Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Archives Digitization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Library staff brief council on growing historical-archives digitization need and estimated costs
Summary
Staff told council there is strong public interest in the city's historical collections and that current storage and handling practices limit public access; staff proposed a larger digitization project than originally budgeted, including a higher-cost overhead scanner and ongoing staffing.
Lede: Staff told council there is strong public interest in the city's historical collections and that current storage and handling practices limit public access; staff proposed a larger digitization project than originally budgeted, including a higher-cost overhead scanner and ongoing staffing.
Nut graf: The city's initial plan to start scanning with a $40,000 appropriation for part-time labor and equipment has evolved after public demand and technical review. Staff said the newspapers and other fragile records require an overhead scanner and associated software to capture materials without damage, and that the scope has grown toward a full-time position plus equipment and software.
Body: Thomas and library staff described that the historical room has newspapers, city records and fragile items that residents want to access; there is currently one part-time staffer and materials are shelved but not digitized. Staff said the originally budgeted $40,000 would pay for a part-time position and basic equipment but that realized needs point toward an overhead scanner costing roughly $70,000 plus software and a potential full-time archivist with benefits, which would create ongoing costs.
Council members and staff discussed whether hotel-occupancy-tax (HOT) funds could be used. Staff clarified HOT expenditures must meet a two-part test (encourage hotel stays and be for an approved tourism-related purpose) and that archival digitization of documents would not meet the "encourage hotel stays" test, even if the site drew researchers. Staff said HOT funds typically support historic-site preservation that directly promotes tourism, not general document digitization.
Staff said there is leftover appropriation from the prior archival line (about $2,024,000 remaining in that appropriation line per staff comment) that could be rolled into program start-up, and that the item was not yet included among the FY26 supplementals. Staff proposed further discussion and a detailed cost estimate before requesting a full-time position in a future budget.
Ending: Council asked staff to prepare a clear scope and cost estimate for the digitization program, including equipment specifications and a timeline, and to return with recommendations for funding sources and whether a part-time or full-time position is appropriate.
