Working Session

MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - - 5:30 p.m. - - Council Chambers
Minutes

Present: Mayor Brown, Bjerke, Sande, Gershman, Christensen
Absent: Grandstrand, Glassheim, Kreun.

1. Update on New Library Project

a. Overview of Task Force Findings

Jim Hovey, Chair of Task Force for Revitalization of the Grand Forks Public Library, gave a brief history of the task force which began in 2008. The process included public forums, research of libraries in other cities, a needs assessment done by Libraries PA, a site search and ranking, an architect search through which PSA Dewberry / Widseth Smith Nolting were selected as the team to work on the project. They have been working with the architect team to further evaluate sites and development of the plan for the new library.

b. Our Vision

Wendy Wendt, Library Director, provided a brief history of the library. The library was designed to serve a population of 40,000 and now serves 60,000+. She recapped other statistics on library usage and customer needs. A brochure highlighting library statistics was distributed to the Council for their reference.

c. Developing Partnerships

Susan Mickelson, Board President, stated that she and Wendy have been meeting with potential partners and educating them about the library, its place in the community and the potential revitalization project. She addressed challenges that they know exist to educate the people on what services library provides and how those services meet the needs of the community.

She explained that one of the challenges with the current library is the lack of space for programming and that they are down to one meeting room to share for all programming needs. The goal is that the revitalized library would provide more meeting space so that groups could utilize it for things like tutoring, classes, student study groups, and other group meetings, as well as for programs of the library.

She recognized that there is a challenge to get people excited about the library and that by increasing the knowledge of what is available usage will also continue to increase.

Mickelson stated that they are continuing to look for new partnerships and have identified several entities that could benefit from a location like the library that has a hub of technology to use (i.e. senior citizens). The library could provide the space, hardware and software for educational programs and schedule usage between the groups. She continued that no concrete plans have been made, but is very excited about the feedback they are getting from the groups that they have met with. She added that some of these arrangements could also result in an additional revenue stream for the library.

She stated that they have also visited with other government entities including the county, park district, and school district and will continue to pursue those conversations.

d. Selecting our Architect Partners

Jeff Regimbal, chair of Architect Selection Committee, reviewed the RFQ process that was used. He stated that they had 11 submissions from teams of architects, which were evaluated based on interior design, engineering design and lead, and library design experience. The review resulted in a short list of four firms which were further evaluated in May by a seven member selection team. The result of the process was the selection of PSA Dewberry partnered with Widseth Smith Nolting.

e. Showcase of Capabilities

Roger Helland, Widseth Smith Nolting, and Richard McCarthy, PSA Dewberry, explained that Widseth Smith Nolting will provide the engineering needs for the project and PSA Dewberry will provide the architectural services for the project. PSA Dewberry has designed over 200 libraries.

A presentation of other library projects completed by PSA Dewberry was shown.

McCarthy noted that memorable children’s spaces, activity rooms, and teen spaces are the future of library usage. He suggested that they would like an opportunity as part of their process to tap the youth in the community, including perhaps the youth commission for ideas. The goal would be to provide quiet reading spaces and collaborative effort spaces, and potentially coffee shop and social spaces.

He continued that the plan is to use a collaborative process and include ideas from people in the community in the design of the library spaces. They do not have a design for the proposed facility yet, as that interaction with the community will determine the design that best fits our needs.

Gershman commented that we once had a Carnegie library and many in the community were upset when it was demolished and perhaps we could look at including something to remember that. McCarthy stated that they recently did an addition to a Carnegie library in Peoria and showed samples of how they accomplished the addition to include the functionality, while not detracting from the historical design of the original building.

McCarthy showed examples of how they design interior spaces to include natural light, thematic designs, and variety of furnishings and layouts to meet needs of a variety of users that come to today’s library. He added that the facility will be designed for technology and could include 24 hour all automated functions and an automated sorter for returned library items. These items would save staff time by using technology for the rote duties needed in the library and freeing up staff for other roles. He explained that another change in today’s library is a shift away from the Dewey system to the model used in bookstores. Another mainstay in libraries are self check stations and he noted that 92% in his library now self-check. It was noted that the current library has installed self-check stations and they are used currently by patrons.

McCarthy stated that another role that libraries are filling in communities is to be a host location for both library and community civic events, such as dinosaur exhibits, space exhibits, etc. He noted that that can generate several hundred thousand visitors each year in addition to the regular library clientele.

McCarthy explained that they are looking at “green” construction including geothermal as well as other items for inclusion in the proposed facility. The envisioned design would be a building that would be able to evolve over the years as needs change and would be optimized to operate with the least amount of staff. They would also like to include art and science into the process and make the library an even greater community asset. All of these items will also assist with the marketing and fundraising possibilities for the project.

f. Researching the Sites

Jim Hovey, site selection committee, stated that they have not determined a final site for the project at this time. Through their review process they have narrowed the list of potential sites to two primary candidates – the former Leever’s and a farm site on 32nd Ave S between Slumberland and the former Rex store. The sites will now receive further evaluation and there is still a possibility to end up with a totally different site based on cost for acquisition and development of a site. Part of the continued evaluation will also be an environmental study as well as cost. Initial proposal would require 3.2 to 3.5 acres and also need to consider in the plans the disposition of the current library building.

Hovey continued that at the Leever’s site they would need to demolish the existing building and build a new building. They have considered renovating and adding to the existing building but have some obstacles that make that not a favorable choice. The current building could not be adapted to provide the technology needed for a current library, there is limited adjacent land that could possibly be acquired and would still not address the visibility issue.

