t
u O t I k Chec
Independent Library Funding
Final Report June 2012
THIS BOOK BELONGS TO THE
JACKSONVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM
OVERDUE PENALTIES MAY APPLY
TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW
1
EXECUTIVE BRIEFING
2
JACKSONVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDING INQUIRY FINANCIAL BACKGROUND ALTERNATIVES IN FLORIDA AUTOMATION AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES MOVING FORWARD TWO APPROACHES POLITICAL SUPPORT POPULAR SUPPORT CONCLUSION NEXT STEPS…WHO, WHAT, WHEN
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES (SERVICES AND COSTS)
12
MILLAGE RATE REQUIRED FOR CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL RATE REQUIRED FOR 21ST CENTURY LIBRARY SERVICE DEDICATED MILLAGE FOR COLLECTIONS CURRENT PLAN FOR REDUCED SERVICE AVAILABLE EFFICIENCIES AND PLANNED REDUCTIONS
THREE OPTIONS
17
MAINTAIN STATUS QUO DEDICATED MILLAGE RATE INDEPENDENT TAX DISTRICT
MEETING SUMMARIES
20
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
JACKSONVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY BUDGETS COST ALLOCATIONS BOARD MANAGED EXPENDITURES PEER LIBRARIES BUDGET COMPARISON
57
Overview The Jacksonville Public Library (JPL) expanded its facilities through support of the Better Jacksonville Plan, approved by voters in 2000. Facilities opened in 2005-06. Operational funds for library services declined every year since 2005 which has led to annual debates about closing branches, reducing hours, and whether new materials will be purchased. While these debates are evidence of citizen engagement and accountability to taxpayers, the conflicts suggest a chronic lack of planning and fiscal control. In 2011, the JPL retained the services of a consultant to examine its capacity and facilities. One recommendation, made through the 2011 Capacity Plan, was the development of independent, stable funding for the Library. The Jacksonville Community Council Inc. (JCCI) was contracted by the Friends of the Jacksonville Public Library and the Jacksonville Public Library Foundation, Inc. to explore whether Jacksonville should fund its libraries independently, and if so, the best ways to achieve stable and reliable funding. This citizen inquiry gathered input from 40 citizens who attended 12 meetings from March 2nd through June 1, 2012. An additional 15 citizens attended fewer meetings as observers. The inquiry participants heard from 15 resource speakers discussing JPL budgets, successful and unsuccessful voter referenda, the political climate in the Florida Legislature as well as library funding structures here in Florida and around the U.S. Resource speakers included: Bruce Barcelo – Barcelo and Company William D. Brinton – Rogers Towers Craig Buthod – Director, Louisville Free Public Library John Callahan III – Director, Palm Beach County Library System Matthew Corrigan – Chair, Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Florida - City Librarian, Los Angeles Barbara Gubbin - Director, JPL Sol Hirsch – former Director, Alachua County Library District Mary Anne Hodel – Library Director/DEO, Orange County Library System Barrett King - Deputy Director of Administration and Finance, JPL Joy Korman – Past Chair, JPL Board of Trustees Jeanne Miller – General Counsel, Florida State College at Jacksonville Jim Selzer – Chair, JPL Board of Trustees Joe Stines – Director, Tampa-Hillsborough Public Library System Richard L. Waters – P i cip l, odf y’s Associ t s Mike Weinstein – Florida House of Representatives, District 19
The inquiry reviewed past, present, and anticipated funding trends for U.S. library systems, and specifically the Jacksonville Public Library. It identified challenges in the present JPL funding structure d xplo d loc l t xp y s’ willi g ss to dopt new funding strategy. Finally, the participants agreed on a strategy for securing stable and reliable funding and made recommendations for executing it.
Executive Briefing for the Friends of the Jacksonville Public Library and the Jacksonville Public Library Foundation, Inc. “A library outranks any other one thing a community can do to benefit its people.” – Andrew Carnegie
Jacksonville Public Library Funding Inquiry With few exceptions, public libraries in the United States are funded by local tax dollars. However, whether those tax dollars are allocated directly to the public library services, or are just a part of the long list of city priorities in a general budget, varies among communities. In Jacksonville, the public library operates like any other City department. It is supported by the City’s General Fund and its funds are largely under a ‘use it or lose it’ policy– meaning that it cannot usually carry forward funds from one fiscal year to the next. This also means the Jacksonville Public Library (JPL) cannot typically maintain a reserve, and its budget is subject to decisions made by the Mayor’s Office and City Council. This briefing presents recent history of the JPL’s funding and services as well as financial information needed to make informed decisions regarding future, long-term funding solutions for the JPL. It summarizes a 3-month solutions-focused inquiry involving Jacksonville citizens. The citizens group reviewed other library systems and provide here some interesting options. Options include automation and other new technologies to achieve efficiencies and reduce personnel costs, allowing the JPL to maintain fiscal control of their entire budget to allow for long-term sound business decisions, reducing Information Technology costs through a contract bidding process, and establishing either a dedicated millage rate or an independent tax district to fund the Library system.
Financial Background The FY2012 JPL budget is approximately $38 million. The JPL Board of Trustees and Library administration oversee $23.4 million of that budget. The City of Jacksonville administers the remainder of the annual budget, $14.7 million, allocating costs for information technology, maintenance, facilities, payroll, and human resources. Since 2005, there has been an increase in these City of Jacksonville costs of 193 percent, from $5.2 million in 2005 to $14.7 million in 2012. 1
City Costs Allocated to JPL Budget, 2005-2012 $18
$16 $14
Millions
$12 $10 $8 $6 $4
$2 $0 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Jacksonville Public Library
Due to a decline in revenue and increased cost allocations, reductions in staff and materials were necessary. Between 2005 and 2012, JPL lost 117 total FTE (full-time equivalent staff) through attrition and through strategic civil service job reductions, resulting in a net budget reduction of nearly $400,000 in personnel expenses. Most of the savings from the reduction of positions are being used to pay rapidly escalating health and pension costs. The JPL decreased annual spending on materials by $2.2 million since 2005, which is a 42 percent reduction. These are the only two spending categories that JPL can control. The table below displays the number of positions reduced as well as the decreases in staff and materials expenses.
