Proposed BIG changes to borrowing, reference, eligibility, rules of conduct, and internet access policies (UPDATED)
UPDATE: We have attached a document that describes in more detail some of the changes proposed by the Borrowing Committee.
Happy Thanksgiving Week! We are proposing some pretty big changes to a few public services policies, especially AM 100 Borrowing. Please read the attached policies and share what you think would positively or negatively impact your ability to provide excellent customer service in your job. The first page is a briefing sheet the describes the major changes to each policy. Some of these changes are significant and we really want to know what staff thinks will and won't work.
We expect to take these policies to the commission's Public Services committee on December 15 or sometime in January. It will go to the commission on January 19 or February 16.
Below are the policy leads for each of the policies reviewed:
Borrowing: Meghan Attalla
Eligibility/Library Accounts: Chris Stofel
Internet Access: David Newyear
Reference: Erin Bedford
Rules of conduct: Tracy Simpson
- Log in to post comments
Comments
With the limited amount of space that most libraries have for reserves I can see this being an issue. Also, would this fix the loophole in our system that makes it so as soon as an item is put on the hold shelf for the member they can go ahead and then place another item on hold? (IE They have 50 items in queue, but then one is put on the shelf so now they are able to place a new hold making their total count 51.)
D. Over-Threshold Borrowers:
1. Borrowers will be charged $0.10 per day to a maximum of $3.00 for overdue materials.
(Perhaps it would be clarifying to add that the maximum of $3.00 applies to each overdue item and not to the overall fine limit for an account.)
4. [Redlined] An account will be blocked from borrowing on the 3rd occurrence in a 12 month period of claiming s/he did not borrow materials on account.
(Are we eliminating claims on accounts, eliminating the policy of blocking accounts after 3 occurrences, or removing this from policy and adding it to procedure?)
E. Lost or Damaged Materials:
3. [Redlined] If the borrower finds and returns a lost item within six months, the library system will refund the replacement cost, minus any fines. No refunds will be made after six months.
(Same basic question as above for 4 - are we no longer issuing refunds for lost/paid/found items, removing the six month time limit for refunds, or moving this from policy to procedure?)
F. System reserves:
1. Library members may reserve up to 50 of most materials at a time.
(Same question that Sarah poses in her comment: If we increase the reserve limit to 50, have we addressed the loophole in the system which allows members to add holds as soon as a hold has been filled, even if it has not yet moved from the hold process (In Transit; On Hold Shelf) to their checkouts? This loophole allows members to place, in practice, many more items on hold than the 30 we currently allow - and leads to problems with space on the reserves shelves at locations. It makes sense in theory to increase the number of holds since we are increasing the number of checkouts, but have we addressed the practical issue of increased shelf space that will be needed at the branches if customers are routinely placing 50 [or more, if the loophole has not been addressed] items on hold at a time?)
Thanks for your feedback.
D1: good point we will look into clarifying that.
D4: this is procedural, and will be reviewed as part of the procedure review.
E3: we are proposing that we no longer practice this. It is problematic for the Library. We lose money if we purchase a replacement during that 6 month period and they return it, or we complicate our process if we have to wait 6 months to purchase a replacement. Furthermore, we thought that the extended checkout period and renewals would continue to give the member more time to look for the materials. We should encourage members to return their materials on time.
F1: Per the loophole, we felt like this falls under a violation of the Rules of Conduct "Monopolizing library space, equipment, materials, or facilities..." since most members use reserves correctly, we should focus on addressing the members who violate our policies (50 holds at a time). We can do some research on how many members reserve the max number of holds at a time to determine how much of an impact this might have on libraries and whether we will need to look into space issues. It's definitely something all of the libraries should be thinking about though.
Vicki,
At the local level, we have been instructed NOT to consider members who have more than 30 items on the hold shelf at one time due to the loophole to be monopolizing library space (at least this is my understanding of the instructions I have been given regarding a member who regularly does this at NW.) If customers who place holds such that they have more than 30 items on the hold shelf at one time are to be considered in violation of the rule of conduct regarding monopolizing library space, it may be a good idea to have administration clearly provide that directive to staff.
