Thread by @shayshinecastle

Library district is up first. Tonight, council will be hearing recommendations from the advisory committee they put together last year. boulderbeat.news/2022/01/28/lib…

Staff presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

What is a library district? It's a self-governing entity that runs libraries. They're quite common: Colorado has 57.

Boulder's library is municipally run. That is, it's under the city's control (and financing). A district would tax itself (well, everyone who lives in the district) via property taxes to fund operations, a la school districts

Why a library district? Advocates and board members of the Library Foundation have suggested one for years as a way of ensuring stable funding. The library is mostly funded by sales tax, which are fluctuate a lot — especially in times of economic crisis.

Property taxes are more predictable, especially around here. Home values only go one way...

Simply put, the library wants/needs more $$ to keep itself running, catch up on repairs/upgrades and expand services the way its planning calls for. Like Niwot and Gunbarrel branches.

A district would include taxpayers outside the city who use the library. There are a lot of 'em. More on who would be included in the district later.

We've done the What and Why, so how about How: How a library district is formed.

Two ways: Via resolution passed by CC and county commissioners (since they both have jurisdiction over taxpayers/voters in the proposed district)

Or Petition and Election

We're heading down Road 1, wherein CC and commissioners do a resolution. At least for some CC members, it's been grudgingly.

There was a petition, but it was pulled by backers so as not to conflict with other ballot taxes that year, in exchange for a promise that CC would seriously consider forming a library district by resolution. Or at least to explore it further.

Voters will still have to weigh in, even with a resolution, bc the tax the district will levy requires a vote. Everyone in the proposed district will have to approve a property tax mill levy to fund it.

Basically, the resolution creates a district that only exists on paper until it gets $$$ to pay for stuff. Voters can turn it down 3 times before the on-paper district has to dissolve.

That tax vote will* be this November.

*Maybe, if council forms a district. Like I said, lots of hemming and hawing over this with past councils. Though the new majority is in favor, so it will prob happen.

I have written approx 1 million stories on this, way back to 2018 when I was with the Camera. There's a list of the important ones in this story: boulderbeat.news/2022/01/28/lib…

What does it cost to run the library? Their 2022 budget is $9.18M, but there is the aforementioned backlog of maintenance, and the operating costs for the new NoBo library (finishing construction this year) and still a chunk of the budget that hasn't been restored post-COVID.

So the real cost to run the library adequately at current service levels, even if it stays under city control, is actually $16.78M, staff say.

(Some of that - $3.6M - is admin overhead that the city already pays for, like IT and legal support, etc.)

Under a district, the library would do that all itself (unlikely) or pay the city for those continued services, or contract for them with the city in some way.

So that's just to keep the library as it is today (bc inflation, so costs only go up).

Where the library wants to be is providing more services, like the aforementioned branches in Niwot and Gunbarrel, and some other stuff. THAT plan will cost ~$20M per year.

So up quite a bit from current spending, and still a bit from what Boulder would have to spend anyway to keep the library it has.

District advocates say this is why we need a district: Bring more taxpayers in to spread the burden out a bit.

Yates on the formation of a district on paper, which the city then has to hammer out an agreement with: "We have to create the party on the other side of the table, then we have to negotiate with that party."

That's bc the first Board of Trustees for the district will be appointed by CC (and BoCo commissioners). So it is a bit "awkward," as Yates notes.

This is what most CC discussions about the library district have been like, btw. Hyper focused on process and barely any on philosophy. All flatware / table settings and no meat or potatoes, so to speak.

That was a terrible metaphor. I apologize.

Friend of the Show and library district expert/lawyer Kim J Seter is here. I feel a strange affinity for this man I've never actually met nor spoken to. But I just want to know how one becomes a library district expert and attorney.

It's true, kids, you really CAN be anything you want.

Yates was asking what happens if CC and its new library district board can't agree on terms for transferring assets, etc. from the city to the district.

The answer, per Seter, is that the district — still only on paper at this point — would dissolve after a certain point.

Joseph: I don't understand why it would fall apart. Won't we be on the same page?

David Gehr: It can always happen. But hopefully we've forestalled that a bit by establishing this advisory committee to give us recommendations.

CC also appointed those folks, so if they don't take their recommendations.... well, then it was prob always about something other than the terms.

Joseph: How do the BoCo commissioners feel about this?

Janet Michels: They aren't completely on board. They have concerns about the proposed boundaries (which can still be negotiated) particularly after the Marshall Fire.

Michels: "What the county wants is to see if city council is on board and what the support is in unincorporated Boulder County."

