libraries.

For card holders and registered borrowers you are a cardholder for the geographical place that you live.  You can register your card in another library system and you become a registered borrower in that system.  MPL has more cardholders per capita than HCL and significantly more registered borrowers per capita than HCL.  Both reflect above average in city/county national patterns in borrowers per capita.

MPL in relation to size is higher in collection per capita than national averages and 3 times higher than HCL, but the collection per capita of the metro area MPL is average.  MPL has 3 times the amount of unique titles than HCL.  MPL has the highest percentage of unique titles in the metro area.  HCL has the lowest.  Collection development of the 2 systems is at opposite ends of the spectrum.  Each is dependent on the other to completely serve the needs of their customers.  HCL spends significantly more than MPL on books and materials both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the operating budget.  HCL collection budget is significantly higher than the national average and MPL is below the national average.  This reflects the budget issues and financial condition of Minneapolis.  Systems that have a high circulation have a practice of buying more copies and fewer titles.  MPL is hugely under duress to acquire unique titles and collection.

A future meeting will discuss state funding.  What is an appropriate request from our systems to the state for library funding for unique titles which has not increased in ten years?  Both systems deliver services in the library, in the community and online.  Both are ahead of their colleagues in online services; both offer e-learning, e-reference, e-commerce, and downloadable audio books.  They are both responsive to their communities.  The differences that exist in their services reflect the way the communities themselves differ. HCL does much in outreach services; 2 Readmobiles, deposit collections at 57 senior housing sites, and delivery of services to correctional facilities.  MPL has a longer history of bilingual outreach to an expanding population of non native language speaking customers and also has a homework helper program and structured adult basic learning program.      

• OVERVIEW OF CURRENT FUNDING

HCL (David Lawless, County Director of Budget & Finance)

Hennepin County distributes money to HCL mostly through property taxes with some additional funding from MELSA and fines.  Debt service levy for the library is separated for building projects. There is about $59 million in outstanding debt, well below the estimated $150 million capacity.  The 2007 total property tax levy for Hennepin County suburban libraries is $46,866,708 which is about 9% of the total HC property tax levy.  This amount is collected on 2/3 of the county’s tax payers, since Minneapolis is excluded from the library levy.  About $2 million of the total amount is state aid.  A question was raised:  what is the average dollar amount a county resident pays for library services?   This will be provided for the next meeting.

MPL (City Chief Financial Officer Patrick Born)

The city of Minneapolis uses property taxes for both operating and capital funding for MPL.  State aid is also used for libraries.  Property taxes in the city are used for 1) libraries, 2) parks, 3) fire, 4) police, and 5) street maintenance.   Since 2003 there has been a loss of funding for the library, mostly because of 2 forces: 1) internal competition and 2) state aid cuts.  All five city services have suffered as a result.  The city is more dependent on local government aid than the county so the cuts to LGA have had a bigger impact on the MPL system.

Although MPL has statutorily independent levy authority, it is not truly independent. Starting 5 years ago the city council and mayor determined that they would manage the tax levy growth at not more than 8% and everything was included within this.  One half would be used for operating services and the other half would be shared among 3 demands: 1) library referendum, 2) pension obligations which are unique, and 3) internal debts from 1995-2000. Although voter-approved, debt service for the new central library falls within the 8% cap, and any increases are effectively capped until 2012.    

DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

1. Status Quo
2. Shared service funding
3. MPL becomes Minneapolis City Department
4. Shared responsibilities for MPL Central Library
5. Consolidation of the two library systems

The role of state funding will be included as a part of these discussions.

AGENDAS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS

• Issues associated with options, long term solution
• Decision process to narrow choices; appropriate funding
• Recommendations to Library Boards, County Board and City Council

WRAP-UP

The Committee affirmed that it will discuss and develop options which offer the best long term solutions for the entire community.  Those options will be discussed within the framework of governance, operations, customer service and finance.

NEXT MEETINGS

• Tuesday, January 9th, 9-11 a.m., Government Center, C23 Large Conference Room (court side)
• Thursday, January 25th, 12-2 p.m., Government Center, 24th Floor, County Board Room

JF/MZ 12.19.06
Revised 1.03.07