Gershman asked if there is any timeline for determination of a site. Hovey stated that they have not set a deadline at this time, but would want to have the site selected prior to any election on the project. He stated that they are also keeping options open in case other opportunities come up that they haven’t considered yet.

Sande inquired if any consideration was being given to how the design of the facility would fit in with neighboring existing businesses, how traffic flow could be affected with the South Washington site, and if 42nd Street had been considered. Hovey stated that they have considered traffic issues with the Leever’s site and would need to look at an entrance from a side street and would include those items in the site design. They have considered 42nd St and unsure of availability and cost of land in that area and whether it could fit within the scope of the project. One of the items heavily weighed in the site selection will be ease of accessibility for the community. Christensen commented that we aren’t a large community so people should be able to get there regardless of location and would encourage the committee to broaden its search. Hovey stated that they will continue to solicit comments from the public on location and other desires for the facility and that most comments received so far have been in regards to location.

g. Plans for Funding

Dorette Kerian stated that since the final design is not yet known funding for the project is being done based on general information and square footage numbers and anticipated at $18 million. She explained that for operations they are not anticipating much of a change from the current level of costs, as the current building is very inefficient and the new facility, while being larger, will be designed to operate at a lower cost. She continued that they are looking at ways to get more operating dollars for the facility which could then also help to address salary issues. She explained that the library staff is not currently evaluated for market comparable salaries as other city staff is and will be working on addressing that issue separately from the plan for the proposed new building project.

Kerian stated that proceeds from the sale of the existing building would go toward the cost of the new building, but that amount is also uncertain at this time. They are exploring different avenues for additional funding, but believe that a sales tax would be a good funding mechanism for the building. City of Fargo recently used this method to fund their new library and the process worked well the amount of the tax and duration have not been determined. One benefit of using the sales tax would be that residents from the county, many of who use the library, would also assist in paying for the facility, and not a full burden to only the city residents.

Kerian explained that they estimate a ½ cent sales tax for 5 years would generate the $18 million anticipated needed to construct the facility and that Howard Swanson, City Attorney, has drafted some ballot language for consideration by the Council.

Gershman stated that he believe that November would not be a good time to try and place this issue on the ballot, as there are so many political issues at the national level that would distract from this and that also there are still so many questions not answered, such as location, design, etc. that may get a “No” because of the variables and then is very hard to bring the issue back again to the public and get a better result. He cautioned that having more information available to the public could give it a better shot and the tight timeline before the November election may not be enough time to accomplish what needs to be done. He suggested that perhaps a special election in March or April would be better and that would give more time to get answers to the questions that voters would have. He stated that he hears from his customers about sales tax and the group may also want to consider going with a 1 cent sales tax for two and a quarter years and then be done. He added that there has been conversation about other needs such as infrastructure and using sales tax to help meet some of those needs and would like to have the option available.

Sande agreed that a shorter duration would be better, and also could be better for the library as it would be paid off sooner and wouldn’t have complaints on the level of tax for as long. He also expressed concern with the short timeframe if looking at a November ballot and agreed that it would be better not take the issue forward until more information on the project had been finalized as people will want to know what they are voting for.

Bjerke commented that anything not backed by facts will not be successful and he has a concern that other entities such as school are going ahead with projects and get approval before facts are known and then price keeps increasing from what was approved before you break ground. He added that he is also concerned with duplication of what is provided by other governmental entities being included in the facility – have a lot of meeting rooms available, getting two new theatres at the high schools, not sure that we need to include more of that here. He would also like to see more detail on the project construction and operation costs and believes that the public will need that to debate the project. He suggested that perhaps instead of investing in computers for patrons to use, that make the library wireless and then offer a chance for people to volunteer at the library and after you put in so many hours get a laptop and then won’t be a need to have space for computers.

Bjerke continued that he is still unclear on whether the mill levy question has been answered and if we are within where we should be to fund the existing library or if we are double dipping and would like to see those answers before this project would go to a vote, because if we have not been able to maintain what we have with the funds available does not see how we can maintain a larger facility with the same or less funds available.

Kerian stated that they will be continuing to work with the architect on design of the library with public input and are open to listen to any ideas that Council has for the project. There is a concern with the timeline as the initial contract with the architect is a short term and are trying to schedule the project to also accommodate that, but also want to bring the project forward to a vote in a timeframe and with a level of information that will have the best chance of a favorable result.

Christensen stated that there is support for the library and the proposed project, but believes that based on the timing for ballot procedure will not be able to get all information needed together in order for Council to move to a November ballot and would encourage the Library to continue their work with the architect and gather as much support in the community and then bring to a single issue election perhaps in the spring. He added that he does anticipate that there will end up being a need for more funding than the current level to provide the type of programs and level of service that is being envisioned by the committee and need time to educate the public about the project. Kerian stated that they are continuing to work with partnerships and have a great technology partnership with the state for ODIN now and will work on gathering other information as well.

Gershman commented that if the cost of a special election is part of the push to get on the November ballot, to not let that be a deciding factor and rather look at what would be the best timeline for getting the project and the city can assist with support on that rather than rush and set the project up for failure. Kerian stated that the committee agrees that we want to present the best project that we can as they realize it is harder to come back if it fails the first time and will work to address the timing of the information.

Christensen asked if there was some assistance that was needed in regard to the architect contract so that they could get work done needed and if so to bring some information back to Council on that and can review it. McCarty stated that they are working on site selection and beginning to design the outside conceptually and that based on that scope believe that cost estimate is on track to be reasonable and that they have been within 1.5% on projects that they have done. Christensen asked that the executive committee of the library needs to take a look at the contract and see if the scope needs to be broadened so the project can keep moving forward.

Mickelson thanked the volunteers that have worked on this and brought the project to this point.

Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,


Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr.