Alternatives for the future of the RLSC initiative Report of the RLSC Leadership Group December 11, 2006

In response to Council's October 5, 2006 request (see Council minutes, agenda item #5), the RLSC Leadership Group has prepared four general "alternatives for the future of the RLSC initiative" and a specific recommendation concerning next steps.

Since its beginning in 2001, the RLSC initiative has been simultaneously pursued on three major fronts:

• policy (collection and operation)
• site selection
• financial planning (bonding, debt, and collaborative fundraising).

Although significant progress has been made on policy and site issues, the Leadership Group judges that the lack of success in developing a construction funding plan poses an existential problem for the RLSC initiative. Much creative effort has gone in to the exploration of models, but several roadblocks have been encountered and current efforts have failed to yield a compelling financial plan. The need to address this fundamental issue strongly informs the alternatives outlined below.

Outline of Alternatives

1. Continue the current initiative

Under this alternative, the Alliance would continue to pursue RLSC under the assumption that UO will be fiscal agent for a facility constructed at Linfield College.

Pro:

• Consistency, building on the work done to date
• Linfield College is a good location
• Linfield has committed to bearing the costs of moving utilities. Other concerns about the site have been reduced considerably.
• Alliance, Linfield, and UO roles are relatively well understood

Con:

• Further planning and analysis will be needed to address the problem of funding for construction
• Recurring land lease costs are expected to be higher than estimates used during the early stages of site selection
• Complexity of mixed model of land ownership and fiscal agency
• Economics may push UO to pull out

2. Entertain new proposals from member institutions

Under this alternative, the Alliance would consider new proposals to fund, build, and operate RLSC from any member institution.

Pro:

• Member institution takes responsibility for funding construction
• Strong new options may be available

Possible Pro or Con

• Potential for lost investment in site selection effort (i.e., if Linfield does not submit a proposal)
• Land values yielding lower or higher start-up and/or recurring costs
• If proposal includes ownership rather than leasing, this may yield lower long-term costs
• Potential enthusiasm and capacity of the host institution
• New locations present positive and negative impacts on the RLSC program. Examples,
  • Portland and Vancouver metro area locations increase the facility's value as a meeting or training facility
  • Eugene locations may prove to be less costly to UO as the largest stakeholder/contributor
  • Eugene locations offer the opportunity to provide office space for present Alliance staff

Con:

• May add more time to the process, which may result in more "local" solutions
• Alliance's role would need to be clarified

3. RLSC as a non-profit corporation

Under this alternative the Alliance would create a non-profit corporation to fund, construct, and operate RLSC.

Pro:

• May eventually open up fundraising opportunities
• RLSC would follow rules and laws that are potentially less restrictive than those that apply to Oregon state agencies
• Availability of an independent corporation might prove useful for other Alliance services

Con:

• Unknowns about costs, staffing, and board governance
• Potential long and complex investigation may lead to a further rise in construction costs
• Loss of the financial strength, expertise, and services of UO as fiscal agent
• Alliance's role would need to be clarified

4. Discontinue Alliance pursuit of RLSC

Under this initiative the Alliance would remove RLSC from the strategic agenda and discontinue all activity. Individual members may pursue related initiatives and could ask to bring issues and opportunities to Council’s attention.

Pro: frees up Alliance resources to work on other initiatives

Con:

• Local campus solutions to storage problems may cost considerably more in the aggregate
• Preservation, digitization, and other non-storage benefits of RLSC are not realized
• Continuing Northwest region void in the emerging national network of such service centers
• Much investment of time and effort lost

Comparison Chart

The following chart summarizes major factors that inform the RLSC Leadership Group's Recommendation to Council. Each alternative includes unknown factors that may change circumstances in the future.