Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
In-meeting notes
Item | Notes | Key Findings |
|---|
Expense Structure do the three cost centers of support and innovation, licensing, and infrastructure make sense to you? does the description of what is included in each cost center seem appropriate? Are there any cost centers, or types of expenses that you don’t see reflected in the slide? Are there changes in where any type of expense should be located between the cost centers?
| none; everyone seemed comfortable with the new expense structure and what was included in each cost center clarified that support system licensing was for Help Desk, Knowledge Base, etc. questions about what each one means. One director suggested providing examples of each item to share with others in the library
| |
Service Portfolios | Does the concept of service portfolios make sense to you? Voting membership has been defined as a set of services, benefits, and memberships that are only available through full Marmot membership. Is there anything in this list that you think doesn’t belong? Anything that should be included but isn’t? like the idea of the voting membership for libraries who want to join Marmot and take advantage of voting member benefits, but can’t necessarily join the ILS. (example: a library that wishes to be a Voting Member and only use IT Services) Where does ETS and walk throughs fit in this model? Would like to see Open Educational Resources reflected here at some point for academics, CAL and Reforma membership may not be as valuable one library director has received negative feedback about attendance at Reforma Colorado Likes the concept of insituttional membership in Reforma
Do you have any reservations about the more formal establishment of an Associate Membership fee, or the definition of associate membership as having a la carte access to certain Marmot services? having this clarity is long overdue offers a lot of flexibility for libraries to pay for what they want to pay for without requiring everyone to be on the same track caveat that Marmot staff don’t get stretched so thin that they can’t offer the same level of service to the members. doesn’t think it seems unfair; it makes sense to become a voting member if you want access to the voting member portfolio
Do you have any thoughts, concerns, revisions to suggest for the service portfolios? discussion about how libraries would know how many staff sessions they would have Need to ask how many staff sessions libraries might need in order to make sure we have enough Some concern about the difference between paying only for services used vs. paying into the consortium’s overall cost MLN2 libraries (on Front Range Downloadable) and Delta (on ACDC) would have the option to be grandfathered out of joining Marmot’s Overdrive collection, but they would not be able to use the Digital Resources Librarian services or Marmot’s eResources stats program. Alternatively, Westminster could join Marmot as an Associate Member for the Digital Collections only, allowing for a possible merger of Marmot Overdrive and FRDL. Will need to see cost data to be able to fully judge the service portfolios concept. Digital archive is an essential part of the collection, and nice to see it reflected so clearly and not as a small side project would there be a requirement that libraries contributing to the digital archive to contribute on a regular basis. would there be an increased expectation that contribution would contribute? Director really likes the eResource statistics concept
| Clearly specify where ETS and walkthroughs fit Get a clear number of how many staff sessions Marmot would need on the Innovative contract if libraries aren’t limited by the number of sessions they can have. The question of FRDL and Marmot Overdrive will need a lot of exploration and detail, if the FRDL libraries would be interested. How libraries would be considered as “contributing” to the Digital Archive needs to be spelled out clearly.
|
Data types | What stands out to you in the straw poll results? physical collection size does not seem like an appropriate measure for scalability for resort towns, there may be more registered borrowers than LSA circulation seems to be fair; the more my circulation goes up the more I benefit from being in the consortium many of the other data types are decisions made at the local level and don’t necessarily work fairly Jamie argues against the use of formulae, because people forget what the formula is quickly. keeping data directly attributable to a reflection of demand. could mean that we need one model for publics and a separate for academics that is equitable directors are used to using adjusted population because of vendors using it adjusted population is helpful for communities that are growing, but haven’t seen growth yet in library users
Why did the highest ranked item get selected? expenditures per and circ per make more sense than other items collection use is a reflection of demand per capita evens things out across the consortium using registered borrowers can be variable depending on how clean libraries keep their patron database materials expenditures per population is a more robust way to gauge the size of an organization separate models for public vs. academic: people might be ok with that Registered card holders is significantly less than population. Resident card holders is so low compared to population of the city Resort towns have higher registered users than population Library has so many part-time staff, and uses only one login for Sierra. But would like to have more logins so there is greater accountability highest ranked items are materials expenditures per population, total population, adjusted pop, collection use, total expenditures per population count, and circulation per population count leaning toward materials expenditures many of the second tier are how the library is used and more directly how Marmot is used by the community families may only use one card, rather than having a card per member examples of a city library with a large population but a small budget. serving 500k people with a tiny budget. looking at how a library prioritizes its budget internally is a clearer indication of use keep in mind the large difference between physical and electronic materials costs would want to see more information about what it costs to support things other than Sierra to be able to determine if a data type if equitable. example of support time being used to adjust data fields in Sierra and how they interact with Pika, which is not countable by staff sessions.
Why did the lowest ranked items get ranked that way? hours open, materials expenditures per population count a lot of the other ones have more outside variables Collection expenditures per population: collection is small comparatively to other libraries in members
Are there data elements that might be appropriate only for specific service portfolios? What are they?
| |
Fee types | | |
Post Focus Groups Survey Results
Do you have any concerns about the process being used to redesign Marmot’s fees, or about the expense structures or service portfolios outlined in the presentation?
Still undecided at this stage.
Our library is unique with a higher cardholder count than LSA population. To reflect our use, it is more fair for us to use cardholders rather than LSA but we may be an outlier on this issue. Perhaps the caveat could be LSA unless cardholder is higher? I like the direction of this fee structuring and I want it to work for the consortium to remain vibrant, innovative and a good resource for sharing costs. For us, digital resources are becoming so much more important to our users that I feel that Marmot can help us with that.
No negative concerns, just that it continue to be as transparent as possible with wide communication - meaning perhaps some communications that come directly from Marmot to the AllPoints list so isn't all funneled through Directors alone (I don't trust myself at all times to fully capture and share all the dimensions that may be important)
My only concern is with the service portfolio including Overdrive for MLN2 libraries. And...if we do join the Marmot shared Overdrive that our patrons don't suffer in terms of access.
As always your approach is thoughtful and well considered.
No, the process seems clear and thoughtful.
Not at this time.
Actual cost recovery and cost equity is essential. Libraries should pay their fair share but not more. The range of services is broad so selecting one approach for all options may not make the best sense. I'm sure there may be differences for MLM2 libraries, but perhaps not. Thanks!
No concerns. Adam has through and thoughtful processes. Multiple readings and opportunities for input help tremendously too!
I think Marmot is trying to address the concerns of sustainability, equitable service and affordability. I like the direction Marmot is heading.
It would be really useful to know a rough percentage impact to the fees in a new structure relative to the existing so we can be better prepared. Also, CMC's fiscal year starts in July so we would need to know what that impact was really now in order to absorb cost increases in Jan 2025! This is a tough topic. I am wondering if it makes sense to have another round of discussions with directors after you have had a chance to run some scenarios with more actual numbers because picking those data points to use for fees felt a little like shots in the dark rather than informed choices! Tough topic!!
I do not. I am comfortable with consortium models and know that we are a larger library and will shoulder more cost than others.
No concerns.
Data Preferences for Fee Calculations