Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/12/2005 - Special April 12, 2005 419 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 12, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Brambleton Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, for the purpose of a joint meeting with the City of Roanoke to discuss the results of a study regarding a proposed regional library. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (COUNTY OF ROANOKE) Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services IN RE: CALL TO ORDER (CITY OF ROANOKE) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor C. Nelson Harris (arrived at 12:20 p.m.), Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (left the meeting at 1:27 p.m.), Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel April 12, 2005 420 MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Brian J. Wishneff STAFF PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Sheila Umberger, Acting Director of Libraries; Jesse Hall, Director of Finance; R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building and Development; Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant City Clerk; IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator. IN RE: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING REGIONAL LIBRARY STUDY Ms. Rosapepe recognized the following members of the Roanoke County Library Board who were present at the meeting: Phyllis Amos, Josie Eyer, Sheryl Ricci, and Toby McPhail. Ms. Umberger asked that the members of the Roanoke City Library Advisory Board, the Steering Committee for the library study, and the Library Foundation Board members who were present at the meeting to stand and be recognized. Chairman Altizer and Mayor Harris welcomed everyone to the meeting. Bill Hidell, Bill Hidell & Associates, advised that what has changed with respect to libraries is the way information is delivered in the community. He reported the following conclusions from the findings of the facilities plan process: (1) Roanoke City libraries are under-utilized and usage is declining annually; (2) Roanoke County April 12, 2005 421 libraries, although their usage numbers are better, are maxed out in terms of capacity for their book collections, seating capacity, and computer capacity. Without action, usage will decline. He advised that this information was obtained through interviews conducted with focus groups, town hall meetings, and a city-wide survey of users and non-users. Non-users are defined as individuals who identify themselves as someone who does not use City libraries; however, over 40% of these respondents use other libraries. It was noted that 25% of Roanoke City residents do not use Roanoke City library facilities; however, they use other facilities in the valley. Mr. Hidell also noted that the study committee toured contemporary libraries in Arizona, and an analysis of the library annual reports was performed. Mark McConnell, Mark McConnell & Associates, provided an overview of both the City and County libraries and displayed photographs of the current facilities. The following issues were outlined with respect to libraries: (1) City collections are not meeting customer expectations; (2) libraries are beyond maximum collection capacity; (3) customer seating is not adequate; (4) computer access is limited; (5) parking is not adequate; (6) 25% of City residents use other library sites exclusively; and (7) performance indicators are stagnant or declining. He stated that a unique set of issues is facing Roanoke County libraries, one of which is overcrowding. He indicated that people associate libraries with children and noted that space for programs and improved study areas is needed. Other areas to be addressed include a need for a more functional circulation counter, designated space for donated books, increased April 12, 2005 422 shelving space for books; and a larger and more functional processing area for staff. Mr. Hidell noted that the maximum use of shelving should be 80%; if this capacity is exceeded, circulation will decline because it becomes difficult for customers to find books. Mr. McConnell reported that new technology formats such as video and DVD require shelving space, and he noted that computers have been an add-on service for libraries and have consequently been put in areas that are less than appropriate. He stated that staff is working under difficult conditions and noted that other areas where improvement is needed in the library systems include space for book sales, larger restrooms, better display capacity in order to attract patrons to books, better lighting, meeting room space, better furniture, and increased parking capacity. Mr. McConnell presented a slide presentation of the library sites visited in Arizona. Features which were noted were the following: (1) public art figures prominently in the facilities; (2) they are bright and airy and utilize natural lighting; (3) they are easy to navigate; and (4) they have welcoming environments. Many of the facilities include a teen center for young adults, and digital media is displayed in the same manner as it would be in a music store. Mr. Hidell reported that teens comprise 20% of the population in the United States and are the fastest growing segment; they are also the most under-served group in libraries. Mr. McConnell advised that the use of self check-out units in some of the facilities visited allowed staff to have time available to provide more assistance to patrons. Electronic systems can also check in books and sort them, further reducing the amount of staff time necessary for these tasks. Many of April 12, 2005 423 the designs include “defensible” outdoor space that is enclosed and allows individuals to move freely outdoors without leaving the premises. Council Member Dowe inquired if there has there been any information that will help