clearview library district

Questions Regarding Clearview Library Finances and Mill Levy

Romey

As a member of the Clearview Library of Trustees (WHO IS NOT SPEAKING ON THE BOARD’S BEHALF), I have received some questions regarding how the library is financed, its budget, and operating costs.

Did the original .5 mill levy approved by voters to build the Third Street library ever sunset? When was the library bond paid off?

Below is a timeline of the Clearview Library mill levy, as documented on their website.

  • 1985: Windsor Severance Library District formed at 1.5 mills
  • 1995: Voter-approved tax increase (1.740 mills, 0.93 bond)
  • 2001: Voter-approved mill levy increase NTE 3.546 mills (1 mill increase) and TABOR 2 prevention (“de-Bruced”)
  • 2011: Third Street building is paid off four years early (0.93 bond sunsetted)

Is the library still collecting 2 mills for operations and maintenance of the library? What is the total mill levy for the library district?

Each year, the Library Board-approved mill levy is certified by the Library Director to Weld County. A 3.546 mill levy currently funds our district to support operations.

The current mill levy was set and approved by voters back in 2001.

How much cash-on-hand does the library district have?

As of August 2023 close:

$13,887,068.38 Total
– ($4,663,582.38) Lease loan funding for Severance build, 100% committed.
– ($2,401,575.67) Long Term Building Fund, allocated for Severance build
– ($1,188,440.36) Capital Fund Reserve
– ($3,256,726.80) Operating Fund Reserve. Reserve targeted to be equal to 12 months operating budget
– ($1,188,812.68) Checking Account
– ($544.70) Cash on Hand
Total Committed or reserved funds: ($11,699,702.89)
Current Non-committed: $2,187,361.49 (Edit Oct 6, 1pm):*

*Keep in mind that our budgeted expenses are $404,092.16 per month, so we anticipate the remaining expenses for the last 4 months of 2023 to total $1,616,368.60, with little remaining income to be collected. Taking this into account our adjusted Non-Committed number is $570,992.80.

What is its operations budget this year and next?

2023: $6,091,415.00 Revenue. ($4,671,689.86) Expense
2024: This budget is being finalized. The first reading is scheduled for the October 26 regular business meeting.

How much is the library district paying to build the Severance library branch? What will its operating and maintenance budget be once it opens?

Current Severance Budget: $7,610,239.27, which includes finish, furniture, land acquisition, books and materials, IT, and audio/visual. As for operations and maintenance: that budget is currently being finalized and is scheduled for a first reading at the October 26 regular business meeting.

An unofficial statement regarding the Clearview Library District property on Main Street

Romey

Hello, I am a member of the Clearview Library District Board of Trustees, BUT I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE BOARD. The views expressed here are my own, and in no way reflect those of my fellow trustees, the Clearview Library District, or its staff.

As news propagates regarding the possible development of a grocery store, targeted in part, on land currently owned by the Clearview Library District, I wanted to share my perspective on this matter and some of the considerations faced as a Trustee of the library district.

The Clearview Library District’s land on Main Street was purchased in 2016, authorized by the Board of Trustees at the time, using reserve funds, and that space was designated as a site for a future regional library. In 2017 and 2018, the Library District put mill levy initiatives on the ballot to finance the construction of a  regional library, measures that did not pass in either election. In 2021, as part of the long-range planning initiatives, the Board of Trustees drafted and approved A Plan For the Future Facilities Plan, which specifies the usage of the land:

The district looks to maintain ownership of the property at the intersection of Main Street and Chimney Park Drive. While there are no immediate plans for this property, it may benefit future collaborations for potential shared facilities or a cultural campus.

clearview library district facilities plan, page 26

Given that the library district has previously pursued a library on this property, along with the designation in the Facilities Plan, library law restricts the Board’s ability to list, market, negotiate and sell that property to private entities (such as a commercial grocer) without altering the facilities plan and classifying that property as “Surplus”. Such a designation presents additional caveats and essentially becomes a disavowment of the property for strategic considerations. My understanding is that once it is designated “Surplus”, it is extremely challenging to reverse that classification for potential future use by the library district.

Earlier this summer, at the behest of the Town of Windsor, members of the Board met with a realtor associated with the grocer looking to build on that section of town that includes the library’s land. We attended those discussions in good faith, and with an open mind, explored options regarding a possible sale of this property. It was at that point that we were advised by the library district’s attorney regarding the library laws summarized above and the challenges that arise when considering non-solicited offers for strategic library property.

