Capital Facilities Committee 100201rev

Capital Facilities CommitteeBranch library decision
February 1, 2010

Background & decision
Review 2008 needs study
Details on consideration of branches
Review 2009 program design study
Decision:
Branch library/libraries vs. central library

2008 needs studyProcess
Consultant selected via RFP process & interviews involving Director of Facilities, Library Board, Library staff
Review of current facility
Community surveys
Focus groups
Interviews
Discussions with Library Board
Public town hall meetings

2008 Town hall meetings
DVDs of these meetings are available for checkout; slideshows of the presentations can be seen at
www.apl.org/facility/

2008 needs studyConclusions
Current facility has design problems relative to current and projected use:
Space
Security
Meeting room access
Technology usability
Accessibility
Staff & user efficiency

2008 needs studyRecommendations
Short-term (a= underway)
RFID (Radio Frequency ID materials security) a
Move toward AMHS(Automated Materials Handling System)
Increased self-checkout units
Increased bandwidth for Internet connection a
Better seating w/power & data distribution a

2008 needs studyRecommendations
Long-term
New building
Single central downtown site, not branches
Sustainable / green design
Adequate space
Seating
Materials
ADA accessibility
Efficiency for staff and public
Drive-up window
Increased access to technology
Increased meeting rooms, accessible outside library hours
Improved security for materials

A branch: an obvious solution?
It’s Your Call, Post-Crescent, Jan. 24
“BETTER IDEA: There has been a lot of talk about spending $40-million plus for a new library. Instead, remove some things that don’t have to be in the same building. There are a lot of empty stores on College Avenue, Conkey’s bookstore for one. Better idea – get some books out there in different areas for people who don’t normally get down to the old library. An example is Northland Mall. Winslow’s Hallmark Shop has been empty for quite awhile. Pay rent to the mall; hire a carpenter to put in bookshelves; and stack them full of books. It’s a nice quiet area with a big parking lot. The added traffic would probably help the stores that are in the mall. And I would be the first one in line for a library card.”
Phyllis Thatcher,
Appleton

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
H.L. Mencken

Staff has affinity for brANCHES
Many reasons some staff like the idea:
An alternative, more low-key workplace
Opportunities for staff
Local community spirit
Neighborhood feeling
Get to know a smaller group of patrons
Advantages of working at a small library with the resources of a large library
Able to work as a generalist, serving all ages & functions
Possible promotional opportunity for “branch manager” position
Ability to park for free & close to workplace
Due to low capital cost, could be a relatively “easy sell”
But … this is not about what staff would like, or even what’s easy -- it’s about what’s right for the whole community in the long term.

Single library vs. branch –relative advantages

branch operating costs
Features of main library duplicated at branch
Staff
Check-in/Checkout equipment
Collections
Building envelope & associated upkeep
Structure
Maintenance
HVAC
Janitorial services & supplies
Additional requirements of a branch
Transportation of materials & personnel
Telecommunications
Estimated annual operating cost of possible Greenville library, comparable in scope to a full-service branch: $348K in 2004, with some facilities costs
Won’t necessarily reduce costs at central library

Single library operating costs
Features of new or remodeled single library: opportunities for cost-effective service increases
Reduced service points
Centralized Check-in/Checkout equipment & operations
Enhanced community center function via expanded, more accessible meeting rooms
Building envelope & associated upkeep
Opportunity for green construction – demonstrating sustainability in City’s most public building

No CLEAR LOCATION in need of a branch
APL is a regional asset
No clear neighborhood need
City resident users live within 15 minutes
APL borrower distribution
March 2008: Each red dot is a
household which borrowed
materials; due to scale, many
dots in City are not distinctly shown.
Other public libraries

DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
“…when libraries are located in downtown, village, or neighborhood centers, there’s also a special synergy at work. Libraries generate increased business for local merchants, while those shopping or working downtown visit the library as part of their day.”
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 75, 2009
“Required now is the will to understand that Appleton downtown, as a business entity and as an economic engine for the region, requires a dynamic, economic infusion to nurture a development curve that has been flat for far too long...”
ALD. JEFF JIRSCHELE, FOX POLITICS, FEB. 1, 2010

2008 Study: branch notes
[Town Hall Meeting Results, p.21] “Participants also discussed the feasibility of branches and of other locations for the APL.
While a few participants, especially those from areas outside the city itself, were adamant about wanting a branch nearer their homes, few participants supported the concept of branches (or satellites as they were sometimes called). Those favoring branches talked about potential library users who were not currently using APL. Those opposing branches were concerned that branches would reduce the resources available to a central library and would draw people away from downtown.”
[Conclusions, p.51] “a branch library would diminish the usage of the current central library and effect the ability of the staff to deliver enhanced programming via two different locations.”

2009 program design study
Process
Consultant selected via RFP process & interviews involving Director of Facilities, Library Board, Library staff
Review of current facility & 2008 study
Discussions with Library Board & staff
Development and testing of alternative program designs
Four expansion scenarios
Four new building scenarios
Presentation to Library Board & Common Council

2009 program design study
Conclusion & Recommendations
Agreed with conclusions from 2008
Validated single building rather than branch
Validated RFID & AMHS
A new library building would offer the best advantage for service improvements & operating efficiency

Branch conclusion
Two collections,
Two buildings,
Two staffs:
Too expensive.

Summary / Recommendation to capital facilities committee
Based on
Costs of establishing and maintaining an additional city facility
Costs of staffing
Costs of duplication of services
Impact on downtown
Appleton should continue to develop a single central library with a new or expanded facility rather than developing branches

http://newcybrary.blogspot.com	35
http://feeds.feedburner.com	2
http://static.slidesharecdn.com	1

Capital Facilities Committee 100201rev

by guest160db3 on Feb 09, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 38

Statistics

Capital Facilities Committee 100201rev — Presentation Transcript