I'm a little surprised to hear that, but I'm sure there is a good reason for it that was determined by someone smarter than me :) Personally, I can't speak for the rest of administration, I think that decision is best made at the local level. We want managers to have the ability to make those local decisions that impact their library, rather than making administrative directives that prevent them from doing what they think is best. Administration might encourage managers to consider this a violation of the Rules of Conduct, but in the end, determining how to implement the policy should be done at the local level. The problem with making it a directive is that it might have different implications at each location. Each location must determine whether or not members circumventing the reservation limit monopolizes materials and space at their location. If it takes up space, materials, and staff time, but is determined that it doesn't negatively impact our services, then I suppose that location wouldn't want to consider it a violation and continue as normal. On the other hand, if it is determined that it monopolizes space, resources, etc. then it would be a violation.
I think it's great to move as much control to the local level as possible. However, I'd like to emphasize that there are managers/administrators who have interpreted this holds policy loophole issue in such a way that were the system to increase the maximum number of holds to 50 - and the holds loophole in CarlX remained in place - it would negatively impact our ability to consistently provide excellent service to all of our members, for a number of reasons (greater amount of time spent pulling holds in the mornings with increased delay of holds making it out to the shelves for pickup, not enough room on holds shelves for every members' holds, etc.)
I think doing a study to determine how many members typically put the maximum number of items on hold would be productive to determine what the increased volume might look like for branches if the max holds is increased - but I think this is something that should be done before this aspect of the policy is delivered to the Commission. I get the idea behind if we increase the maximum loan amount the maximum holds amount should probably also go up, but a lot of resources go into pulling, processing, shipping, and storing holds & I would hope that we are being strategic about choosing to take that on. CAN we do this (do we have the staffing and the space to accommodate the increases)? SHOULD we do this (have we identified that increasing the maximum number of holds to 50 will increase our market penetration and/or member retention)? If the committee has determined that we both can and should do this, I think sharing the information that helped them come to this decision would help ease my concerns. I may absolutely be wrong about how much upping the holds limit would affect the number of holds we process every day. If I'm not wrong and we don't ensure that we have the resources to deal with the increase in the number of holds this could bring, it will be really hard on staff (and ultimately customers).
I concur. The "loophole" is the bane of our existence at NW, but even without that, at peak times our hold shelves are close to capacity. I believe (from memory, from the last time I ran the numbers) about 1/3 of our holds expire--I don't see this as doing much for our members, but putting more work on the shoulders of our busy-enough library aides.
Hi Kevin, since you are on the review committee, could you run those numbers again? Would you also be able to tell how many of the holds are for the same person (i.e. how many people have 30 or more items on hold)?
Thanks!
Looking at a single slow month--as I did before--gives a much higher rate of expired holds. I expanded out to a four-month period at Northwest (any more than that and the numbers are too high for Excel), and the numbers changed quite a bit: only 17% of the items were not picked up.
There's not a quick way with Report 81 to determine how many people have 30+ holds on their card at any given time, but scrolling through, I counted nearly 100 members who had over 40 holds during the four months I reviewed. Of those, fewer than half appear to have requested 30 items at the same time; mostly, it looks like they requested 10-20 items every week or two. However, we have a handful of members who essentially have their "own" shelf (or, in the case of one, three shelves), because they continuously have the max number of holds.
Laura -
I whole heartily agree with you. I too, would like to see the information that helped the committee come to this decision. and "doing a study to determine how many members typically put the maximum number of items on hold would be productive to determine what the increased volume might look like for branches if the max holds is increased" - I know MC reserves shelves are not typically maxed out and NW, I can see where yours would be, looking at circulation totals. This study could help provide numbers for how many more shelves are needed or staff considerations at each location.
BUT I also look at it this way - members will be able to check out an additional 70 items each but can only put 20 additional items on hold. looking at those numbers, I have a good feeling that it's not going to be as bad as we fear.
I understand why we are getting rid of this procedure as it does seem like an inefficient use of money. However I am wondering will this immediately go into effect when the policy is approved? Or will we be able to still process refunds for those who paid for the books before the policy effective date who were probably told if they found the item they could bring it back for a refund? As it stands, at this time, should we not be telling people they can return an item for a refund if they pay for it and then find it later?
That's a great question. I passed this along to Kay Bauman. I would think this could be determined at a local level. You might run it by your manager if you don't hear a response on this.
Thanks!
B. Account Types:
4. Annual Fee Accounts: For individuals who do not meet other eligibility criteria. An individual may use all services offered by the library for one year by purchasing an annual fee card for $40.00 [redlined] $72.00 per year for family use. The annual fee is nonrefundable. Additional cards for immediate family members currently living in the same household may be obtained at no additional cost.