Speaking only for myself, I firmly believe that planning for a future regional library is essential in serving the needs of our communities. I respect the work of past boards in studying different possible locations and selecting the best option at the time. To preserve the goals outlined in our long-range plan, the library district requires a plot of land on or near a major artery road, in a location near the heart of the library district’s population. Any sale of the library land should enable the continuation of those goals.

Additionally, the purchase price of the property may be utilized for the necessary reserve balances needed to obtain the Certificates of Participation that could fund the Severance branch.

Clearview Library District FAcilities PLan, Page 26

Those that believe a regional library is not in the best interests of our communities must still acknowledge the value of the property as a library district asset, appreciating at a greater rate than the investment options available through library law. As a Trustee, I have a fiduciary obligation to the library district, and as such, take the stewardship of this asset seriously. When considering the land from a fiduciary perspective, I am looking at the land not at today’s value, but at the potential appreciation at a time when its sale would be needed to cover the operating costs of the district.

The need for another grocer in Windsor is not lost on me. As a King Soopers customer, I am all too familiar with the crowded conditions in Windsor and empathize with my fellow east-side residents in having a store closer to our homes. However, my role as a Trustee is to do what is best for the library district first; as well as creatively collaborate to find a solution that is best for Windsor and the other communities in the library district.

Given the friction involved with reclassifying the land and the inability to reverse it, a compelling opportunity that addresses my expressed considerations and concerns is required for my support to modify the Facilities Plan.

It is also important that we as a community engage in conversation over this matter, with opportunities for input in this important dialogue. I welcome your feedback and suggestions and can be reached through email at jeromey.balderrama@clearviewlibrary.org

An unofficial statement regarding Clearview Library social media comments

Romey

Hello, I am a member of the Clearview Library Board of Trustees, BUT DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE BOARD. However, I would like to provide context regarding some of the points raised in this post and invite you or any member of our community to dialog with board members through direct contact. Please keep in mind that the Library Board of Trustees does not have input into program content or subjects.

Regarding the GLOW program, the library district’s partnership with SPLASH has been suspended for the time being while it is re-evaluated and reassessed. The G.L.O.W program will continue under the direction of the library district’s teen librarian.

As you have spent a copious amount of time reviewing board and staff emails, I would encourage you to also apply that level of diligence to read the Library’s “Financial Spending” section on its website, along with the budget, and financial statements found in the Board packets. I’d also invite you to review the “Future Projects” section and read “A Plan for the Future,” the short-and long-range facilities plan that begins to address the current needs of the district over the next 10 years. In the plan, you’ll find that through multiple surveys, community meetings, and listening sessions, more than 3,500 comments were received, with 1 of every 4 comments focused on space and facilities. In 2017 and 2018, the voters sent a clear message to the library district that any facility expansion would have to be done utilizing current funds, and through the fiduciary stewardship of recent library boards, they found a way to expand facilities and accommodate growth, all while living within the means of current funding sources.

As for the program policy, it is currently being evaluated and revised to account for the great feedback we’ve received. As I have previously stated, I have suggested that the policy explicitly states that parents/guardians are permitted to accompany their children to any programs. However, their child must be attending that event to enable parent/guardian accompaniment.

It is not my place to respond to criticisms of past or present library employees or contractors, except to say that Attorney Garcia is upholding compliance with Colorado Library Law, specifically the library user’s right to privacy regarding materials and services.

I’ve seen people ask “what can we do?” – please directly engage your Library Board members. Over the last few weeks, we have received numerous and heartfelt emails, phone calls, and I’ve had productive personal discussions surrounding these matters. I appreciate everyone’s perspective, especially those who would like to approach this conversation with a willingness for fruitful dialog. You can reach me at 970.372.0738 or jeromey.balderrama@clearviewlibrary.org
I do not respond to Facebook comment threads, but welcome any direct engagement or personal conversations.

An Unofficial Statement Re: Clearview Library Program Policy Changes

An Unofficial Statement Re: Clearview Library Program Policy Changes

Romey

Hello, I am a member of the Clearview Library Board of Trustees, BUT DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE BOARD. However, I would like to provide some context regarding the proposed Program Policy changes that are being considered.

First off, I encourage you to separate this policy from this or any particular program, and as with any policy, is a general principle that applies to ALL programs, regardless of their content or intention. Also, please keep in mind that the Library Board of Trustees does not have input into program content or subjects.

As a parent of two children under 10, we all want to keep our children safe and ensure that the Clearview Library is a safe place for them. As a parent, I do care about programming and make my personal choices on which programs they can attend. At the same time, I would be extremely concerned to know that any unattached adult could walk off the street, join a program meant for minors, photograph, and record videos of them for their purposes. For every parent with good intentions (e.g. preemptively observing a program), there are unfortunately adults in our community that have nefarious or predatory intentions. This policy change addresses that particular loophole, ensuring that contact with outside adults is limited in a program designated for minors.

