[Mpls] Library Choices

[Bob GUSTAFSON]

I was requested to forward to the list the recommendation made by CLIC (the Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee) concerning the Library and its capital program. I have enclosed the "Comments" section as the actual budget numbers being recommended are lengthy and not totally finalized. For those unfamiliar with CLIC it is a committee of appointed citizens, 2 per council member and 7 from the Mayor's office, that with the help of staff from the Planning Department review and recommend a 5 year capital budget to the Mayor and Council.   CLIC works with the Planning Department to review all requests for capital needs for the City ranging from the Libraries to Fire and Police Stations to Streets, Sewers, Street Lights and Bridges. If you have seen the "Chubby Bunny" on E. Minnehaha and Portland, yes even that went through the process. Every year there are more projects presented then there are dollars to fund.    I have included the general comments only.  We also commented on our support for repairing the roof at the Walker Library as well as commenting on the strong community support for the Webber Park Library as shown by the commitment of NRP funds by three local neighborhoods.     LIBRARY COMMENTS   Library staff acknowledged after the referendum that �it would have been a good idea� to incorporate �an amount for operating expenses into the 2000 referendum.� They seemed to feel that the estimated $4 million per year operating shortfall projected upon the projects completion could be ignored for the moment because it would not fully impact the budget until the 2010 plan was complete. Now the library is faced with the need to cut a similar amount of some $4 million from their budget due to reductions in LGA. While doing so the library now needs to be honest and include realistic projections for future operating shortfalls as they complete their revised plan. Perhaps the original projected $4 million shortfall can be diminished but lets hope it is with honest numbers rather than being ignored as they have in the past.  That they are now willing to consider closing of some community libraries as well as looking at new models of delivering services seems to imply they are finally ready to address the issue.   Considering the tight financial situation the Task Force remains confused as to the Libraries attempts to stretch their services to extend beyond those normally assumed by a library.  Examples include the emphasis placed on community meeting rooms - as shown in MPL02 (Franklin) - which request additional funding for items such as a community space of 1,500 sqft; MPL06 (Webber) whose original budget is now �inadequate to meet community expectations� and yet they need to add a �public meeting space�; MPL10 (North Regional) which calls for a �renovated meeting room that is technologically smart.�  How �smart� is it if due to budget cuts the library is only open for limited hours and days?   Homework Helper and services for immigrants are important services to the community and the library places great emphasis on them. The Task Force wonders if the library is the correct forum for providing them. For example there are many more schools than libraries available for providing these services. One can argue that they don�t have the funding to do so. Neither does the Library. The Task Force feels the infrastructure is already in place to meet these needs. Providing operating funds remains a difficult problem, but building new facilities when you still will not have operating funds to operate them when complete, is the ultimate in fiscal irresponsibility.  Rather than excuses for why cooperation cannot work, the Park Board, School Board and Libraries should learn what we try to teach our children, how to share and work together.   Once the library has agreed on what their core services are, which services they can work with other agencies to provide, and which services need to be provided by someone else entirely, they can evaluate what building program they should proceed with. They have background information with what libraries are now doing for a volume of business, they have information from Hosmer and Linden Hills on how library usage changes when the buildings are remodeled and programs are expanded, they know what they have for a budget. They need to develop a capital plan accordingly. To even propose remodeling all the community libraries, to then cut their hours and strip their programs and services are beyond incompetent. It is foolish.   Lastly, in considering their capital plan, the Task Force strongly supports the library�s discussion of ways to provide services that use existing assets of others. (This refers to working with schools for example, or possibly coffee shops that might want to be pickup and drop off spots for requested books. This concept was referred to as "Library Express" in some of the Library's proposals) There is much talk by the library of providing new millennium library services. Rebuilding existing infrastructure because it is there and served us well in the last millennium does not seem to be the most progressive way to achieve this.   The Library is considering three plans to address their budgetary shortfalls. The Task Force supports reducing the number of community libraries to a level that can be properly funded. We support cooperation with other entities to provide some of the current library services such as homework helpers and special services for immigrants. We also support other alternatives such as looking into new ways, other than just community libraries, to expand the outreach of the core library function of providing books and research to the people of Minneapolis. Plan C, as proposed by the Library, most closely meets these goals. If additional closures were needed to provide the maximum services throughout the remaining library system the Task Force would be supportive of that decision.   Bob Gustafson Chair, H.D. Task Force CLIC