Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-17 City Council (8)TO: FROM: DATE: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL L CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager June 17,2002 CMR: 296:02 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON COUNCIL ACTION BASED UPON. RESULTS COMMUNITY SURVEY OPTIONS FOR OF SECOND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the options provided in CMR:280:02 and the additional information provided in this report and provide direction to staff as to the projects, to be included in a November 2002 bond issue for community facilities or, alternatively, provide direction to delay consideration of a bond measure. BACKGROUND At its June 10 meeting, the City Council received the results of the second community survey on support for a November 2002 bond measure for renovation and expansion of various community facilities. Staff had also provided the Council with a staff report detailing potential options that the Council might wish to consider as a result of the survey .findings, At the meeting, the Council provided staff with additional options or variations on options that it wished to discuss at its June 17 meeting. DISCUSSION At its June 10 meeting, the City Council asked staff to provide pros and cons for other options for action on the proposed community facilities bond. Those options included: ¯Building a new Mitchell Park Library and Communi.ty Center and transferring some systemwide services from Main Library to Mitchell Park Library to CMR:296:02 Page 1 of 6 provide an opportunity to improve services at both Main and Mitchell Park Libraries (shown as a variation on Option 4 in CMR:280:02) ¯Developing a Children’s Facilities Bond that would include the Option 4 facilities as well as children’s classrooms at the Art Center (again, shown as a variation on Option 4 from CMR:280:02) ¯Exploring options for participating in the Art Center renovation and expansion project ¯Considering a delay in the bond measure to November 2003 Time did not permit staff to prepare a comprehensive discussion of the issues related to the Council discussion of June 10. However, staff will be prepared with additional information on each of the Council-identified options on June 17. This report provides staff’s summary of the pros and cons of the Council-identified options. Option 4 a: Move some functions/services from Main to Mitchell,.providing an opportunity to augment collections at Main : Keep full build out footprint at Mitchell Library (53,900 sf), but reduce programs identified earlier, resulting in 6,900 sfmade available for transfer of services/programs from Main Library. Possible service transfers would be back files of periodical collection, centralized reference and reference collection, local history area, volunteer coordinator, and other administrative functions. Pros: o Provides up to 6,900 square feet for new materials expansion at Main Library upon opening of expanded Mitchell Park Library o Mitchell Park Library becomes City’s most comprehensive library, serving all ages Cons: o Increase in intensity of use at Mitchell Park site; would need to ensure that services transferred do not exceed impact of those studied under Mitigated Negative Declaration for Mitchell Park Center. o Additional costs to retrofit Main Library space o Mitchell Park Library not as centrally located for citywide access Option 4 b: Children’s Bond Measure: Reduced Mitchell Park Libra _ry, Reduced Children’s Library~ Art Center children’s classrooms Note: Staff looked carefully at the opportunities for reducing the Children’s Library project and will be prepared with information at the Council meeting on Monday night as to why it believes this is not viable. The cost estimates in the CMR:296:02 Page 2 of 6 Resource Impact of this report consequently still reflect a $6.5 million cost for Children’s. Pros: o Arts community support o Survey shows support for children’s programs o Under $50 million o Public/private partnership for Art Center Cons: o No improvements to Main Library Art Center Options Do not include Art Center in November bond measure and require Art Foundation to raise any funding for project through private donations Pro: Less complicated bond measure and lower cost Con: Lose support of arts community for November bond measure, and possibly to raise $5 million of private funding Do not include Art Center in November bond measure; instead, Art Foundation will raise $5 million and the City will pledge matching funding to a maximum of $5 million, some of which can come from infrastructure fund. This commitment of matching funding is contingent on the bond measure passing. The Infrastructure Management Plan includes funding for Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Children’s Library. Staff estimates the total earmarked for these facilities as $2 to $2.5 million. Pros: o Makes the bond measure less complicated and lowers cost of overall measure o Gives the City 5 years