4/12/2005 - 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