Metropolitan Library Service Agency
Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Friday, May 8, 2026
Kaposia Library, South St. Paul
10:00am-12:00pm
Advisory Board Members/Representatives Present:
Anoka: Erin Straszewski Ramsey: Pang Yang
Carver: Jodi Edstrom Saint Paul: Maureen Hartman
Dakota: Jen Reichert-Simpson Scott: Jake Grussing
Hennepin: Scott Duimstra Washington: Jacquie Kramer
Staff Present: Jennifer Baker (virtual), Abigail Dillon, Gina Goettl, Nan Her, and Sherry Wichitchu
I. Call to order
Chair Duimstra called the meeting to order at 10:03am.
II. Introductions and Welcome
Erin Straszewski is attending the meeting on behalf of Colleen Haubner at Anoka County.
III. Consent Agenda
a) Approval of agenda
b) Approval of meeting minutes (April 10, 2026)
Motion to approve the agenda and meeting minutes by Yang. Second by Edstrom.
All in favor signified by saying aye.
ACL – not present HCL – aye SCL – not present
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
IV. Discussion/Action Items
a) OverDrive non-MELSA patrons and duplicate accounts
At a CRPSLA meeting, the Advisory Board heard about how Rochester Library’s OverDrive allows for checkouts from visitors, but not holds. There was interest in exploring that as an option for MELSA’s shared collection, instead of removing duplicate accounts and non-MELSA patrons. After reaching out to OverDrive, the Collection Development Team then discussed this as a potential solution to the patron access question.
What Rochester has is not as simple as an authentication update, rather they are in a Reciprocal Lending Agreement (RLA) with SELCO and Traverse de Sioux. This RLA allows patrons between these three systems to access each other’s collections without having to register their cards at all three systems. The RLA is also what allows each library control over the type of access from the other two systems.
In order to have that same sort of control, MELSA would have to enter into an RLA with the other library systems. This would be on the consortium level, and we would have a separate RLA contract with each library with whom we want to authenticate. MELSA patrons would in turn have access to the collections of those libraries.
Straszewski entered the meeting at 10:08am.
The Collection Development team suggested that RLAs could be an option to explore in the future, but they still recommend limiting the collection to MELSA patrons, eliminating duplicate accounts, and changing the hold limit to 8. There is a question as to whether OverDrive would allow this. There is also a CRPLSA meeting at the end of this month, and the RLA topic can be discussed at this meeting.
Motion to recommend that we begin making plans to remove access to MELSA’s OverDrive resources for users that are outside of the MELSA service area. MELSA should draft a communication plan for all the suggested changes (limiting the collection to MELSA patrons, eliminating duplicate accounts, and changing the hold limit to 8). Motion by Hartman. Second by Edstrom.
All in favor signified by saying aye.
ACL – aye HCL – aye SCL – not present
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
It was requested that MELSA come up with a communications plan and work with the Communications Team to disseminate this information at their libraries.
Grussing entered the meeting at 10:27am.
b) Maintenance of Effort update
State Library Services would like answers for the following questions: What “counts” towards MOE in your system? What types of questions do you face from local government about MOE? Anything else SLS should know about how MOE looks in your system? Any questions you want addressed in future FAQs or documentation?
In a meeting with State Library Services, they shared that their legal counsel is no longer supporting the reinterpretation of MOE. They suggested that there would need to be a change to the state statute regarding MOE and could pursue it in the next legislative session. An MLA summit will be held on June 22 at Brookdale Library, a Hennepin County Library, to allow questions and feedback about future legislative priorities.
c) Allocation of Library Systems Allocation Fund (LSAF)
In 2024, the MELSA Board of Trustees approved several changes to the allocations provided to member library systems. These included: new factors included in the formula used to calculate the allocations, combining the prior Formula (general operations) and Phase (technology) programs into one allocation renamed Library Systems Allocations Fund (LSAF) with elimination of request and use requirements, and an increase to the total allocations from $1.5 million to $2 million annually.
As part of the restructuring, MELSA trustees also adopted a one-year plan to reserve 2% of the $2 million total to be distributed as one-time hold harmless support. In 2024, the $40,000 was allocated to Ramsey County Library to facilitate the transition to the new formula. Additionally, $38,745 from the MELSA fund balance was shared by Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey County Libraries. In 2025, MELSA trustees adopted a one-year plan to reserve 1% of the $2 million total to be distributed to Ramsey County Library as one-time hold harmless support.
There are two possible scenarios: the first maintains the 1% allocation to Ramsey as we did last year, while the second explores distributing all funds directly through the standard formula.
A recommendation to the Finance Committee for distribution of the total 2026 LSAF is needed for the June 18 Board of Trustees meeting. Final allocations, using population information from the Metropolitan Council released July 15, are presented for approval at the September Board meeting and then released to the library systems.
The Advisory Board discussed the issue and most agreed with the existing formula. They did not come to a consensus about a recommendation.
d) Regional Literacy Collaborative Fund request
Anoka County Library is requesting that the Advisory Board revisit part of the Fund Request guidelines that restrict the percentage of appropriated funds that can be used for staffing. Anoka County has provided us with a summary of their plans for the Literacy Initiative to illustrate their need for an alternate restriction. The approved guidelines were distributed in the meeting packet.
Since this is first request for funds that have been submitted that include a staff portion, this is a great opportunity to discuss intentionality and if our guidelines need to be modified.
ACL has been focusing on emerging readers over the last several years. They would like to expand upon these efforts through Reading Bridge and partnerships with schools and daycares. Having a staff member dedicated to these efforts will help expand their reach through these literacy programs.
The directors were supportive of raising the staff cap or evaluating on a case-by-case basis, as long as the outcomes are clear.
Motion to approve that Anoka County goes above the staffing cap. Motion by Kramer. Second by Grussing.
All in favor signified by saying aye.
ACL – aye HCL – aye SCL – aye
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
Motion to allow the MELSA director to review and make exceptions to the staffing cap on the literacy project. Motion by Reichert Simpson. Second by Kramer.
All in favor signified by saying aye.
ACL – aye HCL – aye SCL – aye
CCL – aye RCL – aye WCL – aye
DCL – aye SPL – aye
Motion carried.
e) Round table sharing
(i) Revenue sources in libraries
SPPL has been discussing with the mayor possibilities of increasing revenue sources in libraries. A couple of ideas have been to increase cost of printing or charge for private photography sessions in the library. HCL has also increased their printing costs recently. They are also exploring increasing fees for lost materials. DCL is considering charging for-profit businesses for use of meeting rooms. Some of the other systems already do this. They will also be raising the printing costs. Several systems mentioned that book sales can be profitable.
V. Reports
a) Executive Director update
Legislative eBook update: on the Senate side, an education policy omnibus is expected to pass if the omnibus is heard in the House. Illinois and New Jersey are expected to pass their eBook bill. There is also the possibility of using antitrust and monopoly lawsuits.
(i) Teams and interest groups
The current personnel lists for teams and interest groups were distributed in the meeting packet. Please let Wichitchu or Goettl know about any changes.
Duimstra adjourned the meeting at 11:55am.