Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05051987 - 2.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May 5 , 1987 2i Z Adopted this Order on , by the.following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Schroder , Torlakson, McPeak. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. SUBJECT: In the Matter of Establishing) RESOLUTION NO. 87/260 a New Schedule of Fines for ) Overdue Library Materials ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE THAT: WHEREAS the late return of library materials continues to be a serious problem in the County Library .system, and WHEREAS there has been no increase in the daily fine rate in more than thirty years , and WHEREAS the costs associated with assuring prompt return of library materials has increased dramatically, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that effective July 1, 1987 the following fines for the late return of library materials be established: Adult book 10¢ per day Maximum per book $5.00 Maximum pier return $25.00 Children s .books 50 per day Maximum per book $1.00 Maximum per return $5.00 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Librarian is hereby authorized to establish fees and/or fines for specialized services and materials , as needed. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTEDt MAY 51987 PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator *14 By , Deputy Orig. Dept.: cc: County Administrator County Library RESOLUTION NO . 87/260 TO- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM Ernest Siegel, County Librarian Contra Cosa DATE: April 3, 1987 SUBJECT: LIBRARY REVENUES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: That -the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution estab- lishing fines for the Contra Costa County Library. FINANCIAL IMPACT: An increase in fine revenues which cannot accurately be predicted at this time, is anticipated. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: In early November 1986 the County Administrator requested that the Library re-examine its fine policy in response to the Board' s desire to maximize revenues and to offset to the fullest extent possible and reasonable the high cost of the automated system, which will substantially increase fine revenues through capabilities which our present system lacks. The Library approached this task, not, with reluctance, but with caution that we not identify library fines as a dependable source of revenue rather than its proper function as a means of insuring the prompt return of books. There are additional pitfalls , such as instituting fine policies which result in procedures which cost more to maintain than the revenues they bring in, or which raise barriers to library service, especially to children. Other requirements or desirable elements in=a library fine policy are: • fairness • enforceability • consistency with prevailing practice in other jurisdictions • compatibility with good public relations It is some indication of the awkwardness of this task that I can think of no fine policy including our present one that does not run afoul of more than one of these criteria. The Library imposes a number of miscellaneous charges other than fines. Most of them yield such small amounts a to be not %th CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT- XX. YES' S:FGNA.TURE::, RECOMMENDATION. OF COUNTY" ADWIWtSTRATOR RECOMMEND'A.T'I:ON! OF' BOARD, C.OMMiIITTEE: APPROVE OTHER: SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON a'Y f A.PP'ROVED� A.S; RECOMMENDED' _ OTHER' . The Board REQUESTED the County Administrator and Librarian to develop an amnesty period during the month of June for the return of library materials . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS II HEREBY CERTIFY THAT' THfS: I:S A. TRUE, X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �+ AND' CORRECT' COPY OF' ANi ACT'IONi TAKEN. AYES: NOES-:, AND! ENTERED, ON, THE; MINUTES; OF' THE BOARD, ABSENT ABSTA l Wr OF' SUPERV IiSORS ON( THE; DATE; SHOWNI., CC: County Administrator ATTESTED, May 5 , 1987 County Librarian --- -- PHIL. BATCHELOR:, CLERK, OF THE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; AND,COUNTYADMINISTRATOR M'3'82/7-83 BY „DEPUTY Library Revenues Page 2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND continued our attention other than to note in passing that we attempt to recover out-of-pocket expenses. An exception is the charge made to the public for photocopying, recently increased from ten to fifteen cents per page, which is more or less competitive with commercial services and which is a modest revenue producer. Library fines and fees produced an income of $100,000 in FY 85/86. This was an increase of almost $20 ,000 over the previous year, owing largely, we think, to our use for the first time of a commercial collection agency which handled a number of significant cases for us at a cost of $6. 25 per offender. This method not only resulted in recovery of the books and fines for the cases referred, but seems to have had an effect on borrowers who wished to avoid being referred to the agency. Most of this income represents adult and juvenile fines of 5¢ per day, up to a maximum of $3..00 per adult book and $10.00 per inci- dent. Maximums for children are 50¢ per book, $2. 