(An Oklahoma County property-owning co-worker mentioned that her property taxes that go toward the library system are more than $72.00. I understand the need to increase the Annual Fee account amount to keep up with rising property taxes, but it seems like jumping from $40.00 to $72.00 in one year is a pretty steep increase that may cause us to lose several existing Annual Fee account-holding members when it comes time for their next payment. Is it possible to increase the amount more gradually (over a period of a few years, perhaps) instead of all at once? Also, is it possible to round the number down - $70.00 instead of $72.00 - even if the amount as it stands is equal to the average amount paid by property owners? Not having a round number for the price seemed a little odd to staff who were discussing it here.)
I agree that the jump from $40 to $72 is mighty steep.
Prior to working for MLS, I worked for a library that charged $100/year for an annual fee card. That wasn't for access to a big system like ours--it was for one library. And people paid, and considered it a privilege.
That said, can we knock the $2 off? That seems petty to leave it on there. And keep in mind two things: A) many who live in OKC or OK County are paying less than $70 toward the library, and B) people who live outside of our service area are already paying something for their local libraries--we have an agreement with the Pioneer System because the chunk we take from taxes is roughly equivalent, so we don't charge them additional to use our services; we should show the same courtesy to those who don't have such a stellar library system to call home and shave a few bucks off for what they're already paying toward libraries.
In conducting research for this committee, I contacted the County Tax Assessor's office to find out the average amount paid by tax payers in Oklahoma County for library use. I was told that they have no report that shows these figures but what they typically do when they receive these types of questions is take a $125,000 home (+ homestead exemption) as an average and add current apportionments. As such, the person with a $125,000 home (+ homestead exemption) would pay $71.80 per year to the Library. We rounded it up to $72 but can consider rounding it back down to $70 or up to $80.
blank
We did discuss a monthly installment plan for the annual fee card and how it would benefit those purchasing such a card. Some of our committee members felt that an installment plan would be well-received. Perhaps that is something that can be addressed in the procedural development of this policy.
I love this idea! I know for a lot of our members $72 at one time will seem like too much but a monthly payment (that is less than Netflix!) is much more easier to handle.
There is no service difference between a Primary and an Annual Fee account. Everyone who lives or can receive mail at the Annual Fee residence is eligible for a card with no restrictions. Also, Annual Fee members don't have two weeks of service cut-off. They have a full year, but I believe you are referring to the procedure of placing the Annual Fee charge on the account two weeks prior to expiring, which puts the account 'Over Threshold' and has caused confusion for members and staff. An alternative to this procedure should be explored.
blank
Primary adult cards provide access to the whole household. Annual fee cards only provide access for certain individuals living in that household. So what is being bought isn't the same product that is being given for free.
GSullivan - Primary adult cards are ONLY for the one person. Annual fee cards are good for all those living in the household, one $40 fee charge. And actually, primary card holders are already paying for what you term has been given for free, I paid $84 to the library in ad valorem taxes in 2016, wasn't nothing free!
blank
Hi Gatlin,
Could you please clarify what you mean? I'm sorry I don't think I understand the comparison between annual fee cards and the Family Talk section.
Also, I think there is still some confusion. Currently, the $40 fee for an annual card covers the person who pays (one card) AND anyone else in their household (each separate cards and accounts, only linked by the $40 fee and/or sponsorship for student cards). Not a replication of the same card and the sharing of one account, if that is what you are thinking?
The phrase "immediate family members" as far as I know has never been enforced and was never meant to be. It has never been required to prove that a person is immediately related in order for them to get an annual fee card under the same $40 fee, only that they have the same address. This is similar to the way we issue student cards with sponsors that many of our policies refer to as "parent or guardian" but we've never asked for any kind of documentation or proof.
blank
Thank you to whoever clarified that services are the same for Primary and Annual Fee customers! I hope there isn't a broad misconception about this.
I would like to state that renters may not cut a check to the county assessor for property taxes directly, but funds flow from the renter, to the landlord, to the county assessor. To imply otherwise sort of sounds like renters are some sort of freeloaders which simply isn't the case.
I would need to carefully consider our core values before agreeing that we're an institution for the impoverished. While I think I get at least part of your meaning, I feel we have no directive to lift up the impoverished any more so than any other group because it would necessitate us first identifying and singling out 'the impoverished'. I kind of imagine us lifting everyone up together. The economics of the user has not traditionally been used to determine value of services.