JPL Reductions 2005 # of Total FTE*
2012
% Decrease
547
430
21%
# of civil service positions
432
336
22%
# of part-time FTE
115
94
18%
$18,306,967
$17,911,352
2.1%
$5,300,00
$3,100,00
42%
Salary and Benefits (‘people costs’) Materials (books, CDs, DVDs) *FTE refers to Full-Time Equivalent
Over nearly the same time period (2005-2011), the total number of circulated materials increased from 6.1 million to 9.1 million, and the annual number of visitors to the JPL increased from 3.8
2
million to 5 million. One of the reasons for these increases is that the Better Jacksonville Plan expanded library services. By November 2005, Jacksonville had a new downtown library as well as six new branch libraries. The chart below demonstrates the dramatic expansion of library services that was possible through the support of the Better Jacksonville Plan.
Library Materials Checked per Resident, Jacksonville Public Library
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
Source: 2010 Quality of Life Progress Report, JCCI
While the dramatic increase in circulation per capita tells a story of healthy growth despite revenue decreases, it is important to acknowledge the most recent year in the above trend line. 2010 saw the first decrease in the number of items circulated per person since 1985, when JCCI began tracking this indicator. The 2010 data point does not signify a trend in decreased library use; however, it suggests that the strain created by fewer human resources and aging collections is beginning to affect service to the community. The citizens committee agreed that the current funding structure is contributing to a ‘graceful degradation’ of the Library system. It is graceful in that the JPL is well-loved and highly supported by the community, and its administrators have prevented any painful lapse in services. The JPL will continue to meet community needs as best it can. Despite an 21 percent decrease in staffing, the 21 libraries have reduced their hours of operation from 1,130 hours per week to 1,112, a 1.6 percent decrease in service hours. The JPL is experiencing degradation because reductions have been made in collections and staffing, the only two areas in which the Board administers costs. As collections age and hours are cut, fewer customers look to the Library for new items. The 3
demand and delivery of digital information through JPL is outpaced by other online services. AS this happens, the JPL will lose relevancy in Jacksonville. Additionally, JPL is experiencing physical, structural degradation, as evidenced by a 2011 Capacity Plan that found all 21 libraries need repair (at an estimated cost of $8.3 million) and recommended additional funding for preventative maintenance. As the director of the Louisville Free Public Library told the committee, no taxpayer wants to support a weak or besieged city service. As library services decline, popular support for the entire public library system will as well.
Alternatives in Florida The Great Recession ended in 2009; however, conditions still seem recessionary. The collapse of the housing market, and specifically the fact that real property values diminish ad valorem tax revenue on which Jacksonville’s General Fund substantially relies, has long-term effects on the City. One committee member observed that when revenue and cost gaps are as large as they are for the City of Jacksonville (recent estimates put the gap at $58 million), seeking stable General Fund revenue is like “re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” The shared pain of City-wide budget cuts will continue well past 2012, further stressing the JPL system. The same recessionary conditions are affecting library systems across the U.S., including Florida. The main difference between other Florida library systems and Jacksonville’s is that some communities have funding for library services that enables their Board of Trustees to set levels of service based on budgets forecast up to 24 months. In contrast, the JPL is not able to plan more than 6-12 months ahead because of the ups-and-downs of the City’s annual budgeting process. Also, other Florida library systems set aside money to carry forward from one year to the next. Put simply, the Boards of Trustees can make plans that can be counted on. Alternative funding methods are not tax increases. They are merely different methods to put the same dollars to use for public libraries. The committee reviewed and evaluated four Florida library systems (Gainesville, Orlando, Palm Beach, and Tampa) that allocate ad valorem dollars directly to their libraries. In 2012 these library systems receive the following:
Alachua (Gainesville) – 1.3638 mills;
Orlando – .3748 mills;
Palm Beach – .5419 mills; and
Tampa – .5583 mills.
4
Establishing stable funding through ad valorem tax revenue means better long-term decision making for library systems.
Automation and New Technologies Automation in library services provides a useful illustration of the difference between a library system that can plan ahead and has governing authority over its entire budget and one that does not. Personnel costs are a large part of a library’s budget. Sorting devices for returned materials and self-checkout machines reduce personnel costs. In Palm Beach, more than half of all checkouts and returns are automated. Tampa reduced staff by 25 percent through automation. In Jacksonville, the library system does not have capital funds that can be applied to retrofit facilities for automation. As a result, one library out of the 21 branch libraries uses a sort machine for returns, and the Main Library is not able to promote automated checkout because its interior design does not accommodate it. Capital improvements are not easily achieved for a de facto City department because they are budgeted by the City’s Public Works Department. Small capital projects are possible if the JPL had a line item in its budget for these types of projects. Since 2005, the Library’s budget has been reduced each year, which makes it impractical to add a new line for small capital projects. If the JPL system were able to automate more of its returns, it could become more efficient and further reduce costs. The question of introducing new technologies into public delivery of information services was addressed several times during committee meetings. Committee members asked, “Aren’t libraries going away as reading material moves online and to e-readers?” According to resource experts, public libraries are not irrelevant in the digital age. For example, JPL circulated 9 million books, DVDs, CDs, and other hard materials in 2011 and it also circulated 100,000 digital items. Additionally, public libraries offer their services to the community at no charge. In fact, Florida libraries must offer free services or else lose access to state funding streams. For people not able to afford a computer, or computer training, public library services are a bridge across the digital divide. Now, and in the future, Jacksonville residents will use the free information services in their public libraries.
Moving Forward The future of the JPL system lies in its ability and authority to govern its financial future. The committee observed that Alachua County Library District (ACLD), which has a stable, reliable 5
source of revenue through public dollars, has fiscal control that allows it to make long-term, sound business decisions. For example, Alachua refinanced outstanding bonds in 2011 which resulted in a net savings of $700,000 for taxpayers. It also switched from a private pension fund to the Florida Retirement System for all new employees effective January 1, 2008. In addition, ACLD is engaging in entrepreneurial revenue generation by leasing rooftops to a solar energy company. The library system receives $30,000 in annual revenue and repairs to two library roofs as part of the contract. Within 20 years the library system will own the solar panels. ACLD was able to establish this and other private-public partnerships to help carry out its mission for the public good. This is possible because the library system has governing authority over its budget and controls its long-term fiscal future. One of the annual expenditures allocated to the JPL that is administered by the City is Information Technology (IT) services. Currently, the JPL has little input in managing its IT, which include maintaining:
Nearly 2,000 computers;
Wireless internet access at 21 libraries;
A website receiving 4 million visits annually; and
Databases tracking 3 million library items, 500,000 customers, and 9 million customer transactions.
