LSTA Advisory Committee Minutes
September 5, 2006

Reference and Loan Library

---

The meeting called to order at 1:11 p.m. by Peg Branson.

Present: Terry Burton, Jim Gingery, Jane Pearlmutter, Walter Burkhalter, Paul Onufrak, Rhonda Puntney, Phyllis Davis, Betsy Richmond, Terry Dawson in attendance; Fred Marini, Paula Kiely, Becca Berger, and Zora Sampson were teleconferenced in.

Absent: Veronica Thompson

Division staff: Rick Grobschmidt, Peg Branson, Bob Bocher, Donna Steffan, Mary Struckmeyer, Alan Zimmerman, Mike Cross, Terry Wilcox, Mary Clark, John DeBacher, Sally Drew

Branson reviewed the agenda and materials distributed.

Minutes of April 11-12, 2006, Meeting
Davis moved to approve the minutes of the April 11-12, 2006, meeting. The motion was seconded by Burton. The motion was approved unanimously.

Update on the LSTA Budget
Branson noted various items to address. She referred in particular to four footnotes on the page:

1. The 2006 federal budget was slightly higher than the estimated appropriation ($18,271) and included a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) penalty of $33,472.
2. The 2007 federal budget is not final and is an estimate at this time. We may know more in November, but it is still likely to be an estimate at that time too. The carryover amount is an estimate and will be adjusted in November. We have filed a waiver request for the MOE penalty (est. of $110,000) and hope to hear the result of the waiver request by the November meeting.
3. The DLTCL internal accounts include projected costs for union contract settlements and other related staff costs.
4. The contract amounts for 2006 for WISCAT were: Auto-Graphics $296,640, Fretwell Downing $181,300 (total $477,940), and reimbursement $115,500.

Statewide Resource Sharing Contract and Fee Structure
Drew reviewed the resource sharing contract and fee structure process using a PowerPoint presentation. She reviewed the preliminary process, RFP development and schedule, and the evaluation committee composition. She noted that she herself did not serve on the evaluation team or on the ranking process. She summarized the scoring process and how features were grouped into core (Category A) and Category B (federated searches, cataloging) functions. There were three parts to the scoring process: functionality as claimed by vendors (400 points), evaluator scoring (400 points) and cost (200 points). The evaluation committee recommended that the Group A functions be implemented now, not the Group B functions. Group A technical score:

Auto-Graphics	400
OCLC FDI	344 (also use WCRS)
OCLC WCRS	294 (also use FDI)
SirsiDynix	258
WebFeat	109 (product geared more to federated searching)

Evaluation Scores
Auto-Graphics	400
OCLC WCRS	318 (also use FDI)
OCLC FDI	282 (also use WCRS)
SirsiDynix	200

Cost Score:
SirsiDynix	400
Auto-Graphics	137 (125 if server based in California)
OCLC WCRS	12
OCLC FDI	12

Group A Scores
AG	937
AG	925
SirsiDynix	658
OCLC FDI	639
OCLC WCRS	625

Five Year Cost Information
AG	$2,076,700 (server in Madison)
AG	$2,274,000 (server in California)
SirsiDynix	$1,420,500
OCLC	$23,427,497

The cost for Auto-Graphics changes between the first year and years 2 to 5 depending on the server location: $470,000 to $488,000 for the first year and $384,000 to $441.000 for years 2 to 5.

Drew also reviewed possible changes in the DPI budget: decrease in DPI fixed costs, elimination of OCLC serial tape costs for 2007 (they will not be able to produce it in the timeframe for 2007), and an increase in fees charged for use of product (approximately $130,000 instead of $115,000).

Richmond asked for an explanation of the elimination of OCLC serial tape costs. Drew said it is not included on the LSTA sheet, but it had been in the general budget at about $10,000.

Drew explained that negotiation would be conducted with Auto-Graphics. If those negotiations break down, then the next vendor could be contacted. She said she hopes that transactions in progress in the current system can be transferred to the new system. She reviewed new functionality, including single vendor environment, single user interface, and deduplication of search results. She hopes that improvements can drastically streamline clearinghouse functions and steps required for libraries acting on behalf of other libraries. New ILL guidelines should be able to be applied through use of availability status, policy information for routing, and scoping of searches.

Drew explained the information in the other handouts that had been distributed: New WISCAT Functionality, and Cost Scenarios. She noted that negotiations may affect costs.

Davis asked why 1200 participating libraries were noted in the RFP but the cost scenario includes 645. Drew explained that the RFP includes all libraries that have any part in the entire project--including holdings in the union or virtual catalogs, but not necessarily all those libraries use the ILL module.

Onufrak commented that a simple cost structure will be easiest to implement. Dawson said he thought that a good, sensible process has been conducted, but that may not change the participation of various systems that are using WorldCat. What may be most sensible for the state may not work for all systems. How will participation affect the budget and how might participation affect long-term plans for a state system? Drew replied that they were aware that participation may not stay the same. They hoped that an early announcement of costs might help retain participants. She is aware that others are still considering what their costs might be using OCLC. She hopes that any systems considering a change will at least look at the new product. And it is possible, in theory, that the ISO function may allow requests to be sent automatically between two different systems, but that consideration is premature.

Branson said that the issue now being discussed is the long-term viability of a decision and wanted to confirm that the contract is year-to-year with a five year cost guarantee. Drew reiterated that the contract is for a one-year period with four possible one year extensions, but it does not necessarily commit to the vendor--it simply allows us a year-to-year option.

Pearlmutter asked how many libraries would be included in a tiered scenario. She wondered what the benefit would be if it is not greater participation. Why not simply keep a flat fee if there is not greater participation. Drew commented that some of the considerations were geared toward libraries that do small amounts of ILL, with the idea that libraries that do a greater amount of ILL would be the ones who would pay more. She thought that more small libraries would participate if there was a low entry level cost.