integrate young adults that are not utilizing the library system, while keeping in mind that their schools are attempting to achieve the same goal. Mr. McConnell responded that the ideal is to contribute to their personal development in a library setting, and he noted that when they observed teens in the library setting, it was because it was a “cool” place to be and they had their own defensible space where they felt they weren’t being watched over. Supervisor Wray inquired about the acoustics in the buildings with high ceilings. Mr. McConnell advised that these issues are dealt with architecturally, and indicated that carpeting and fabrics help to limit noise levels. Supervisor Flora stated that you can not take one element and put it in our library system and make it successful. He advised that you need the entire combination of things such as light, children’s areas, coffee shops, etc., incorporated into a library and then it becomes a destination place. He stated that he does not feel that the public schools are competing with public libraries because when students leave school at the end of the day they do not want to come back. He indicated that he sees public libraries as a viable alternative to continuing the educational process but in a setting that is more of a coffee shop atmosphere. He noted that the library sites which were visited April 12, 2005 424 provided a view of pleasant green spaces and not parking lots, and he remarked that most of the local facilities front on a road or parking lot. Mr. McConnell reported that the successful libraries in Phoenix are situated near major traffic intersections, they are visitor friendly, provide adequate parking, are visible in the community, and contain covered entrance walkways. He advised that the majority of library visits are vehicular based and people do not travel to them on foot. With respect to peer library comparisons, Mr. Hidell reported that the customer currently thinks there is one library system. He presented the chart below which provided a comparison of the City and County library systems. Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Peer Library Comparisons FY 2004 Library Statistical Report Data CirculationReferenceTurnoverPublicTotalMaterials StaffCost of LibraryVisits Expend. per capitaQuestionsRateComputerExpenseTransaction ) (FTE capita per Per Capita Per capitaPer capitaPer 1000Per capita Per pop capita 1 City of Roanoke 3.173.470.400.861.11$35.02$2.990.42$11.04 2 County of Roanoke 11.137.970.662.461.02$27.11$4.610.48$2.44 4 100-250 K 10.706.891.412.682.67$40.24$7.070.74$3.05 population 3 Peer Libraries 4 Upper quartile 16.5010.922.933.862.98$68.94$9.790.95$3.05 3 Peer Libraries Note: 1. City of Roanoke Public Library 2004 Virginia Public Library Survey 2. Roanoke County Public Library 2004 Virginia Public Library Survey 3. 2004 Public Library Data Service Statistical Report Upper Quartile 4. Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings Roanoke Comprehensive Public Library Study Hidell Katz McConnel 4.12.05 April 12, 2005 425 Mr. Hidell outlined the following findings of the facilities plan process for Roanoke City: Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Scenario 1 (a) City of Roanoke Building CostPhase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase4Phase 5 Neighborhood Library 50,00050,00050,000 Kiosk 150,000100,000150,000100,000 Renovation 1 250,000250,000 Storefront 5,040,0003,800,0005,450,000 Super Branch Library Central Library (72,500 sf)14,282,500 City of Roanoke Annual Cost5,240,0004,200,00014,732,0005,450,000100,000 34 City of Roanoke Building Cost $29,722,500 Note: 1 Storefront lease space 2 Assumes addition to existing branch library 3 Parking cost for central library are not included 4 Land cost are not included Roanoke Comprehensive Public Library Study Hidell Katz McConnel 4.12.05 It was noted that under this scenario, some neighborhood branches would be renovated and expanded; however, kiosks would also be implemented at a variety of locations. In addition to normal library functions, some governmental functions may also be added. Mr. McConnell provided definitions of the following terms: (1) Storefront library: a very limited service library, typically seen in conjunction with village centers. (2) Super-branch library: a library which offers good circulation, teen and children’s areas, excellent vehicular access and parking, meeting room capacity, etc. This is a destination branch. April 12, 2005 426 Mr. Hidell outlined the following findings of the facilities plan process for Roanoke County: Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Findings of the Facilities Plan Process Scenario 1 (b) Roanoke County Building CostPhase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phase 4Phase 5 Neighborhood Library 50,00025,000 50,000 Kiosk 100,000100,000 150,000 Renovation 250,000 1 250,000 Storefront 2 Super Branch Library5,200,0003,850,0005,675,000 10,500,000 Central Library (60,500 sf) Roanoke County Annual Cost10,700,0005,575,0003,950,000300,0005,675,000 3 $26,200,000 Scenario 1 a and b Total Cost $55,922,500 Note: 1 Storefront lease space 2 Assumes addition to existing branch library 3 Land cost are not included Roanoke Comprehensive Public Library Study Hidell Katz McConnel 4.12.05 Mr. Hidell stated that in the County, the scenario is the same and consideration should be given to adding kiosks and renovating existing facilities. He also stated that coordination of some administrative functions between the City and County was evaluated and that rather than building six super branches between the two localities, it would only be necessary to build five. He further recommended removing technical services from the dedicated library space and incorporating them into a renovated building. Mr. McConnell noted that library space is costly and by placing the administrative functions