As a resident of the county who has owned multiple homes in OK county I find the $72 annual fee charge very reasonable. When we moved into our first small (900 sqft) starter home in 1995 my tax contribution to MLS was already well over the actual annual fee charge. Even at my poorest I was paying more to MLS than out of county annual fee users were paying and that was decades ago. If memory serves me correctly, this $40 charge was originally established to be an approximation of the average OK County resident's property tax contribution to MLS. What is the average now?? Having shopped for property out of county myself, one of the things that makes Lincoln attractive is that you substantially lower your tax burden by moving to a county that has very limited services. This is a choice. Our annual fee charge is optional for out of county customers. They have access to our materials and our computers for free, and it is only when they wish to have the additional privilege of assuming possession of our materials outside the library that the fee must be imposed. To my mind, annual fee users actually have more control over their services because primary card users are forced to buy in as a condition of residency. As a circ clerk I can speak to how hard we work to find other loopholes (student cards and reciprocal cards) before discussing annual fee options with customers.
It's always been a backhanded compliment when people assume library services are free, but the simple fact is they are not. We need to find a good balance between service, value and fairness. Luckily, service and value are hard wired into everything we do. I agree that the increase is not fun. Taxes are never fun. But I believe the $72 is more than fair when comparing in and out of county tax burdens to library users. I love the idea of having payment plans to minimize the sting of this charge. To be equitable, I get to pay my property taxes in two payments over 4 months.
While I understand the logic behind it, this does not seem like a good way to uphold the Core Values that we talk about so much. $72 is awfully steep for an annual fee card. Imagine how you would feel if you were a member and your fee suddenly almost doubled! We already have complaints about the $40 we charge now and some people refuse to get cards because of it, and I imagine we will lose some members if this change is made. That's the exact opposite of what we are trying to do.
I make it a habit to look what I pay in my taxes towards the library and then when someone balks at getting an annual fee card I can tell them what I pay and $40 is great, especially considering it is for the whole household.
I went online and googled annual fee library cards - $72 is a bargain! I saw $25, $50 and Boca Raton charges $150 each or you can get a family card for $250. Now, a family of 4 at $25 each is still saving money, considering $72 for a household.
Those who refuse to get a card because they have to pay just haven't set the value of the library as a priority in their life. Those that value libraries will not flinch at the cost, because they recognize the value they receive from us.
I agree that if member retention is a goal then chasing away some of our most enthusiastic members and advocates (these people VOLUNTARILY hand us a wad of cash, year after year, to use the library, where those in our service area have the money taken from them at the point of a gun!) seems counter-intuitive. I'm certainly amenable to a fee hike, but I feel it should be done in a way that doesn't come off like a slap in the face to some of our best and most reliable library users.
In considering revisions to this policy, we took into account the fact that we are required by law to serve first and foremost the taxpayers of Oklahoma County. This is also the group from which we draw data for measurement and planning. A review of annual fee-type cards for our peer libraries reveals a wide range of fees: $10/year in Montgomery County, MD; $15/year in St. Louis; $25/year in Wake County, NC; $45/year in Charlotte Mecklenburg; $50/year in Baltimore; $80/year in Salt Lake; $95/year in Palm Beach County; and $180/year in Multnomah County. An annual fee of $72/year breaks down to $6 per month, which is quite a bargain!
We already do "serve first and foremost the taxpayers of Oklahoma County." This is the group we spend our money and time trying to lure into the library or to use library services; our marketing is directed at this group; our Interreach efforts are targeted at residents of OKC and OK County. But we have a group of people who live on the wrong side of the tracks, as it were, who come to us. And willingly give us money. We expended no energy, but they showed up anyway, and have been showing up for years and years. As part of the relationship growth cycle of our strategic plan, we vowed to "Hold Loyalty" by rewarding the loyalty of our members. Perhaps we can demonstrate that in a small way--those who have an existing Annual Fee account get rewarded by needing to pay only $50, and those who have yet to partake of the bounty of the MLS face the full re-evaluated fee of $70.
I noticed that we are proposing increasing the maximum number of physical items that members can check out to 100. I'm curious what the rationale behind this is. I've never run into any issues with library members dissatisfied with the number of items they can check out, and 100 seems like a really large quantity. Any insight would be much appreciated!
I can see this being a problem. Having that many items out at one time could result in several items being lost and damaged.
I am curious about this too. It seems that being able to check out 100 items would be leaning towards monopolizing library materials, especially for the smaller branches. Some customers only check out materials that they browse for in the library, and don't put items on hold.