Since the JPL is treated like any other City department, it pays for IT services through an internal service charge calculated by the number of computers maintained annually. In FY2012, the Library was charged $1,576 annually for each of its 1,868 computers. This amounts to $2.9 million, which is a little more than half of the $4.7 million budgeted for IT services. If the Library can manage its own IT budget, then efficiencies can be gained and costs decreased. Furthermore, a 21st century library must manage its own IT services because the IT landscape changes so quickly, requiring continuous innovation.
Two Approaches Florida law makes possible two approaches for restructuring the funding of the JPL. One is a dedicated millage rate and the other is an independent tax district. Basic features of each model are outlined in two white papers included in this report. Briefly, an independent tax district establishes a governing board that levies taxes for library services. Such authority to levy taxes is granted by the Florida Legislature. On the other hand, a dedicated millage rate sets aside a
6
portion of property tax revenue for the sole purpose of providing library services. The Jacksonville City Council could establish dedicated millage. Most on the committee concluded that establishing dedicated millage for the JPL is less politically challenging than establishing an independent tax district. Building broad support in the Florida Legislature for local tax authority requires far more work than securing 10 City Council votes at the local level. Despite the challenges, the independent tax district is a better funding structure and the committee feels it will better achieve the ultimate goal of dedicated funding and fiscal control. While dedicated millage might seem more expedient, City Council can reverse the millage rate as easily as they establish it and they can adjust the rate. An independent tax district cannot be reversed by City Council. In the end, the committee agreed that the steps toward securing either dedicated millage or an independent tax district are similar. Next steps include building popular support through a grassroots campaign that connects with taxpayers’ deeply-held, established values, securing City leaders’ political support, and identifying a public “champion” for this effort. One speaker noted that a city budget can be thought of as a list of priorities. Any successful effort to prioritize the current list in favor of libraries involves garnering the support of elected officials.
Political Support One resource speaker told the group that “everything is political,” including the City’s list of priorities for spending money. He suggested that the most important task moving forward is to build support among Jacksonville’s elected officials. If elected officials want to achieve a specific goal on behalf of voters, they will find a way to do so. The speaker’s perspective was that while popular support for an initiative is important, the people who make it happen are in the City Council, the Mayor’s Office, and the Florida Legislature. Political support increases when a campaign acknowledges and addresses its opposition’s concerns. One resource speaker said that supporters of a new funding structure for the JPL must work toward consensus with those who disagree. Learning how to answer the opposition’s questions and addressing their concerns strengthens the message and widens the support. Another speaker stated that any effort to build political support starts with framing the issue in terms of convictions and values. Providing facts, figures, and data is not enough to build support at the ballot box. Data is about thinking, and issue framing must also engage voters’ feelings. Voters must feel their values are being reinforced when supporting a new idea. 7
Popular Support One resource expert introduced the idea of a citizens’ initiative to the committee. This approach includes petition gathering and has built popular support for three separate successful initiatives in Jacksonville. In each case, the issue was taken to voters who overwhelmingly approved each ballot measure. Tens of thousands of signed petitions were gathered well before the actual voter referendum. This strategy created the effect of voters having a vested interest in the initiative before entering the voting booth. They, or someone they knew, had already signed the petition in favor of the initiative, so voting for it on Election Day was not a surprise. A specific strategy that has not yet been tried in Jacksonville is a straw ballot, a form of prepolling that provides insight as to the level of support for initiatives amongst likely voters. This process provides non-binding results and might demonstrate the relative strength of the opposition as well. Some speakers cautioned about community-wide initiatives for an independent tax district. The Library Directors in Louisville and Los Angeles shared with committee members what happened recently in their cities. The City of Louisville appropriated $16 million for its library system, and this amount would have been available to pay for other city services if voters approved a referendum establishing an independent tax district. The Mayor, however, did not make clear which services would be strengthened by that extra $16 million. In the end, Louisville voters did not feel confident that their tax dollars would be spent wisely and they did not approve the referendum. When city governments lack answers to critical questions about current and future spending for libraries, voters generally do not support increased taxes to pay for them. In Los Angeles, voters perceived their investment in the public library as “no new tax” since it did not increase their tax bills. The increase in the Library’s budget was made possible by shifting budget allocations for other city services. This was important to voters, and as a result, they approved a millage rate increase for library services.
Conclusion The JPL is a significant repository of knowledge that educates children, enhances adults' careers, and offers improvement to the overall quality of life for all Duval County residents. These benefits of lifelong learning are at risk. Current financial and governance controls under which JPL operates make long-range planning and innovation difficult at best. Because the JPL is unable to predict revenue and how much it will be charged for overhead by the City (currently 39 percent of 8
its budget), it is prevented from gaining possible cost savings that could be passed on to taxpayers. Nor can it save funds for planned projects and "rainy days". A key way to ensure the JPL will not experience further 'graceful degradation' is to promote its budgetary independence as well as stable and reliable funding streams. To restore the Library to an adequate level of funding and then move it forward so that it is among the best library systems in the United States, JPL must have operational and fiscal control. The goal is establishment of independent funding and authority while maintaining accountability to taxpayers. An independent tax district, governed by elected officials, is the best means for doing that, and as an intermediary step, the City might establish a dedicated millage rate for the JPL. The goal is not to raise taxes; it is to change how funding occurs.