Davis said that her comment in the excellent minutes from the last meeting was the notion that programs should be self-supporting and that should be the goal in general. She thought that, if the option were costed out entirely, $757 would be the actual cost per participant for the contract. She is not proposing that, but if participation drops, will LSTA need to increase, and does that mean that LSTA money cannot be freed up to be used for other projects? She feels that some LSTA money may be justified for ILL but perhaps not at the level that is being used, particularly for the long-term. She feels that the price and the individual cost do not have much to do with each other now, but long-term there should be a plan to reduce the amount of LSTA money that is required for this project.

Richmond asked how many libraries were taken out in anticipation that some libraries have gone or will go in another direction. Drew said that these figures have not taken any libraries out. She thinks, though, that it is survivable over the long run if more drop out. She hopes that participation may increase when users see the product.

Branson asked the public library system participants if they have a point of view. Onufrak said the review of the system budget for their libraries indicated that their members would not be happy about a cost increase for WISCAT. Dawson suggested that if 100 more libraries do not participate, there would be a corresponding drop in revenue--would Auto-Graphics reduce charges, or would other costs have to be somehow absorbed? Drew said that there is some leeway in year-to-year budgets, but not much, since the budget ultimately needs to balance.

Davis clarified that her comments have to do more with the LSTA long-range plan. She asked again about the numbers on the budget, regarding footnotes 3 and 4, particularly the indicated increase for number 4. Are staff costs affecting this suggested increase--how is $22,450 needed? Al reported that the increases are from fixed costs and contract and salary costs. Consequently, footnote 3 affects the costs. Footnote 4 only helps to establish the budget amount.

Onufrak referred to the prices for server locations and asked how likely it is that the server will be located in Madison. Drew said she could not comment since it will be determined by the negotiations. He wondered about response time since location at the UW might positively affect performance. She said she does not know how it will come out.

Burkhalter asked whether this is a five year contract with the option for DPI to pull out each year. Does that mean that if more systems pull out, would that create a tipping point where there would not be an obligation? Drew said the vendor is obligated to set prices and we have the option of pulling out. He said that his system libraries will become full members of OCLC and he has some concern that they will have a duplication of service that may incline their members to suggest that the $5400 now spent for WISCAT might be better applied to services other than a statewide ILL product.

Richmond wondered if other public libraries, library systems and UW libraries which had opted out of the WISCAT option might want to take a look at the product selected to see if it met their needs. If this were to be done, how could it be done and what would the timeframe be? She said it is too bad that there are two directions within the state now. She said the title WISCAT is still being used and perhaps should not be?

Puntney asked for a breakdown between public, school, and academic use of WISCAT and the question could not be answered at this time. Marini reminded the group that some areas such as Winding Rivers Library System do not use OCLC but rely on the state system. Drew said that lots of programs are being subsidized by LSTA, not just the ILL system, and that some systems would not be able to participate in ILL if the statewide option is not there.

Berger said that, since the fees would likely need to be changed, could a fee be able to be adopted now for this year and revisit it again to adjust for next year? Drew said that is possible.

Davis said that LSTA planning for the next five years has to be conducted--where is that and how does it fit in? Branson said that Morrill Solutions may be contracted to design a survey to find out the value placed on the use of LSTA funds during the last five years, and collect suggestions for the next five year. The LSTA five-year evaluation is due March 31 and the five-year plan is due by June 30, 2007. Davis said that we should not assume that everyone has the same priorities now that they had five, ten, or 25 years ago.

Gingery said that the process is done and the outcome is known, so make the best of it. Maybe we do not have the option of a one-source solution and we may need a product for those that do not have the option of OCLC. Grobschmidt said the topic will be discussed by other groups, such as COLAND and public library system directors at their annual meeting with DLTCL next week. He wondered about the committee's reaction to the various funding methods. Pearlmutter said that there just did not seem to be enough difference in the various schemes. Gingery said that if there were more variation, the tiered approach might be more viable. Drew said that a higher cost might drive more users out. Richmond said that the WISCAT cost scenario was actually a WISCAT fee scenario not a cost scenario.

Onufrak moved that a flat fee scenario be used for 2007 for WISCAT, Richmond seconded. Sampson said that the flat fee looks clear and simple. Of those participating, all were in favor with one abstention (Davis).

Grobschmidt asked Richmond what she meant by her comment on WISCAT. Pearlmutter said that, if you change the name, some will still refer to it as WISCAT. Drew said that the federated searches were not included, which might have been a consideration for changing the name.

Branson asked for comment on the overall budget for the project, and on the amount for the individual fee. Pearlmutter asked how the scenario before them was reached. Drew said that the $130,000 was used as an assumption to fill the gap in the project and bring in more money. She said that the fee structure should be announced before the November meeting. She asked that the committee not further reduce the budget for WISCAT.

Davis moved that a $200 per year fee be adopted, seconded by Onufrak. Unanimous vote.

Onufrak asked how we should balance this against the other categories. Branson clarified that what she seeks comment on is what level or changes might be needed or expected for this resource sharing component. Cross said that, by the November meeting, we will know more about general conditions, as well as what has been requested in the various grant categories.

Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Next meeting November 29 and 30, 2006, at the Crowne Plaza.

Return to LSTA Homepage.

---

Peg Branson
LSTA Program Coordinator
Division for Libraries and Community Learning
Public Library Development
125 South Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707-07841
(608) 266-2413
peg.branson@dpi.wi.gov

For questions about this information, contact Robert F. Bocher (608) 266-2127

Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:49:25 PM