Michels is an attorney with the county, btw.

LMAO Wallach: "The boundaries of this library district looks like a gerrymandered congressional district in the south." How did we arrive at these boundaries?

Library director David Farnan: We originally proposed following the boundaries of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. It was added to following conversations with council, library users and BoCo commissioners.

"The intent of the map is to capture as many active users of the library as possible without impeding" on other gov't entities, Farnan says.

In a lot of places, it follows voting precincts.

Aqui

That's not a firm recommendation from the advisory committee. They wanted to keep it fairly loose bc, in part, of Colorado's redistricting processes. So voting precincts may change. The district should change along with it, the advisory committee says.

We're so far in the weeds now. But this is a great example of how anything and everything can be political.

To me, this is a question for the voters/taxpayers. Full stop.

Speer: We've been at this for 4 years. 57 other districts have formed. Did they take this long?

Seter: You're about in the middle. COVID interrupted it for 2 years, so you're about 2 years in, which is normal.

As stated above, the district can go to voters 3x to ask for $$. How often does that happen? Winer asks.

Seter: So far they've all been approved on the first go, except for one.

We're kinda moving into recommendations, which get into what will likely be the stickiest point for council. What will Boulder and the new district agree to when it comes to buildings, books, changing of employees and related admin systems, etc.

That group also recommended how much $$ to ask voters for and what services the library district should offer.

Again, all this is still negotiable. It all goes into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that CC, BoCo and the district have to sign.

A big one, and likely to be a sticking point for some on CC: The committee recommended that the city transfer ownership of all library buildings and assets — furniture, equipment, collections, etc. — to the district.

Recs are that buildings AND land go to district for
George Reynolds Branch Library, south Boulder
Carnegie Library for Local History, downtown
New NoBo branch

For the Main Library, rec is to transfer ownership of the building but NOT the land under it.

2 others are leased. Rec is to transfer those leases to the district.

We're talking mainly buildings, but obvs there are a lot of physical assets here, too. Books, art, machines, etc.

Advisory committee also proposing a district property tax of up to 3.8 mills, generating ~$19M per year

And a 7-member Board of Trustees to oversee the district

Why should this stuff be transferred, rather than having the district pay for them (to either lease or own)? Bc Boulder taxpayers already paid for them, the group said. They belong to the library, they'll stay with the library.

Asking for $$ would be asking taxpayers to pay 2X.

Like with all things Library District, it's really a matter of who owns/controls: The city or the district. All things library will stay library either way.

Qs from Brockett: Can the library district boundaries, once set, be added to later? And can we tax ppl differently based on where they are in the district? (That one was to get at the point that Marshall Fire victims, who just lost homes, shouldn't have to pay)

Answers from Seter: There's no provision for annexation or adding to the district later. You set it once and that's it.

And everyone in the district has to pay the same. BUT...

The district *could* issue rebates to property owners who lost homes in the Marshall Fire, if it likes.

Yates: "I'll have a lot of comments" when the time comes.

LOL well at least we're forewarned

"Are we going to do some polling? I feel a little bit naked .... forming a library district April 5 ... without any idea of how our taxpayers might feel on this big, fat tax increase." Yates says

There was a survey, which concluded it would pass. Lots of ppl were skeptical about the results; I was, too, but I've been told that I'm wrong. (I've not been convinced yet, but I'm open to the possibility.)

boulderbeat.news/2019/05/04/pol…

Idk why that link didn't work but here it is again: boulderbeat.news/2019/05/04/pol…

How much would the tax be? Again, TBD, but the level we're looking at now is:

3.7 mills
$26 per $100,000 value of residential property
$107 per $100,000 value of commercial property

Yates: Does anyone on council have concerns about the validity of a three-year-old poll? (Actually a survey but whatever)

Speer doesn't: "Libraries are up there with puppies in terms of things that people love."

She had some actual salient points but I liked that quote the best.

Speer's actual points:
- Initial survey showed 7-pt spread of high tax passing
- Recent survey (done by critic of initial one) also found 57% of Boulderites in favor of higher property taxes for library

Alicia Gibb, advisory committee member: "That's what's gotten us here tonight, is how much people DO love the library and want the library funded to the full extent."

Since we're (kinda) on taxes: Boulder's library currently does have a little bit of property tax funding. About $1.4M from a 0.333 mill levy that is over 100 years old!

Dedicated to the library in 1907 when Andrew Carnegie made his grant to establish a library.