Next Steps…Who, What, When One speaker outlined a time line of at least four years of community organizing and political work in order to secure status as an independent tax district. All agencies supporting the Library need to develop the political savvy to build favor and good will. They need to communicate regularly with local decision makers about City budgets and the priorities of the Library. JPL customers and supportive nonprofit and for-profit partners must advocate for secure funding. Parent-Teacher Associations, neighborhood organizations, and civic groups must be aware and engaged along the way. This journey should be led by a new group whose sole purpose is establishment of an independent tax district for the Library. Save Our Public Libraries, Inc., the Friends of the Jacksonville Public Library and the Jacksonville Public Library Foundation, Inc. should form an Implementation Task Force. This Implementation Task Force should involve leaders and representatives from all organizations currently supporting the Library and community leaders from various sectors. It should be designed so that it cannot outlive its purpose. The Task Force should advocate, lobby, and implement a community-wide campaign for an independent tax district. This campaign should:
Develop a strategic plan and timeline
Use focus groups to test messaging 9
Create a pitch book to make the case for stable and reliable funding in frequent meetings with City Council, Duval Delegation, the Mayor, the Sheriff, and other elected officials.
Identify a high-profile champion of an independent tax district for the Library
Assemble a legal team to craft language for a straw ballot and/or referendum
The Jacksonville Public Library and Board of Trustees should:
Provide supporters and citizens data regarding efficiencies gained now and in the future
Act as ambassadors and advocates for an independent tax district
The Jacksonville Public Library Friends and Branch Library Friends should:
Coordinate petition drives
Train volunteers to gather signed petitions
Educate citizen-advocates
Save Our Public Libraries, Inc. should:
Raise $50,000 to initiate a campaign for an independent tax district.
Jacksonville Public Library Foundation, Inc. should:
Communicate with donors and serve as ambassadors for the campaign.
Provide funding for the campaign in compliance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations.
10
Answers to Questions from the Chairs of the Community Works Inquiry into Library Funding about Jacksonville Public Library Budgets On May 16, 2012 as the Community Works inquiry Check it Out: Independent Library Funding neared its conclusion, the study chairs, Walt Bussells and Jim Stevenson, submitted a request to Barbara Gubbin, director of the Jacksonville Public Library, to address five questions that would help the study committee to feel better equipped to write an informed final report. Following are responses to each of the five questions. Question #1: Using current property values and library budget expenses, what is the millage rate JPL will require for operating at current service levels? First, it is important to understand what continued operation at “current service levels” would mean. Current service levels are mostly satisfactory as perceived by library users – they receive good customer service; they are able to get assistance when they need it without long waits; libraries are open at convenient times (all but the smallest are open six or seven days per week, most with both evening and morning hours); customers are able to find materials to meet their needs. (See the March 17 Times-Union editorial “Readers Generally Love the Libraries” for several testimonials.) Nevertheless, current service levels include serious deficiencies. In the area of IT, inability to replace aging computers rapidly enough and inability to keep up with bandwidth needs means a periodic barrage of complaints from customers about broken computers, outdated software, and/or slow processing and internet speed. In addition, our current service levels do not provide for adequate maintenance of library facilities, which means our backlog of at least $8.3 million in needed repairs will continue to grow. In most cases, this deficiency is not apparent to customers; in some cases it is apparent, such as the lengthy delay in replacing air conditioning units at the Maxville Branch, which means an uncomfortably hot facility during spring months and will necessitate closing early in the summer months. The gradual reduction in our materials budget is not obvious to most users, but will become more so as they find fewer and fewer popular DVDs and best sellers on the shelves and longer and longer waits when reserving them, as well as less selection of non-fiction books. In addition, current service levels will mean our collection of the future, e-books, will remain anemic. With that in mind, we are confident that, operating as an independent taxing district, we would be able to achieve efficiencies and improvements with our current budget allotment ($38.2 Million in 2012). Not having any information from the city on how much they actually spend on library building and
May 25, 2012
grounds maintenance and IT services for the library, it will require additional research to determine what a reasonable budget for these costs will be. As you know, an RFI to examine costs of IT services is already in progress. And there are many questions that will impact the amount we will need to budget for other functions, for example, human resources, procurement, and staff benefits, especially pensions. With the knowledge that there is serious community interest in pursuing independent funding for the library, we plan to undergo the research necessary to form reliable estimates for all parts of the budget. With those caveats, we estimate that a budget of $38.2 Million would enable the library to continue to operate the same number of buildings the same number of hours with about the same number of employees. According to 2012 tax revenue reports, that translates into … 0.87 Mills Question #2: What millage rate would JPL require to become a “21st Century library”? 0.99 Mills –This millage rate would provide estimated funding for the library in the amount of $45.9 million in 2016. Preliminary Library Budget Adjustments Recommended to Operate JPL as an Independent Taxing District 2012 Budget $38.2 Million Salary & Benefits (now $17.9M) + $1.5 M Library Materials (now $3.1M) + $1.4 M FF&E (e.g., automated returns) + $0.4 M Capital Reserve (now $0) + 2.0 M Revenue from Fines, Fees, Print’g (now $0) - $1.0 M Revenue from E-Rate Discount (now $0) - $0.15 M Budget for Independent District $42.4 Million 2016 Total (w/ 2% annual inflation) $45.9 Million Estimated Millage Rate Required .99 Mills1 (Based on projected property tax revenues for 2016)
Projected property tax revenues for city in 2016 = $482,236,025 / 10.353 = $46,579,351.40 (value of one mill). $45.9 Million / $46,579,351.40 = .99 Mills. 1
Page 2 of 5
The recommended budget returns salary and benefits to 2010 levels and will enable some increased hours of operation. Materials budget would almost return to 2008 levels. Along with restoring funding for print materials, this would allow a more ambitious move into e-materials. A capital reserve fund, which will be dedicated to catching up on deferred maintenance for the first five years, will be funded in part out of revenues from fines, fees, and printing, as well as through the Federal e-rate discount on internet and telecommunications services that the library qualifies for, but has not received in years. Assumptions 1) City projected property tax revenues for 2016 are accurate. 2) Expenses for services currently provided by the city (human resources, procurement, fleet management, etc.) will be, on average, of comparable cost under the new structure. For example, based on comparisons with comparable libraries, we believe we can operate IT with greater quality and for less money than the amount we are charged by the city. The savings could be transferred to building maintenance, so we expect the expenses for ITD and building maintenance combined to offset. When the RFI to examine the cost of our IT services is completed, we will be able to make more accurate estimates. 3) JPL would have the ability to issue bonds. 4) JPL would have the ability to carry over balances from one year to the next and would be able to retain Federal e-rate discount funds and revenues from fines and fees. 5) JPL would no longer be charged interest on bonds previously issued by the city. 6) Inflation of all budget items would average no more than 2% (including costs of employee health insurance).