in a single building, it is a more efficient means of operation and April 12, 2005 427 it prevents any single branch from becoming the “main” library, thereby treating all branches equally. He further advised that it is important to note that from the user’s perspective, it does not make any difference which branch is used because many library services are already being handled cooperatively between the City and the County. Mr. Hidell noted that Roanoke County is currently funding services for 25% of Roanoke City users, and Roanoke City is funding books for loan to Roanoke County patrons. Mr. Hidell recommended that Roanoke City and Roanoke County join forces to coordinate their planning, administration, and technical services. He stated that patrons currently view them as integrated, and he noted that there are some economies of scale that exist if the systems are consolidated. The facilities plan should address space and program needs with a full service delivery plan; technology should be improved by investing in a more robust operating system, material system, and public computer and multi-media technology; staffing levels should be increased in order to provide a high level of service; funding should be increased for all formats of collection development; and the libraries should model a retail customer service culture of service an programming. IN RE: BOARD AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Supervisor Altizer questioned whether the study involved an analysis of what would be gained given a certain level of investment in a particular facility. Mr. Hidell advised that the study did not evaluate site specific locations; it only focused on the overall delivery of services. He indicated that this type of analysis is something that April 12, 2005 428 would need to occur and it would examine the impact on circulation based on the level of services and amenities offered at a given facility. Mr. McConnell stated that the City and County share a long border, and this contributed to the reduced number of super branch libraries needed. Most of the branches are vehicular driven, so there is an opportunity to look at population centers to determine the best site locations. Council Member Lea questioned if this concept has been tried in other Virginia localities. Mr. McConnell stated that this is not an original concept, and many library systems utilize a main library and place their technology services offsite. He advised that sites in Arizona were visited because they are a thriving community and are working to improve their library system. Following further discussion, Ms. Rosapepe advised that there are 19 regional library systems in Virginia. Mr. Hidell stated that there are many formats that this cooperative effort could take. Mr. McConnell indicated that we need to determine what is best for our area and so far, an integrated, coordinated effort makes the most sense. He advised that there is no cost savings for combining the two systems into one; but rather, coordinated and integrated planning is recommended. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick thanked Mr. Hidell and Mr. McConnell for their presentation and also expressed appreciation to the committee members who participated in the site visits. He stated that he hopes this will be an opportunity for both the City and the County to look at serving the people currently using system, but also April 12, 2005 429 attempt to serve those currently not using system. He indicated that serving the public is what this is all about and not having young people in the libraries has a lot to do with the future of where the Roanoke Valley will be. He advised that he hopes this matter will be pursued because it presents a wonderful opportunity for the future. Council Member McDaniel questioned what is envisioned as the next step in this process. Mr. McConnell responded that the task was to examine the overall library system for what changes can and need to be made and to evaluate areas for possible regional cooperation. He stated that the City and County need to get together and determine areas for cooperation and begin strategic planning, or decide that this is a matter that they do not wish to pursue. He noted, however, that both library systems have to do something and it makes sense to do it cooperatively. He stated that he hopes the governments will work together to develop and implement a strategic direction. IN RE: CLOSING REMARKS Mayor Harris recommended that in order to keep the process moving, Council and the Board should accept the report and refer the matter to the County Administrator and City Manager to continue discussions with their respective staffs and library directors and report their recommendations relative to the options and scenarios presented. He noted that this issue can continue to be discussed at the monthly meetings between the Mayor, Chairman, County Administrator, and City Manager. He 430 April 12, 2005 stated that today is a good day and a great first step in moving forward. He voiced support for keeping the process going. Chairman Altizer concurred that the report should be forwarded to the County Administrator and City manager for review with their respective Boards, Councils, and libraries in order to explore areas of cooperation and determine the next step. He advised that the first step will be defining what the first step will be, and he thanked everyone for their participation. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer declared the Board of Supervisors meeting in recess at 1 :52 p.m. until 3:00 for the regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting. Mayor Harris adjourned the Roanoke City Council meeting at 1 :52 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: tl0 ,~. tl/};HV Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ~ vi- aIL' Michael W. Altizer ~ Chairman