Prob safe to say it's the oldest continual, dedicated tax Boulderites pay.

Anyway, if a district is formed, ppl would stop paying this tax OR voters could approve the $$ going to something else.

We'll talk more about that later, tho.

We're talking about racial equity goals and how the library plays into that.

Winer: Did you check in with seniors? When I campaigned and talked to folks, property taxes had just gone up and they were so concerned they couldn't afford them, they might have to sell their house.

And small biz, Winer says. They're paying 3X what home owners are. "I'm super concerned in this time of supply chain issues, labor issues..." did you talk to many biz owners?

Joni Teter, former library commissioner and advisory group member: "To be clear, the assessment rate is not going up. It's a rise in property values that are causing taxes to go up."

The group *did* discuss issues that older homeowners face, Teter says.

There are a lot of programs that allow older adults to defer taxes until after their death or when the home is sold.

We did talk about biz as well, Teter says. We hoped the city and district could come up with ways to address that.

But it wasn't really our work to do that engagement, Teter says. (The group made recommendations on HOW to do community engagement.)

Joanna Rosenblum, another advisory member: We looked at this. 50% of small biz are run out of a home, so they only pay residential sales tax. And increase in monthly rent from this tax is about 1%. "So it felt manageable."

But, she cautions, that's extremely anecdotal. It wasn't a super deep dive. But that's what we made our decision on.

Farnan explaining that the group found actual commercial spaces that are for rent/being rented, then used assessor records to calculate the tax increase, assuming the landlord would pass on the entire increase in rents.

Dang, man. This group really went for it. I feel like council has never done that... calculated the increase in rents for one of its taxes. (They do calculate costs for homeowners always, tho.)

Speer: Didn't the library call every card holder over 65 during the pandemic, just to see how they were doing?

Her point is that the library does a lot for older adults.

Winer: I bring this all up not bc I'm against the library district. I assume the community has these questions. This is our time to ask those.

Wallach: "At the end of the day, none of this is going to fall on the library district. If it's unsuccessful, we're going to look bad." Which is why we should poll, he says.

4 members of council are new to this. For the rest of us, this meeting is exactly the same as every other meeting has been. Same points, same rebuttals. I am tired.

I will not twit another tweet until I hear something new.

We're working toward an April 5 joint public hearing with BoCo commissioners to pass a resolution forming the district.

Mayor Brockett is on board with that. We've had 2 surveys on this, we've been working on this for 4 years. It sounds like there's potentially a lot of support. We should go to the voters and find out.

Yates: I'm not ready to go forward, for 4 reasons:
- Wants more polling. "Without a poll, I'm not going to be supporting this at all."
- Boundaries will be controversial
- Governance issues
- Real estate. There's no "compelling reason" to transfer ownership vs a lease, he says.

He said there were 5 reasons so perhaps I missed one.

Friend: The last council discussed another poll and we didn't. I hate to re-litigate things, so I prob won't support another one.

Wallach: I just don't know what the harm or downside is of another poll. It's like going to the doctor and only wanting good news.

Also with Yates on not wanting to transfer ownership of the library buildings and assets. They should be leased for $1 a year, which the city already does. Copy and paste that agreement.

He brings up Yates 5th point that I missed: They don't want to ask the taxpayers more than once to fund a district.

Wallach: The proposed tax is too high. "I know the library wants to get everything it wants. That would make them the only department in the city to get everything that it wants." It's too aggressive given other needs. There are tradeoffs.

"If it passes at that level, we will have a v difficult time passing anything else to fund social programs," Wallach says.

Speer: "I absolutely see this as a social program. There's evidence that social infrastructure like libraries save lives during severe weather events."

Benjamin (who is running tonight's meeting): A previous CC agreed to seriously work toward putting this on the ballot and forming a resolution. We need to honor that.

We can't just say "the status quo is sustainable," Benjamin says. "Because I don't think it is, and I think quite a few ppl in the community agree."

Doing another poll feels like "analysis paralysis," Benjamin says. We have two relatively recent ones. Let's go forward.

As Speer said earlier, another poll is $$ and staff time. Folkerts says we should use that instead on robust community engagement since we already have 2 surveys.

Folkerts: I think there needs to be a really good argument made about why the library district needs to own the land under the buildings. I'm sure those exist, but they need to be brought forward.

I concur. Someone please explain to me (and I know ya'll will) why it matters that the library owns the buildings and land vs. leasing it like the Dairy Center. Other assets, I get. But why this?

Anyway, general council consensus to move toward an April 5 public hearing with BoCo commissioners to form a district via resolution.

