Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees press city to address library collection shortfall; suggest raising annual budget and indexing future increases
Summary
Trustees reviewed a report showing the library's collection budget has remained $250,000 since 2017 and falls below peer averages. Trustees discussed options, proposed sending the city manager a notice of concern, and agreed to be present at an upcoming council workshop to raise the issue.
Trustees at the Jan. 8 Escondido Public Library Board meeting highlighted a persistent shortfall in the library’s collection budget and asked staff to notify city management ahead of a council workshop.
A board presentation said the collection budget has stayed at $250,000 annually since the contract with LSS began in 2017. The presenter reported that, had the collection budget been indexed at 2.5% or 3% annually since 2017, the fund would now be roughly $297,000–$309,000. The board reviewed comparative data showing the library’s current collection budget equates to about $1.65 per capita, compared with an average of about $2.31 per capita among a 64‑library sample.
Trustees discussed possible remedies. One suggestion was to set the collection budget for fiscal 2025–26 at $300,000 and adopt an annual index (for example 2.5%–3%) to avoid repeated shortfalls. Trustees noted that contract terms with the library operator (LSS) extend through June 30, 2026; any change to the operating contract or permanent budget allocations would involve the city manager’s office and possibly council review.
Board members agreed it would be appropriate to make city management aware that trustees consider the collection budget underfunded. The transcript records a trustee volunteering to notify the city manager and for trustee attendance at an upcoming city budget/workshop meeting on Jan. 29 so trustees can raise the concern publicly.
Trustees also debated timing and competing priorities. Some trustees said they preferred to prioritize the library renovation project and its $2.5 million running deficit first when considering where new or reallocated funds should go; others said documenting the collection shortfall now would put the issue on the city’s radar ahead of contract negotiations and future budgeting.
No formal board motion to change the collection budget was recorded. Trustees asked staff to prepare a draft letter for future consideration and to notify the city manager’s office so the board’s concern appears on the workshop agenda; several trustees said they would attend the Jan. 29 workshop to present the case for a longer‑term funding plan.
