126 · ARL Statistics 2009–2010
5.a Additional titles included in consortial packages such as Wiley.
5.a.i We continue to move journals to online only and added titles are included in consortial packages.
5.a.ii Decrease due to the following factors: Moved titles online. More print titles are included in aggregated databases; and we only count
online titles per the de-duping procedure.
5.b.ii Increase due to the following factors: We implemented a new method of using Serials Solutions overlap to calculate number of unique/
free online journals. We also turned on and obtained MARC records for more freely accessible databases in Serials Solutions.
5.b.iv Increase due to the following factors: We instituted a concentrated project to item-convert documents in our collection that were not
previously converted in our catalog; these items are now being counted using Millennium rather than by sampling or shelf space.
16.a The 2008-2009 monograph budget was overspent by $75,342, and the 2009-2010 monograph budget was $65,184 less than that of 2008-
2009, a total difference of $140,526. The 2009-2010 monograph budget was also underspent by $97,891, and this money was used to
prepay some 2010-2011 costs in light of state budget cuts.
16.c Increase of $443,492 spent on one-time electronic materials costs in 2009-2010.
16.d Figure includes: electronic archiving: $9,750; preservation (not binding): $63,562; GPO shelflist service: $2,859; ILL services: $110,774; ILL:
$13,439; MARC records: $2,598; memberships: $233,183; BCR: $162,849; OPAC enhancements: $29,000; Storage: $18,458; Prospecter: $5,500;
shelf-ready processing: $81,589; 3harb bib utility: $2,975; Techpro: $13,290. Major differences between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 include
a one-time $50,000 paid in 2008-2009 for a backfile of authority records, $62,000 paid ahead in 2008-2009 for a 2009-2010 membership
fee, a 2008-2009 carryover deposit balance of $43,676 with an OCLC vendor, a decrease of $18,276 in interlibrary loan costs, a decrease of
$23,250 due to cancellation of table of contents service, and a decrease of $18,460 in spending on MARC record sets.
20 2008-2009 figure revised to $1,406,043 to reflect removal of building-related cash transfers.
22 Increase due to the following factors: We have increased e-book purchases; We purchased Web of Science backfiles; We also purchased
electronic collections such as State Papers Online, ECCO2, 20th Century Poetry, Springer journal archives, and Congressional Hearings
24.a Charges formerly listed here are included in 16d because they are charged to materials funds.
24.b Increase due to the receipt of additional funding from the CU System.
25 Increased staffing to purchase and maintain computer equipment.
29 Increase in hours due to opening of Norlin Commons.
31 Includes the grand opening of Norlin Commons; 700 people attended the event.
32 2009-2010 is the first year we have used an actual count. Due to a new reporting form this is likely a significant undercount. New
software allows us to more accurately filter directional questions that may have been counted in the past.
35 Increased lending likely due to nation-wide collection development budget cuts.
36 Increased borrowing due to CU Libraries collection development budget cuts.
1.b.ii A concentrated effort was made during the fiscal year to withdraw materials in anticipation of a coming building addition/remodel.
5 All serials titles count based on catalog records as of Oct 8, 2010. No deduping was done if the record didn’t include an ISSN. All
deduping was based on ISSN’s. Any backfile collection containing unique titles was included in the purchased electronic titles (JSTOR,
ScienceDirect, Wiley, etc.)
5.b.i Consortial titles received as part of a consortia agreement are taken from the year-end Unit Costs document and subtracted from SFX
5.b.iv Last fiscal year (2008-2009), we did not count government documents separately from the received but not purchased titles and
therefore went backwards to derive the number after the fact. This fiscal year (2009-2010), we counted separately from the outset and
therefore our figure shows a significant increase. Those missed in the 2008-2009 retroactive count would have been included in the
figure for question 5.b.ii in the 2008-2009 stats.
14 The libraries are charged with purchasing more AV due to budget cuts in other “instructional resources” areas on campus.
16.c Increase due to better tracking via a new university financial system. Additionally, at the end of the fiscal year, large backfile packages