Of this discussion. We're gonna talk about what Boulder might do with the $$ it saves if it's no longer paying for a library (bc district voters would be).

Again, most of the library is funded through the General Fund, which pays for... lots of stuff. Police, Fire, all city admin stuff.

With a district, the city would have $9.5M-$10.25M to play with.

We're gonna talk about what that might be used for.

The city already has a super-long list of stuff that it needs $$ for.

Why are we talking about this now? Bc that's pretty typical with tax ballot questions to specify for voters what $$ will go for... and this would free up a lot of $$ for the city.

TABOR requires specifics on where $$ will go. The city doesn't *have* to do that for revenue it's already collecting but spending on the library, but there's precedence. And it's good governance.

Yates asking a series of leading questions whose only purpose is to make a point.

"I'm a little puzzled, why we in 2022, would reallocate $$ we don't have yet," Yates says. We don't know our revenue or expenses for that year; it's a future council.

That's bc the soonest this $$ would be available, assuming a district is formed and a tax OKed this year, is 2024.

Mark Woulf, from finance: We always try to keep a tab on $$ we might be getting or that needs allocated. This is just happening a little earlier than our typical budget process. (Which, for 2024, would start in April 2023.)

Winer wants to know if some of the freed-up $$ could be used to give grants to small biz, since they'll be paying more in property tax.

Yes, Woulf says.

RE: my point earlier about council not HAVING to ask voters what to do with freed up general fund $$ when it doesn't have a library to pay for anymore... they DO have to ask voters what to do with the small property tax that goes to the library currently.

I already said that earlier, but seems like a good place to remind folks.

That's 0.333 mill levy or $1.4M/yr. That can simply cease to exist (taxpayers save $$) or voters can OK using it for something else.

Speer responding to Yates point: "We make all kinds of decisions without knowing that the future holds." This council would be in charge of the 2024 budget anyway. And as a voter, I'd want to know where the $$ is going.

"We're the ones who can hold ourselves accountable," Speer says.

Wallach: "We're trying to project out a couple years without knowing anything about anything."

"Any promise that we make to the community is a promise without substance," Wallach says.

Without context, that is a perfect evergreen tweet.

Speer rebutting: New council members never have a say in the next year's budget. We were elected in 2021 and the 2022 budget was already done.

Brockett: Barring resignations or recalls, it will be this group deciding the 2024 budget either way.

Wallach: Can we volunteer for a recall?

You heard 'em, #Boulder.
(JK. Don't waste my time or money.)

Benjamin: "It would be irresponsible not to" discuss what we'd do with an extra $10M. We have a list of things we say we can't do bc we don't have the $$. "To me, it's incumbent upon us to do that work."

Lots of these big projects take a year-plus to plan out, Benjamin says. "These are big things. If we don't start thinking about the shovel ready nature of those things now, we're deciding to tie our shoes in the middle of the race."

We need to "get out of that fiscal conservatism" that has contributed to our current situation, Benjamin says. "This allows us to think new."

Folkerts: "While I agree that plans often change bc circumstances change, that doesn't mean you don't plan. Iteration leads to some of the best ideas moving forward."

I mean, yeah. All city budgets are is a plan for how to spend money we don't have yet. As we all saw during COVID.

Anyway, Speer wants the $$ to be used for social infrastructure.

Joseph mentions grants for small biz.

Friend: I do think we should plan, but we should be mindful that the library district tax might not pass. "Let's not be presumptuous and let's set this up for success."

Just a reminder what the proposal on the table is: Send this q to council's financial strategy subcommittee to come up with a broad list of proposals for where saved $$ could go, if the district is formed.

Everyone on board so far except, it seems, Yates and Wallach.

Although Wallach likes the idea of grants to homes and/or biz.

City attorney Michels breaks back in (earlier I said she was with the county; I apologize) and says the library district can't do grants or rebates. But the city could.

I think we're wrapping up. To recap: Heading toward an April 5 public hearing to form the district, and a Nov. vote on the tax. With recommendations to come for how to spend the ~$10M Boulder will have freed up.

I know I complain a lot about the library district meetings, bc they are so tedious. I just want to acknowledge that this is kind of a big deal, in that it will be a vote to form a whole new taxing district and gov't entity of some sort.

I also wanna acknowledge that, to me and I think the avg person, it doesn't impact our daily lives all that much just to have the library under new ownership.

I'm kinda like, OK, just tell me how much $$ and then I can vote.

Anyway, this has been the library district discussion.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!