Translate
Meeting 5 Purpose
- Review Charge and True North
- Task Force Reports on Recommendations
- Fine-tune slate of recommendations for the Library District Board
Agenda
9:00 a.m. Agenda and Meeting Schedule Review
9:05 a.m. Opening Comments, Facilitator & County Counsel
9:15 a.m. Discovery Summary, Staff
9:25 a.m. Discovery Individual Reports, Task Force
10:00 a.m. Break
10:10 a.m. Discovery Discussion
10:30 a.m. Fine-Tune Recommendations based on Discoveries (Input)
10:40 a.m. Next Steps
Presentation
Meeting #5
Meeting 5 Purpose
- Review Charge and True North
- Reporting on recommendations
- Fine-tune slate of recommendations
Our Charge and True North
- Our charge from the Library District Board of Directors: “The Library Task Force will make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on several longstanding library issues.”
- Using equity as a lens, what actions should the Task Force be recommending to the District Board that could help enhance th long-term health and vitality of the Library District for all?
Recommendations
- Recommendation A: Direct staff to propose an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement to clarify the use of district funds for capital expenses and allocated costs.
- Recommendation B: Direct staff to conduct analysis of the library district and make recommendations for core levels of service.
- Recommendation C: Direct staff to conduct analysis of the funding formula and service boundaries, incorporated and unincorporated, and propose recommendations for changes to address funding disparities amongst the service areas.
- Recommendation D: Direct staff to initiate the creation of a strategic plan for the district that would prepare the district for its 20th year of service and beyond.
Discovery Summary
• Recommendation A – Capital Expenses & Allocated Costs
- Average 2.5 (58 responses; 1 = 9, 2 = 11, 3 = 38)
- 3s generally supported the idea of ending debate, mostly no comment
- Adopt previously drafted IGA amendments
- Codify the legal opinion received
- No clear unifier on 1 and 2 ratings
- Existing documents have the necessary language
- Clarity can be provided in other ways
- Opposition in anticipation of what the amendment would say
• Recommendation B – Levels of Service
- Average 2.3 (56 responses; 1 = 8, 2 = 24, 3 = 24)
- 3s generally didn’t comment
- Support was mostly for doing the work to figure out what the community wants
- Some unity on 1s and 2s, but for different reasons
- Opposition because this is city-level discussion
- Opposition unless the work is part of future funding measure
- Opposition because there are already Oregon Library Association standards
- Opposition because they feel the member cities will not support any changes
- Opposition because the district should just adopt the current Oregon Library Association standards by reference and not a particular set of standards
• Recommendation C – Funding and Boundaries
- Average 2.1 (56 responses; 1 = 20, 2 = 12, 3 = 24)
- Raters who scored a 3 generally didn’t comment
- Ground truthing of service areas and funding
- Support for specific fixes (not district level analysis)
- Support for “equitable funding” (100% per capita, unincorporated redistribution, etc)
- Support for specific outcomes (“I only support this if the thing I want happens”)
- Some unity on 1s and 2s, but for different reasons
- Opposition unless the work is part of future funding measure
- Opposition because they feel the member cities will not support any changes
- Opposition because the only question was capital expenses and allocated costs
Recommendation D – District Strategic Plan
- Average 2.3 (55 responses; 1 = 8, 2 = 20, 3 = 27)
- Feedback generally centered on whether this recommendation was focused on planning for the current district or moving toward a new district and/or levy
- Some comments reflective of concern whether this work would be duplicative of work that library directors and city staff are doing for their individual libraries
- Various commentors indicated that this recommendation should really be focused on a framework for a future funding measure
Reports from Individual Task Force Members
- 3-5 minutes from each Task Force Member
- What do you want your colleagues to know about the feedback received so we can move this work forward in a thoughtful and productive way?
Break
Please be back in 10 minutes
Discussion
- Themes and lessons learned
- Clarification from fellow Task Force Members
- Clarification from counsel and staff on process and procedure
What does the future hold?
- Referral to voters for new permanent rate through a new district
- County would form new district; Library District would begin dissolution
- process
- Both acts referred to voters and drafted that both must pass for either to be effective
- Referral of a levy to voters
- How the levy is structured would need to be explored
- Maintain status quo/tweaks to existing structure
- Could be adjustments to current operating agreements, but no levy or permanent rate adjustment
Facilitator’s Proposal
- Honoring the feedback received
- Moving the work of the district forward
- Reducing fatigue from recommendations and studies
Fine-Tuning Recommendations
- Recommendation A: Direct staff to propose an amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement to clarify the use of district funds for capital expenses and allocated costs.
- Consideration: Work within the existing library district governance structure as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement and incorporate external stakeholders as appropriate.
- Consideration: Retain the Library District Task Force as a steering committee to advise on the work undertaken to implement this recommendation.
- Recommendation B: Direct staff to conduct analysis of the library district and make recommendations for core levels of service.
- Consideration: Hire a consultant to assist with analysis.
- Consideration: Work within the existing library district governance structure as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement and incorporate external stakeholders as appropriate.
- Consideration: Retain the Library District Task Force as a steering committee to advise on the work undertaken to implement this recommendation.
- Recommendation C: Direct staff to conduct analysis of the funding formula and service boundaries, incorporated and unincorporated, and propose recommendations for changes to address funding disparities amongst the service areas.
- Consideration: Hire a consultant to assist with analysis.
- Consideration: Work within the existing library district governance structure as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement and incorporate external stakeholders as appropriate.
- Consideration: Retain the Library District Task Force as a steering committee to advise on the work undertaken to implement this recommendation.
- Recommendation D: Direct staff to initiate the creation of a strategic plan for the district that would prepare the district for its 20th year of service and beyond.
- Consideration: Hire a consultant to work on drafting the plan, incorporating the efforts of the library directors, cities, and unincorporated areas to plan for their library service areas.
- Consideration: Work within the existing library district governance structure as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement and incorporate external stakeholders as appropriate.
- Consideration: Retain the Library District Task Force as a steering committee to advise on the work undertaken to implement this recommendation.
Next Steps
• Are we ready to move forward with drafting a report to the Library District Board of Directors?