Major Questions  Who will own the buildings? Currently, they are owned by the city, not the library.  How will the library manage the transition of staff pension plans (especially considering the city’s current deficit in funding the pension system)? Question #3: Could some segments of the JPL budget (i.e., collections) be successfully supported by a dedicated millage? If so, what would that millage rate be? Page 3 of 5
On the surface the idea of obtaining a commitment from the City Council to a sustainable level of funding for library materials is very attractive, given that it is one of the items in the budget that is most vulnerable to cuts (the collections budget has been reduced by 41% since 2005). Operationally, though, the concept is flawed. To illustrate, when Barbara Gubbin was director of another library system, it was assigned a generous guarantee of $5 million per year for materials. The problem was that the staffing levels were not adequate for cataloging and processing all of those materials, there were no additional funds for staff, and the library was prohibited from using a portion of that materials budget to supplement the staff. If the rest of the library budget continues to be cut, it would be easy to envision a scenario in which the administration would long to be able to draw from the now locked collections budget. In effect, this idea removes flexibility in one of the few areas of the budget where the library currently retains flexibility. For this reason, we do not recommend this method as even a partial solution to the funding problems JPL faces. Question #4: Within the current funding structure, how soon is it before JPL must close facilities for one day a week? The fact is, because of the current staffing shortages resulting from hiring restrictions that have been in effect since before Mayor Brown took office, the library is examining whether it may be necessary to close libraries one day per week as early as this summer. Of 352 full-time positions budgeted for FY 2012, because of city-imposed hiring restrictions, including a hiring freeze that has been in effect all year, we currently only have 305 positions filled2 (14% fewer than originally budgeted). Under a hiring freeze, the vacancies, of course, do not occur proportionally by classification. This makes the staffing shortage even worse than the simple number of positions would indicate, because we have more extreme shortages in some areas than in others. The administration will be making a final determination soon regarding whether it will be necessary to make a recommendation to the Board of Library Trustees to reduce hours this summer. In the proposal submitted to the mayor, if the library’s budget for 2013 is cut by 15%, most libraries will lose at least one day per week of service beginning October 1, even if reductions in hours are avoided in the current year. See answer to the question below for more information. Question #5: Given the mayor’s request for a 15% cut, what areas of service will decrease, and what areas of efficiency will be found? 2
This number does not include seven vacancies that we have been given permission to fill.
Page 4 of 5
The 15% budget cut requested by the mayor amounts to a $2.86 million reduction to the operating segment of the library budget (i.e., not interdepartmental or indirect costs). The board submitted a budget containing $2.4 million in reductions. The following information is based on that budget: Efficiencies Reorganization of the Operational Structure of the Library – Four libraries would be designated Regional Libraries and their managers would provide management and oversight to three or four other libraries. The cost savings will come through this streamlining of management and will result in 34 fewer positions system-wide. Service Priority Focus – In order to maintain quality service in the face of significant reductions the library administration proposed a focus on two areas of service: 1) service to children and youth and 2) greater depth in delivery of e-services in the broadest sense, from collections to services, training and staff competencies. Reductions in Service Hours of Service – o System-wide, the library would reduce service hours from the current 1,112 per week to 993, a net loss of 119 hours per week. o The Main Library and the four larger branches that would retain the classification of “Regional” libraries would experience minimal reductions in hours. o The four smallest branches would continue to be open 40 hours per week. o Seven mid-sized branches (designated Community libraries) would be closed on Mondays, giving them five days of service per week compared to their current six days per week. o Five larger branches that are currently known as Regionals would be reclassified as Community libraries. These would lose morning and/or evening hours on three or four weekdays, but would continue to be open six or seven days a week. o The five libraries currently open on Sundays, chosen because they serve the central city and four quadrants, will maintain current Sunday service hours. Materials Budget – Would be reduced by an additional half million dollars (from the current $3.1 million to $2.6 million).
Page 5 of 5
Maintain the Status Quo Funding Structure: Jacksonville Public Library is a Dependent special district whose funding structure makes it a de facto City department. Like all City departments it is supported by the General Fund. Like all City departments, it cannot carry over funds, nor can it maintain a reserve. And like all City departments, its budget is subject to the decisions of the Mayor’s Office and City Council. Most City departments do not have a Board of Trustees; their expenditures are made without much community input or stewardship. In the case of the Jacksonville Public Library (JPL), community input and stewardship is desired, and there is a Board of Trustees, but it can only recommend how the budget is allocated, not set numbers. The costs for services such as Human Resources (HR), legal, maintenance, and Information Technology (IT) are predetermined by the City, and the Board cannot adjust them. Requires:
Continued staff reductions Materials reductions Annual petitions to City Council by patrons and Board of Trustees for support for the Library
Advantages:
City services like HR, legal, maintenance, and IT are available, sometimes at a large group savings over what market prices would be for an independent library system.
Disadvantages:
City services like HR, legal, maintenance, and IT may be charged back to the Library at rates that exceed market prices, and while some bidding out may be possible, “shared costs” present a burden to the Library: According to the Capacity Plan, the cost of IT, charged in Internal Service Charges, is $1-3 million more each year than it is in peer libraries. The Library Board of Trustees is limited in its decision-making. The Library has two different kinds of charges, Indirect Cost Allocation and Internal Service Charges, both of which are managed by the City, leaving the Board of Trustees the power only to make adjustments to materials and personnel. The Library cannot budget more than six months in advance. As the City determines that cuts are necessary, which has been the case every year since 2005, the Library may be asked to make “shared pain” City-wide cuts (which by default becomes cuts to personnel and materials), with no uptick in sight. Economic fluctuations impact the Library budgets of even those with dedicated ad valorem funding, but these fluctuations can be anticipated, saved for, and planned for in those Libraries. The Library cannot carry forward funds; it must adhere to the “use it or lose it” policy, which does not establish an incentive to generate entrepreneurial funds or to find efficiencies and further limits the potential to plan ahead for long-term projects. The Library has no capital fund, so it cannot plan for improvements in the form of automation, space renovations, new facilities for underserved areas, or other innovations that improve customer service. Furthermore, there is little to no ability to plan for preventative maintenance. Long waits for City services like building maintenance result in costly repairs and replacements. Deferred maintenance projects currently total an estimated $12 million according to the Capacity Plan, $2.5 million of which are deemed critical. Often, the longer maintenance projects are delayed, the more expensive they become. Also, unaddressed issues sometimes result in department or facility closings.