50 per incident. The adult maximums were raised by the Library in 1982. An increase in adult fines to 10¢ per book per day is the only feasible increase in the opinion of the Library staff. It could be instituted at any time with due notice to the public, although staff feels strongly that it .would be best to wait until the automated system is operational. The reason for waiting lies in a number of conditions imposed by our present system and our budgetary limitations: We have a basic circulation period of only two weeks. This was recently reduced from a three week period in the interest of increasing the availability of books in a time of lower acquisitions . It is a shorter loan period than is granted by most public libraries. We are unable to send notices to borrowers until books are 4-6 weeks overdue. It is generally understood that notices are a courtesy extended by the Library and the responsibility for knowing when books are due rests with the borrower. Nevertheless , even at a nickel a day', fines may mount to the maximum before the borrower receives a notice. Earlier sending of notices would entail sub- stantial additional costs. Only borrowers who willingly abide by the rules would be affected by the increase. Those who leave overdue books on the return desk and run or who use the book drops durin closed hours would still be getting off free, because we do not cannot) maintain fine records for these patrons. The proposed system is capable of addressing all three of these problems . We strongly- recommend against any increase in the daily fine of 5¢ per day per juvenile book. Those Bay Area libraries which have gone to a 10¢ daily adult fine, with the exception of Livermore, charge no children' s fines at all. We strongly object to an increase in fines which might discourage children from further use of the library, or cause parents , as often happens , toforbid children to use the library. We have discussed an additional increase in the per-book and per- incident maximums for adult borrowers. Many libraries allow fines to accumulate up to the price of the book. This raises an entirely new set of workload and public relations problems . People paying the price of a book then feel they are entitled to keep it, or balk at paying the list price of a book they perceive as used, when, in fact, the actual replacement cost may be much more than the recorded price. These factors are mentioned only to offer some idea of the complex problem we are dealing with. It is significant that maximum fines are only collected at the Central Library two ,/ Library Revenues Page 3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND continued to four times a month, too small a number to make an increase worthwhile from a revenue standpoint. The new automated system will make it possible to: • send overdue notices in a timely fashion • maintain records of fines owed and not paid at the time of return • prevent patrons with overdue books or outstanding fines from further abuse of the system. A further issue raised during budget discussions for the 1986-87 budget was that the Library explore other avenues for increasing revenues, such as appeals to philanthropy and the generosity of library patrons. During the past year the Library has continued to work with Friends of the Library groups to raise funds through book sales (often on a continuing. basis inside the library) and other fund-raising activities . This on-going effort has been producing about $30,000 per year system-wide, usually in the form of more library materials , or new equipment which the budget cannot accommodate. I have pointed out to the Board during the past two years that Project Second Chance, our highly successful adult literacy program, would soon have to face up to a withdrawal of the Federal and State funding which established it, and that we would need to look for local funding, either County or private, or see the end of the program while the need is still great. Realistically, . I think the prospect of significant philanthropy is risky. We have received gifts of as much as $2000 from such corporate givers as Chevron and Long' s Drugs , and we are still nowhere near the $701000-$100,000 per year that the program needs . At the same time, we have formed a citizen board of directors , who along with key staff are getting training in the complex art of fund- raising and we expect to get better at it. I have maintained that any major fund-raising effort undertaken by the Library should be concentrated on this one program. It is awkward for the Library to enter into competition with agencies traditionally dependent on charity for the philanthropic dollar. I do not think we should compete with ourselves. However, I would also point to the extra- ordinary effort, and impressive results , of the citizens of San Ramon in raising funds for the book collection of that community ' s new branch library. I urge that the Board of Supervisors await the results of the fine increase proposed on the attached, and these fund-raising efforts before additional revenue-producing activities are imposed on the Library.