The majority of our peers have a 99 or 100 checkout limit. We are at the very bottom with 30. We chose 30 quite some time ago when we had a much smaller collection and didn't want as many items off of the shelves. Now that we have a large collection, and with Collection Anywhere, we want as many items in the hands of members as possible. It is better to have a book in the hands of a member, rather than sitting on the shelf. That said, most people don't even checkout 30, we expect it to be most useful for students, homeschoolers, and children's materials. We also hope it will cut down on parents arbitrarily splitting up their checkouts between their kids cards. Each member will be able to put all of their materials on one account, rather than using family members.
We do occasionally get grumbles about the 30-item cap here at NW, usually from teachers and parents. Many of them use multiple family members' cards to get the items they want, which is an understandable workaround.
I previously worked in a library where we had no limit on the number of books a patron could check out. Most people, of course, didn't come close to that many items. Which was kind of the point--we don't want to restrict access unnecessarily, and if someone wants that many items, why stand in their way? We felt our members shouldn't have to resort to workarounds in order to get the materials they desire.
I see that the Food and Drink violation has been redlined, and we did recommend separating it from the Tobacco violation. But I don't see it addressed anywhere else. I do think we have to have something addressing this if for no other reason than to protect some materials and equipment. While we can clean a spill off the floor or table in many areas, the computers, special collections areas and carpeted floors can often be permanently ruined and some items are expensive or impossible to replace.
Hi Teresa!
Good question. While the committee proposed to retain this item in the policy, it was stricken from the draft at the Regional Directors' meeting last week. In an effort to simplify things, it was discussed that inappropriate food/drink consumption could be a Rule of Conduct Violation under disruption of library use, damage to library property, and/or failing to comply with a reasonable staff request, all of which have been retained in this draft version.
With that in mind, please let me know what other questions and/or concerns you may have about this draft... and thank you!
Will we be notifying our annual fee members of the increase in cost, or will they find out when they go to pay?
"2. Providing there is not a hold on the material, borrowers may attempt to renew most physical materials 6 months. "
This seems like an aggressively anti-random-shelf-browsing policy! The way I use the collection is: I walk around in the physical shelves and see what jumps out at me. I generally end up with an armload of things I never knew existed and learn a bunch of stuff.
My concern is that 6 months' worth of renewals might mean a cool weird little book on an obscure topic is never on the shelf for people to discover. I do understand that we may be moving toward a future in which the random weird stuff is in the Collection Anywhere center and only available by placing holds anyway... but can we wait until then before instituting a 6-month renewal period?
This was definitely the topic we spent the most time on in committee. Ultimately, we agreed that our current renewal policy was insufficient--looking at comparable library systems, we lag way behind with the time we allow our members to keep materials, and we want to put our members first. Just as most people don't currently keep their items out for the full six weeks, we felt that most items would be returned well before half a year has passed. However, when needed (books needed for a whole semester for college, trying to get through the latest 1000-page epic fantasy novel, trying to commit Groundhog Day to memory, etc.) we wanted our members to have that option. There will always be more cool stuff waiting to jump into the arms of the library browser; the chance to ease our members' access to our materials comes only rarely.
Hi Margo,
We (i.e. the committee evaluating this policy) felt that the limit of 2 renewals for a maximum lending period of 6 weeks was arbitrarily low & considering the size of our (physical & digital) collection along with the ability to search the collection online, we felt that with this proposed change, the in-library browser would still have a good number of titles to browse on the physical shelf as well as on the 'digital shelf.' This proposed change also brings us in line with a number of our peers who have anywhere from 3-unlimited renewals so we thought that 7 renewals @ 3 weeks each was a good compromise.
I hope that helps.
blank
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet and was brought up in our committee meetings is that if these changes did keep items out for a little bit longer, this could actually clear the way for some less circulating items to get more attention than they normally would and increase their circ stats. Also, it was brought to our attention that at this time we own so many materials that some items are getting weeded just in order to make more space before they are actually in a condition to need weeding. Collection Anywhere and extending loan periods and renewals could help offset this and get a wider variety of materials in customer's hands than sitting on our shelves just waiting to be withdrawn.
There is no expectation of finding a specific item if you are browsing. The expectation is only to find an item. Our responsibility is to provide the opportunity for serendipitous browsing, but every item doesn't need to be on shelf for that to happen. Currently over 90% of collections sit on shelf and the goal is to put more of these items in the hands of members, not to keep them on shelf for a 'browser' that may not even exist.
