San Diego Mayor Wants To Proceed with Library Closings; Budget Analyst Urges Review
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 11/20/2008
- Cutting hours wouldn’t work, says director
- Budget analyst suggests review of facilities
- City Council to meet again on Monday
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders and the City Council have yet to agree on whether to close seven of 35 branch libraries, among other cuts he’s proposed. As the Voice of San Diego reported, a second public hearing on the issue, held yesterday, ended with no resolution.
The mayor criticized Independent Budget Analyst Andrea Tevlin, who offered an alternative, suggesting that the libraries and recreation centers remain open until a comprehensive review is finished early next year. “I recommend immediate action," Sanders said. "She recommends procrastination." Another meeting is schedule for November 24.
San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow told LJ, "With the cuts in hours already made in past years, it has compounded the challenges facing the Library system to cut more hours. To achieve the 10% annual reduction in costs, closing branches seemed to be the best option to preserve the core schedule at our 28 remaining.” She noted that the City Council ultimately will make the decision, and the library “will do what it takes to maintain a solid library system that serves the entire community and looks to the future when we have more prosperous times."
Cuts may be permanent
Tevlin offered a long memo warning that, while the proposed closures of seven libraries were originally announced as temporary through FY 2010 or “when funding becomes available,” a more recent document presented the cuts lasting until at least FY 2014. “Realistically,” she wrote, “the proposed temporary closures are at best long-term and at worst permanent."
She suggested that “a comprehensive facility plan addressing proposed closures along with proposed openings be brought to Council by February 2009.” She recommended that a decision on closure be deferred. Alternatively, the Council could move forward with closures for FY09 but request a facility plan before any closure decisions for the next year.
Tevlin questioned whether more closures would be proposed in a few months. She noted that the Library Facilities Improvement Program was approved in 2002 but has not been updated. She also noted that, since 2004, the city has waived the Library Ordinance established in 2002 to ensure that operating funds would be available for new libraries. Tevlin also recommend that options be discussed regarding the Library System Improvement Program Fund, aimed at lease payments, project costs, and project management costs. Some $5.3 million remains available, while the library has so far been asked to cut $2 million.
The library’s response
Barrow sent Tevlin a memo explaining the constraints regarding cuts in hours. In FY 2006, she noted, 31 of 35 branch libraries reduced hours from 48 to 41 hours per week. “Reducing hours by one day per week, or decreasing hours each day, is untenable and inefficient for several reasons,” she wrote, citing public confusion over staggered days; the difficulty in retaining full-time employees offered undesirable schedules, particularly working both weekend days; the cost of a 5% shift differential if employees don’t get consecutive days off; the cost of hiring, training, and managing increased part-time staff.
As for pairing branches on three-day schedules of open hours, she said that, too, would cause public confusion; public dissatisfaction over loss of hours at their branch library; no decrease in most non-personnel costs for building and grounds maintenance; risks in lapses of public service and staffing inefficiencies; and increased risk of vandalism.
While all branch libraries could go to five-day service, and Sunday hours could be reduced, they don’t approach the 10% reduction in costs being requested, she noted.
"Reducing branch library hours would also have a larger negative service impact on the public compared to the alternative of closing several branch libraries that are smaller in size, with fewer resources and with lower public use,” she wrote. “The City of San Diego is unique in the number of library facilities offered per capita. Library patrons here have the advantage of being able to use alternative public libraries located in relatively close proximity.”