Update 25 Apr 6:30pm: After conferring with community members and receiving excellent feedback, two points should be clarified:
1) The version included in the Library Board’s Packet for the April meeting, is a draft version, that has been provided to the Board for initial feedback.
2) The draft Program Policy Document could better clarify the attendance of parents in their child’s programs. I plan to suggest to the board a clarification that parents/guardians are permitted to accompany their children to any programs. However, their child must be in attendance at that event to enable parent/guardian attendance.

The Clearview Library employees undergo criminal background checks, as well as any volunteers that work with minors. When working with kids, the volunteers are supervised by the library’s excellent staff members. This mirrors similar policies found at schools. Performing such diligence against adults who drop into events is not feasible, therefore this policy change was drafted to ensure our library remains a safe place for our community’s children.

While I hope you come to Thursday’s meeting and make your voice heard, the structure of these meetings isn’t conducive to a dialog, where questions can be asked and constructive conversations can take place. As such, I would invite you to reach out to me or any other Library Trustee directly. I’m more than happy to answer questions, hear your viewpoint, and work together to improve our community. I can be reached at jeromey.balderrama@clearviewlibrary.org or by phone at 970.372.0738. Like you, I am a hard-working American, as well as a newly single parent, so my phone time before Thursday may be limited, but will try to return as many messages as I can. If you would like to discuss this face-to-face, contact me to make arrangements.

Reflections on attending the DQSH Protest

Reflections on attending the DQSH Protest

Romey

Last Saturday I attended the Clearview Library Drag Queen Story Hour as a counter-protester. This was my first time ever making a political sign and exercising my First Amendment rights in this way, and was quite an interesting experience.

The story hour itself was a registration-required event, and had filled up in the prior week. Apparently there was a 200 person waiting list (the largest room in the library had a max occupancy of 80). Outside were about 100 people in the designated “free speech zone” – an area 30 feet from the entrance to permit library patrons and story hour participants to arrive. Of the 100, it was about a 1/3 to 2/3 split between protesters against the event and supporters/counter-protesters.

Protesters seemed to fall into two large camps: people protesting on religious/moral grounds, with signs citing biblical verses and various religious and moral messages about corrupting children, as well as conservatives there that were “fighting the Left”. It was questionable as to whether some of the protesters were part of the Alt-Right, but some of the protesters seemed to be part of some larger conservative-based movement.

As for the supporters, there were also 2 segments: those drawing attention to the LGBTQ issues, counter-protesting the intolerance, as well as those generally supporting the library, freedom of speech, and general opposition to the protesters. I would count myself among the latter group, but my nuanced position seemed to confuse people on both sides at some point.

When I got there at 9:45, it wasn’t clear where people were standing, so I just stood on the corner and held up my signs. A lot of people who would later stand with the “against” protesters told me they liked my signs and were conversing with me. Apparently, some event supporters yelled obscenities at me as well, but I didn’t hear them. Then when the lines became apparent and I saw someone I knew, I went and stood next to her, at which point I had a bunch of supporters come up and apologize to me. A lot of the protesters suddenly had problems with my signs. As the morning progressed, a few supporters from the back came up to me and said they liked my signs.

The protests were mostly civil, both sides chanting back and forth. There were a few minor confrontations, but the police did an excellent job making their presence known without interfering or infringing the free speech rights of everyone. Truth be told, I think both sides had some chants and actions that were bad looks. Protests are a blunt instrument, and when you remove nuance, you give way to stereotypes to take hold. You could see the protesters demonize the supporters as religious heretics that were enabling child endangerment, while the supporters generalized the protesters as religious nuts and Alt-Right hate groups.

I didn’t take part in any of the chants and mainly stood silently unless someone directly yelled at me about my sign, at which point I would engage back with them. One of the protesters that engaged with me finally said he couldn’t disagree with my points, so that was kinda cool. At the end of the event when the supporters disbanded, I walked back to my car past the police chief who shook my hand, then by a few of the “Don’t tread on me” protesters. I told them to have a good day and they said: “you too”.

In the end, I think this was a worthwhile event for our community. Diverse programming was offered at the library unimpeded, and there was a lively conversation about culture, morals, and freedom outside of the library. I realize that people may feel uncomfortable about social disruption, but protests (and counter protests) and demonstration are integral parts of our American heritage. Just because conversations don’t happen in the public square doesn’t mean that they’re not taking place, these events just enable communities to bring these views into the light for all to see.