Does browsing change if we have 80% of materials on shelf? I don't think so. In fact, if we do a better job of highlighting materials in a smaller collection, we create a better browsing environment for our members.
blank
The committee spent a lot of time discussing renewal limits. Ultimately we decided that the 6 month limit reduces a barrier to access and improves service to our members. Increasing the lending period makes it easier to finish a title without knowing the due date is right around the corner. Some of our members drive fairly long distances; others lack adequate transportation, making it too expensive and/or time-consuming to make frequent trips to the library. As a side benefit, the change will reduce the time staff currently devote to manually checking in and then checking back out titles that have hit the 2 renewal limit. Providing members with a higher renewal limit (absent a hold being placed on the title) will deliver a longer, more enjoyable, reading-based experience, increasing member loyalty, satisfaction, and ability to more effectively engage in individual learning and development.
In our peer library research we found that staff and members benefited from increased renewal limits. Athens-Limestone Public Library (AL) and Sno-Isle Libraries (WA) reported that customers checked out more items since they could keep the items longer & because some of them had to drive "from the farther parts of the county." They have fewer blocked accounts, which means fewer customer accounts going to collections. This has saved them time and money, and now their customers can check out more items instead of having the frustration of being blocked when they visit the library or want to download digital content.
Thanks for explaining that! As usual, I was thinking only of my selfish self. Your reasons (length of semester, transportation, etc.) make a lot of sense; but what really changed my mind was the Groundhog Day rationale. I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter.
We will also be letting customers go 8 months with out having to pay for the material if they lost it. I know that with our core values, Library Members First, we will try to extend the material's due date as far as possible giving the member more time to look for the item with out incurring fees. To have an item lost for that long means that we are depriving our other members of being able to enjoy the material.
1) The annual fee card sounds expensive, but it is a good deal. If you explain that's what people pay in taxes, people usually understand. Also, the price hasn't gone up in decades. For simplicity's sake, I'd like it to be $70 or $75. $72 seems kind of random. Perhaps we need more info on what a library system needs to do to become reciprocal. When people out of the system complain, I've suggested they talk to their own country government officials about beefing up their library and/or becoming reciprocal with MLS.
2) Not charging for a replacement library card. I'm not necessarily against, but have we (or could we) do some kind of study as to how much revenue the library makes on charging for a replacement card? I always thought the dollar charge was just to help offset the price of buying new cards. That’s another thing that hadn’t been changed in many years. My inclination was to raise the price to $2. Are there any statics on whether charging the very small fee helps or doesn’t affect people to keep track of their cards? I'm just wondering if we could evaluate questions like these before we change.
3) Same thought on having a grace period on fines. Not necessarily opposed as wondering if we'd studied loss of revenue from fines, whether there would be one, and if so, would we have to cut somewhere else, perhaps our materials budget, which I don't think many of us would favor.
4) I do like the idea of increasing the number of items a person can check out. It might have a positive effect on the people who "work" the system by using family members’ cards and maxing them out. I do think 100 is a lot although I don't have a set number. I know for me personally, I like to keep my checkouts pretty low, around 10. It's way too hard to keep track of a whole bunch of materials and get to them in the allotted time, even though we don't have fines.
5) Like a three-week check out. I know other systems do this. That's probably my favorite of the ideas.
6) Kind of torn on such a long check out. I agree with all the reasons, but that is a long time. I don't think there's a question that some people game the system, and find ways to keep things longer. I think a change would help with that, but it does sort of discourage browsing collections, which is something a lot of library lovers like to do. Sometimes when we try to help people by increasing loan times, waiving fines, etc (which I'm not saying not to do and doesn't serve a purpose), you're hurting the "good citizens" who DO return stuff on time, pay fines, have their library card and all that library stuff. They follow the "rules," but can't find what they want on the shelf. We don't want to lose those people.
Currently, the cost-per-card for the system is about $.10. Yup, ten cents. I imagine that's partly because we buy so many we single-handedly keep library card manufacturers in business. It made sense to us to knock off the replacement fee and instead, hopefully, move to an era where our members will actually report a missing library card so it can't be used for dastardly deeds by thieves.
As far as knowing the dollar amount we brought in from charging for replacement cards, we couldn't find an exact figure--Carl lumps all fines and fees together--but we determined a ceiling of $16,712 brought in from replacement card fees in 2015. It was most likely less than that.
I'm glad you like the three-week checkout proposal--I've been agitating for that particular change since I got here in 2012!
Pages