“Check It Out”: Public Library Funding Study Meeting Summary
May 11, 2012 Tonia Eastman (tonia@jcci.org)
Note: This meeting summary contains the opinions and facts presented by committee members. These do not represent policy positions of Community Works.
Inquiry Chair: Jim Stevenson; Committee Team Members in attendance: Guy Anderson, Tony Bates, Bill Brinton, Sue Butts, Rita Cannon, Richard Cardell, Edward Charron, Lois Chepenik, Cyndy Clayton, David Foster, Barbara Gubbin, Ralph Hodges, Sally Kenaston, Joy Korman, Conrad Markle, Richard Mott, Harry Reagan, Marvin Reese, Lanny Russell, Estelle Vickery, Erin Vance-Skinner; Guests and Observers: Missy Jackson; Staff Members in attendance: Tonia Eastman and Laura Lane. [Staff Note: Please let us know if you attended but are not listed here.] Meeting Purpose: Pursuing Dedicated Funding: Next Steps and Guiding Questions Chair Jim Stevenson welcomed the committee and asked them to continue developing the list of Next Steps from last week’s discussion. He then asked them to approve the meeting summaries from April 13, April 20, and April 27. The committee received the May 4 meeting summary, which reflected feedback received from committee members. The group will approve the May 4 meeting summary at the next meeting. The committee continued its discussion of what the next steps would be for pursuing dedicated funding for the Jacksonville Public Library (JPL), with the caveat that they would not be writing a strategic plan but developing an executive summary to accompany the final report for this inquiry. Major points included the following: One committee member stated that the current funding structure does not necessarily inhibit the Library’s ability to plan. He added that the Library can maintain a “wish list” that includes its future plans. The group agreed that establishing the JPL as an independent tax district is the ideal approach for stable funding. They also agreed that the steps required to establish an independent tax district are similar to those required to establish dedicated millage. They stressed the importance of identifying key players in the community to advocate for the cause as well as those with opposing views and interests. Citing a failed Ethics Code J-Bill and noting that it had not addressed the interests of Atlantic Beach, which contributed to the Mayor of Atlantic Beach blocking it, one committee member added that it is imperative to consider all interested parties and their potential influence. In securing a champion for the cause, it is necessary to open up communication. Transparency, relationshipbuilding, and cooperative data sharing are all essential. Some speakers have said that professional polling is strategically helpful, and some have argued it is vital. A citizens’ initiative has power, but a push for an independent tax district touches on the subject of taxes, so sophisticated messaging may be required, and professional consultants know how to craft polls and campaign materials to develop attitudes of support. A local university polling center may offer services at competitive rates. Petition-gathering is an effective tactic to demonstrate community support for stable funding. The Friends of the Library (including the branch Friends) might be the appropriate group to ask to lead petition-gathering. Who will spearhead the initiative for an independent tax district? The Friends of the Library? A champion? JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC
2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Page 2 of 4
Speaker’s Presentation: Stable Funding for the Library, a Citizen’s Initiative Bill Brinton showed an offensive billboard as he described the initiative to pass legislation to diminish visual pollution in Jacksonville. The citizen’s initiative won with a 59% vote, which is considered a landslide in political circles. The grassroots campaign operated on a small budget, spending most of its $5700 on thank-you ads that appeared in the local newspapers on the day of and the day before the election. In total, the petitions cost $800, and clipboards and materials for gathering signatures cost $600. In contrast, the opposition spent $186,000 on direct mail, radio ads, full page newspaper ads, push polling, and sending industry employees from the Eastern Seaboard to Jacksonville to make a presence at the polling places. Litigation later ensued to overturn the legislation. The campaign for billboard takedowns spent very little in contrast to the opposition, but when the opposition spent money circulating an anti-JCCI letter “from a local business owner”, the newspaper, which supported the initiative, investigated and revealed this letter as contrived. Furthermore, the campaign was able to withstand the opposition’s attempts to undermine it through litigation during the years 1991-1996. In another initiative for term limits for City Council, political action campaign (PAC) expenditures were in the $5,000-10,000 range. Photos of handcarts full of signed petitions sent a strong message that citizens supported term limits. The bill passed with 82 percent of the vote, which Bill explains is because citizens who had signed petitions had “skin in the game.” They had already been engaged to support the cause. Some obstacles to a citizen’s initiative include rules such as having to have petition circulators sign affidavits attesting to their having witnessed the signatures on each individual form. This additional constraint can be overcome with careful planning. For the Tree Conservation initiative in 2000, the campaign took careful steps to comply with the additional legal requirements imposed on petitioners and circulators to remain within the law and to ensure rigid compliance with the process. The tree conservation initiative brought in $30,000, partly so it could use heavyweight paper for a “one-page” bifold petition (with four 8 ½ X 11 sides). The petition’s physical size accommodated language addressing constitutional and other legal concerns that could be anticipated from the opposition. Like the billboard initiative, the referendum saw other opposition in the form of lawsuits, including one against the Supervisor of Elections to keep it off the ballot and another against the City of Jacksonville to overturn the passage. Both lawsuits lost. The bill passed in all 268 precincts, with more than 75% vote in favor of the referendum. Prior to 1987, Jacksonville had never experienced a successful citizens’ initiative. Since 1987, it has seen these three successful ones. Jacksonville has not yet seen an official straw ballot initiative, but Bill stated that it would potentially be the most effective means of demonstrating community support and paving the way toward establishing the JPL as an independent tax district, similar to ones operating in Alachua and Orange County, Florida. He outlined a timeline, noting that if City Council were to call for a special countywide election, a straw ballot vote could occur in 2013 or earlier than August/November, 2014. August 2012: Begin straw ballot petition gathering during primary election. November 2012: Continue straw ballot petition gathering. 2013: Continue straw ballot petition gathering. (Currently, no countywide election is scheduled in 2013.) August/November 2014: Vote on the straw ballot. Spring 2015: Submit a J-Bill in 2015 Florida Legislature for an Independent Library District. November 2016: Vote on Independent Library District.
JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC 2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Page 3 of 4
Questions for the Speaker Q: What time limits affect petition-gathering? A: If you are amending the Florida Constitution, you have a four-year window, but otherwise, within the current law, petitions are “good” forever. However, you cannot have a vote until after a six-month waiting period. Q: How many petitions typically get kicked out? A: If you have well-trained volunteers at polling places, you can prevent most problems that lead to invalid petition signatures. Very few are disqualified (maybe one percent of one percent). Q: Taxes are an emotional issue. How can a push for dedicated funding not stir up emotions? A: If the language is clear, and it specifically addresses the anticipated pushback, you can craft the bill with protections. For example, with the tree conservation bill, some perceived it as taking private property rights away, so the language addressed this and spelled out how it would not violate private property owner’s rights. Q: How was the Better Jacksonville Plan different from the tree conservation bill? A: The Better Jacksonville Plan had top-level support, and the tree conservation bill was a citizens’ initiative, and the Better Jacksonville Plan asked voters to increase their own taxes, whereas the tree bill did not. The educational campaign for the Better Jacksonville Plan outlined the community benefits and encouraged voters to see the value of their tax investment. The tree bill did not ask voters to invest additional tax dollars, but for voters to support a cause. People need to feel the value of what they’re supporting, whether in signing a petition to get a referendum on the ballot or in voting to pass the referendum. Learning about the issue through the campaign— and in reading the language of the petition—helps to accomplish this. Q: Has a straw ballot initiative been successful in other places? A: Not to my knowledge, but I believe it is the right fit for here, for now. Q: You have suggested that the language for both the straw ballot and referendum vote need to be the same, so will voters be confused by a straw ballot, feeling like they had already “voted” on the issue before? A: Two years pass between the straw ballot vote and the referendum vote, and voters can be informed in the straw ballot language that they are voting on the right to get the issue onto a future ballot. Q: Will voters be able to understand what they are voting for in the petition, straw ballot, and referendum ballot? A: The Alachua County legislation model will help the crafter of the J-Bill to include clear and understandable language and solidly build the legislation. Q: How many mils can Jacksonville levy? A: The total millage rate can be as high as 20, 10 for the City of Jacksonville and 10 for Duval County. Jacksonville is only using 10 mils at this time, but a J-Bill for an independent tax district for the Jacksonville Public Library should also reduce the total mils allotted to Jacksonville so that if the JPL is able to levy a portion of a mil, the total City/County millage rate should be reduced by the same portion to ensure that citizens are never taxed beyond the current cap. Q: What is a petitioner’s committee? A: To gather petition signatures, a committee must have five members and oversee the collection of signatures. The onus is on the committee to create the Ballot Title and Summary. If a bill is challenged in court, the petitioner’s committee must go to court.
JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC 2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Page 4 of 4
Q: Can a charitable organization run a campaign, e.g., can the Library Foundation campaign for the JPL’s bid for an independent tax district? A: No, a 501.C3 cannot campaign. However, a 501.C4 can. Q: Can a team be ready to draft a Straw Ballot in time to meet Bill’s suggested timeline? A: A team could get started right now, drawing on the Alachua County language, but it would take about a month.
What Questions Need to Be Asked?
We’ve learned about the timeline for pursuing an independent tax district, so what is the timeline for pursuing dedicated millage? Dedicated millage can be established by the Mayor and City Council and likewise overturned by them, but are there any protections that can be built in? Is the political backlash of overturning dedicated funding for the JPL an inherent protection? With the current budgetary process, can we do anything regarding the City’s ability to cut the Library’s budget? Will 10,000 votes, even if a referendum fails to pass, still send a message about how the community values its libraries? How should we prioritize the steps toward dedicated funding?
Jim asked the group to complete the group process check form and adjourned the meeting at 1:03 p.m.
JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC 2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Check It Out: Independent Library Funding Inquiry Committee Meeting Summary May 18, 2012 Tonia Eastman (tonia@jcci.org)
Note: This meeting summary contains the opinions and facts presented by committee members. These do not represent policy positions of Community Works.
Inquiry Chairs: Walt Bussells and Jim Stevenson; Committee Team Members in attendance: Guy Anderson, Mike Barile, Tony Bates, Marshelle Berry, Tom Brady, Bill Brinton, Sue Butts, Rita Cannon, Richard Cardell, Cyndy Clayton, Skip Cramer, David Foster, Jim Gilmore, Ralph Hodges, Missy Jackson, Sally Kenaston, Barrett King, Judy Klein, Conrad Markle, Richard Mott, Harry Reagan, Marvin Reese, Lanny Russell, Jim Selzer, Margareth Smith, Estelle Vickery; Guest: Mia Jones; Staff Members in attendance: Tonia Eastman and Laura Lane. [Staff Note: Please let us know if you attended but are not listed here.] Meeting Purpose: Pursuing Dedicated Funding: Roles and Responsibilities Chair Jim Stevenson welcomed the committee and asked them to approve the meeting summary from May 4; they approved it. The committee received the May 11 meeting summary and will be asked to approve it at the next meeting. Chair Walt Bussells led the committee in a discussion of a drafted consensus statement. Major discussion points included noting that the language should better reflect an emphasis on restoring—rather than “sustaining”—Jacksonville Public Library funding. The group agreed that an independent tax district would best establish stability for the long term, but dedicated millage, though less stable, is still worth attempting. One committee member observed that doing so would at least to keep City Council’s attention focused on Library funding. The committee discussed whether referencing the pursuit of a Straw Ballot was appropriate, and some argued that it was not, that a Straw Ballot initiative would be a specific tactic within a strategic plan and that the statement should be more concise. The group discussed whether the statement could definitively assert that an independent tax district would not equate to increased taxes. The group decided that the language should include qualifiers to show that it “need not” be a tax increase for Duval County and that the Library must demonstrate attention to efficiency. One committee member expressed that while he personally disagreed with the statement, he agreed that the committee had come to consensus. Finally, the group discussed ways to make the statement more inspirational, touching more on the Library’s future in terms of innovation and excellence. The Denver Public Library: A Case Study Next, JCCI Staff led the group in a discussion of the Denver Public Library as a case study of a library system similarly endeavoring to determine whether to and how to seek stable funding. It is engaging its customers and Denver residents in a discussion of Library budgets. The DPL has shared budget information and summaries of meetings with public officials and community leaders. One committee member noted that it might be perceived as politically hostile if the Jacksonville Public Library director and Board of Trustees were to challenge the City in a similar way, but in the Denver model, the Mayor made a public commitment to working toward stable funding solutions.
JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC
2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Page 2 of 3
Roles and Responsibilities Laura instructed the group to discuss and assign roles and responsibilities to the organizations listed on a provided worksheet, and Walt and Jim oversaw the activity. They worked in small groups and then reported to the large group for further discussion. They determined the following: Civic Associations, PTAs and others have a vested interest in and can be involved in advocacy, but four main organizations, the Jacksonville Public Library (and its Board of Trustees), The JPL Foundation, Inc., Friends of the Jacksonvile Public Library (and branch Friends groups), and Save Jax Libraries have specific roles in advocating for stable funding for the Jacksonville Public Library. All agencies supporting the JPL need to develop the political savvy to build political favor and good will so that they can clearly communicate with and regularly meet with local decision makers to discuss the Library budget in discussions of priorities. They must build relationships as they seek to identify a champion for the cause. An Independent Funding Implementation Task Force, whose sole mission is to secure stable and reliable funding for the Jacksonville Public Library, must take the lead. In order to avoid the pitfalls of community organizing, this group should offer a new approach with a separate purpose and be comprised of representatives from each of these four main organizations and include broad community representation. It should be designed not to outlive its purpose; the sunset of this committee will also ensure that no major political fallout carries through to individual organizations.
Coordinate all efforts toward stable and reliable funding for the JPL. Develop a strategic plan with a timeline. Develop messaging that it is sensitive to community members’ values and convictions and avoids political sticking points. Test messaging with focus groups. Create a working timeline. Form an elite legal team to craft language for any poll or referendum. Hire a professional consultant to advocate, lobby, and develop and implement a grassroots political campaign.
The Jacksonville Public Library’s Role The group noted that the Jacksonville Public Library’s role will include research and relationship building. While Library staff and administration may be politically constrained as City employees (and therefore unable to lobby Florida Legislators, for example), the JPL should follow the Denver model in demonstrating budget transparency and conduct and provide the results of focus group and other research to develop a pitch book for local politicians, including messaging and supporting documentation to clarify: potential efficiencies anticipated budget details within a dedicated millage or an independent tax district funding structure the library’s value to the community The JPL Foundation, Inc.’s Role: Because of its gravitas, the Foundation can and should lobby; one committee member noted that it can do so by completing Form H and spending up to 20% of its budget on the effort if it tracks each expense and carefully reports it. The group suggested that the Foundation fund all that it legally can in an organized effort to secure stable and secure funding for the JPL. JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC 2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Page 3 of 3
Friends of the Jacksonville Public Library and Branch Friends of the Jacksonville Public Library’s Roles The Friends and Branch Library Friends can and should identify those who can best advocate for the Library and help to coordinate efforts, including petition-gathering. Branch Friends, for example, should train petition gatherers in their neighborhoods. Save Jax Libraries’s Role Save Jax Libraries should raise $50,000 or more to support the effort to secure stable funding for the JPL.
Jim asked the group to complete the Group Process Check, and Walt adjourned the meeting at 1:03 p.m.
JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC 2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org
Check It Out: Independent Library Funding Inquiry Committee Meeting Summary June 1, 2012 Laura Lane (laura@jcci.org)
Note: This meeting summary contains the opinions and facts presented by committee members. These do not represent policy positions of Community Works.
Inquiry Chairs: Walt Bussells and Jim Stevenson; Committee Team Members in attendance: Guy Anderson, Bonnie Arnold, Mike Barile, Tony Bates, Marshelle Berry, Sue Butts, Richard Cardell, Edward Charron, Cyndy Clayton, Skip Cramer, Jim Gilmore, Ralph Hodges, Sally Kenaston, Barrett King, Judy Klein, Conrad Markle, Richard Mott, Jason Parry, Harry Reagan, Marvin Reese, Lanny Russell, Jim Selzer, Margaret Smith, Estelle Vickery; Guest: Mia Jones; Staff Members in attendance: Laura Lane. [Staff Note: Please let us know if you attended but are not listed here.] Meeting Purpose: Finalize Recommendations Co-chair Jim Stevenson welcomed the committee and they approved the meeting summaries from May 11 and 18. Jim led the committee in a discussion of the Conclusion. The major discussion points included the following: The Library is a significant repository of knowledge. The statement about the Library advancing careers is not backed up by facts in this report and instead must reflect that library services contribute to the overall quality of life. The goal is to establish independent funding and authority. An independent tax district is the best means for doing that. The word “jeopardy” is too strong and needs to be softened so that the Conclusion says Library services are at risk. The statement about shifting how funding occurs should reflect that costs or tax burdens are not being shifted. The independent tax district changes how funding occurs. The mention of automation and bidding is too limiting and needs to be removed. It’s important to establish that the independent tax district is not taking decisions out of the hands of elected officials and putting them into the hands of Library administration. An independent tax district is governed by elected officials. Walt led the committee in a discussion of the Next Steps. The major discussion points included the following: Remove the first paragraph because it is not a strong statement of the recommendations. Clarify that the Implementation Task Force is advocating, lobbying, and educating and not the consultant. Strike the recommendation to hire a consultant. A high-profile champion is needed, not a group of them. Remove the language concerning the types of cost estimates the JPL will furnish. Include the Board of Trustees in the recommendation concerning the Jacksonville Public Library. Clarify that $50,000 initiates a campaign that will require more financial support. Recommend that the Foundation communicate with donors and its Board acts as ambassadors for the campaign for independent funding. With the information provided, staff is revising the Conclusion and Next Steps sections of the Executive Briefing. Walt asked the group to complete the Exit Evaluation and adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m. JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL INC
2434 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 904-396-3052 Fax: 904-398-1469 www.jcci.org