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

atwww.apl.org/facility/

2008 NEEDS STUDYCONCLUSIONSCurrent 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) aMove toward AMHS (Automated Materials Handling

System)

Increased self-checkout units Increased bandwidth for Internet connection

aBetter 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

Single librarynew or remodeled

Branch

Capital cost X

Downtown development X

Neighborhood development

X

Operating cost X

Address current building issues

X

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 COSTSFeatures 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 studyDiscussions with Library Board & staffDevelopment 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 onCosts of establishing and maintaining an

additional city facilityCosts of staffingCosts 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