to come upwith its share of the money o Retains support of arts community for November bond measure o Provides motivation for private funding Cons: o Only $3 to $3.5 million is available in Infrastructure Reserve that had previously been allocated to the Children’s and Mitchell Park Community Center and Library; the additional funds would have to be identified, and there are other competing General Fund priorities. CMR:296:02 Page 3 of 6 o Current Phase 1 project is estimated to cost $13 to $18 million; Foundation may need to reconsider priority of building new gallery space and then renovating and remodeling existing gallery space to provide classroom space and focus on the less expensive alternative of Phase 3 construction of classrooms only o Advocates for Main Library may prefer to have the Infrastructure Reserve funding allocated to Main Library renovations since it is also proposed to be left off the November bond measure Bond Election Timing November 2002 ~ Pros o Higher tumout election o A lot of preparatory work has been done o There is some momentum o More time will only create more debates and more options and more paralysis o Opportunity for compromise is now o Shows decision-making and leadership on the part of Council o No competing tax measures o Possibility of state matching funds for Mitchell Park Library Cons Has newspaper coverage and debate lessened support? Will a good campaign be able to be put together? If the measure fails what impact will it have on the storm drainage fee? Economy is stagnant, increasing uncertainty on the part of voters November 2003 ~ Pros o Storm drainage fee could go first o More time tomake a decision o Avoids tough decision for a year o Fewer overall issues on the ballot Cons 0 0 0 0 0 More time to debate Plans won’t be better by waiting Costs may be higher Unknown future issues may be competing on the ballot Supporters seem willing to compromise now, they may not be willing to one year from now CMR:296:02 Page 4 of 6 RESOURCE IMPACT The estimated resource impact of the original Option 4 (updated) and the new Options 4a and 4b in terms of capital ,costs for a bond measure is: Option 4: Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (reduced): $37.5 million Children’s Library:6.5 million Bond Financing:.8 million Total $44.8 millionCost per $100,000 of Assessed Valuation $25 Option 4a: Mitchell Park Library and Community Center: Children’s Library: Main Library renovation (estim.): Bond Financing Total Cost per $100,000 of Assessed Valuation: $40.5 million $6.5 million $1.5million .8 million $49.3 million $28 Option 4b: Mitchell Park Library and Community Center: Children’s Library Art Center matching funds ¯ Bond Financing Total Cost per $100,000 of Assessed Valuation: $37.5 million 6.5 million 5.0 million .8 million $49.8 million $28 Staff has presented an option of committing Infrastructure Reserve funds to provide matching funding for private donations to renovate the Art Center. Including Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and Children’s Library renovation and expansion as a debt-finance project provides the Council would have the following additional options for the monies in the Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP): ¯Decrease the amount of debt issued for the Mitchell Park Center and Children’s projects. ¯Allocate the funding in the IMP to other IMP projects, such as repairs to the Main Library and branch libraries ¯Allocate the funding to other new infrastructure projects (e.g. SOFA park, park. restrooms, etc) CMR:296:02 Page 5 of 6 It is important to note that the capital costs above do not include fumishings (an additional $3 million) or the operating costs for the expanded facilities. Staff will be prepared on-Monday night to provide estimated costs for staffing just the Mitchell Park and Children’s Library expanded services. Prepared By: Emil City Manager Approval: .arrison, Assistant City Manager Frank Benest, City Manager Attachment 1: CMR:280:02 Attachment 2: Proposed Reduction to Children’s Library Project CMR:296:02 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 ¯City of Palo Alto City Manager’s.Report TOi HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER June 10, 2002 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CMR: 280:02 SUBJECT,: PRESENTATION ON COMMUNITY SURVEY AND OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IN RESPONSE. TO RESULTS OF SECOND COMMUNITY SURVEY ON LIBRARY AND OTHER COMMUNITYFACILITIESBOND MEASURE .. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive the results of the second community survey from Evans McDonough, review the options presented in this staff report .for Council consideration and provide staff with any additional options for Consideration. On June- 17, the City Council will discuss the options for addressing challenges raised by the results of the survey and provide staff with direction as to how to proceed. BACKGROUND OnMay 12, 2002, the City C0uneil reviewed the scope of the second community survey for the potential community facilities bond measure with representatives of the polling firm Evans McDonough. The survey was conducted between May 21 and 31. On June ¯ 10, Ruth Bernstein of Evans McDonough will present the results of the survey, which are included in this Council packet. DISCUSSION Given staff and the Council’s commitment to proceed based upon the results of the survey information., staff believes that there are a number of options which the Council may consider, based on the results of the second survey. Some of these options include: ¯ Option 1: Proceed with the full facilities measure ($96 million) for a bond measure in November 2002. CM~:280:02 ~Page 1 of 4 Option 2: Proceed with the reduced facilities measure ($78 million) for a bond measure in November 2002. Option 3: Proceed with a $6 million bond measure to renovate and expand the Children’s Library in November 2002. Option 4: Proceed with a $42.5 million bond measure to renovate and expand the Children’s Library and Mitchell Park Library/Community Center (the reduced option for the Mitchell Center) in November 2002. Option 5: .Do not proceed with a bond measure for November 2002. A City contribution to the Art Center project is not recommended for Options 3, 4 or 5. The pros and cons of the various options are discussed below (pros and cons of Options 1 and 2 were also included in CMR:219:0, andare only repeated here if relevant to this discussion): Option 1" Proceed with the full facilities measure ($96 million) for a bond measure in November 2002. Pros." Significant improvement to library, recreation and art services in both North and South Palo Alto Cons." Unlikely to secure two-thirds ’,super majority" approval in a November election due to voter concem about scope and dollar amount of all of the projects Option 2: Proceed with the reduced facilities measure ($78 million) for a bond measure in November 2002. Pros." ¯Significant improvement to library, recreation and art services in both North and South Palo Alto ¯Smaller dollar amount than full project (Option 1) maybe more palatable to voters Cons." Unlikely to secure two-thirds "super majority" in a November election due to voter concern about scope and dollar amount for all of the projects Option 3: Proceed with a $6 million bond measure to renovate and expand the Children’s Library_ in November 2002 Pros." CMR:280:02 Page 2 of 4 ¯Children’s Library has highest support of all projects polled ¯Size of bond measure likely to be acceptable to voters Cons: ¯Not efficient from a debt financing standpoint due to small size of issuance ¯Does not improve the Mitchell Park Library/Community Center, Main Library or Art Center Option 4: Proceed with a $42.5 million bond measure to renovate and expand the Children’s Libra _ry, Mitchell Park Library/Community Center (the reduced option for the Mitchell Center) in November 2002 Pros: ¯Children’s Library has highest support of all projects polled ¯Mitchell Park Library is most heavily used facility ¯Mitchell Park project included City/PAUSD cooperative project for Everyone’s Homework and Enrichment Center, which is basis for State bond financing application ¯Size of bond measure may be more palatable to voters ¯Expansion of children’s facilities at Mitchell resonates with voters in second survey Cons: No improvements made to Main Library or Art Center at this time Option 5: Do not proceed with a bond measure for November 2002 Pros: Avoids potential defeat in November Cons: No improvement to library, art or community services in Palo Alto at this time RESOURCE IMPACT The resource impact of each of the options is summarized below: Bond Measure $ per $100,000 AV Option 1 $96 million $51 Option 2 $78 million $42 Option 3 $6 million $3 CMR:280:02 Page 3 of 4 Option 4 Option 5 $42.5 million rda $21 n/a PREPARED BY: Emily CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: , Manager Fra~l~ Benest, City Manager CMR:280:02 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED REDUCTIONS TO CHILDREN’S LIBRARY PROJECT BACKGROUND: Existing Building = 3400 SF (square feet) Program feasibility study = 11,885SF Based on current Alternate C = 10,435SF Because of the limited footprint, the feasibility study was a compromise in size. Space was cut down again since the feasibility study. DOWNSIZING ISSUES - STAFF RESTROOMS: Program called for 150SF; AIt.C cut to 80SF already Number of restrooms are set by code. If we take them out of the 2nd floor and basement, we may have to.add more in the public area. I’m not sure about this. ¯Time and efficiency are issues when staff has to travel to go to the bathroom ¯One library in the area restricts staff from using public restrooms for liability reasons (child claims sexual abuse by staff member for example). ¯Most libraries provide a staff bathroom. ¯Code says there must be a men’s and a women’s bathroom. We decided to have unisex bathrooms - one upstairs and one downstairs- instead of both downstairs or both upstairs. CONFERENCE ROOM: Program called for 250SF; AIt C cut to 150SF This room is really a multipurpose room for: ¯staff meetings .¯appointments ¯interviewing prospective employees and volunteers ¯performance reviews ¯a place for a bit of privacy ¯a quiet place to work on a specific project away from distractions of the open work spaces ¯volunteers can use it for specific projects ¯host meetings (example - Silicon Valley Library System Children’s Committee meeting which rotates from library to library/currently they meet in the Secret Garden and the weather is often an issue - rain, too hot) ¯staff meetings ¯small group planning ¯preparing for story time, after-school special, or other special event which requires a larger work space ¯committee meetings ¯as we decentralize children’s services in the new library plan, the new program coordinator will need to come to Children’s to work with librarians and will need a space to meet STAFF WORKROOM: Program called for 1048SF; AltC cut to 740SF This space will also be a multipurpose space: ¯house individual staff workstations ¯a large worktable for preparing flannel boards, crafts, bulletin boards, signs, and program material ¯paper cutter ¯die cut machine ¯a copier ¯storage overflow (see STORAGE below) ¯book trucks for reviewing damaged, outdated materials, materials to be repaired, looking a new material, ¯collection development material ¯storage of materials the librarian uses regularly in developing story times ¯besides some of the things noted above, librarians will also be planning and preparing in’the -library programs for various ages, selecting materials for the collection, completing reference questions, creating bibliographies, preparing for the summer reading program, making material displays, preparing for outreach programs, presentations, lectures, storytelling, etc., creating flyers, doing publicity, press releases, and monthly calendar of events, staff training, special projects and more. BRANCH MANAGER: Program called for 150SF; AltC cut to 110SF NOTE: This is 40SF smaller than current Branch Manager office. LOUNGE: Program called for 315SF; AltC has already been cut to 240SF ¯ the Stern Center is closed on certain days and the library operates 7 days a week and also involves some night shifts ¯it is common for libraries to have a place set.aside to eat and rest ¯ JANITOR: Program called for 80SF; AltC has been cut to 70SF ¯ Space is needed to store cleaning supplies of all kinds STORAGE: Program called for 600SF; AltC has already been cut to 225SF This is one of our biggest needs. Since so much space has been cut, much of what we need to store will probably end up upstairs in the staff workroom. Storage room for puppets, "big" books, pop-up books, books used for story times, gift books, perhaps seasonal books, posters, craft supplies of all kinds, props, bulletin board displays, flannel board stories, library reports, file cabinets for various materials, historical photos, scrapbooks and other materials, etc. PROGRAM ROOM: Program called for 1000SF; AltC has already been cut to 940SF NOTE: This room is really serving many different purposes. We are calling it a program room so people understand what it is, but we should come up with a different name so people really understand what it is. It will be used for .... ¯ programs for all ages (that will include a variety of story times, after school specials, special events, lectures, Storytelling Festival, etc.) ¯reading room during the day ¯after school study room with fold down tables . ¯can be used for non-library evening events (but this is NOT the main purpose of this room - it just is another way to maximize the use of this room when the library is closed ¯currently when we have a program, patrons do not have access to parts of the collection - people can’t get through to the shelves when people are sitting in front of the shelves ¯most likely, we will need to put some collections in that room because of the general constraints on space for the collection ....it might be magazines or international languages that are in somewhat less demand ¯having a dedicated program room will help us to maintain occupancy levels, release staff from moving furniture before and after the program which we now do many times a week and it would save lots of staff time ¯It was suggested in a letter, that we should use the Children’s Theatre forprograms. This is unrealistic for several reasons. Our programs are meant to be welcoming children, parents and caregivers to the library, to help children .feel comfortable in libraries, to learn how to use libraries, to highlight the collection, to help patrons to use our resources/reference materials/ computers, to checkout things to take home, to make them life long library users for their informational and recreational needs, etc. When one has a program elsewhere - and we do do this - it takes on a different purpose. The stage setting would not work when sharing picture books when the illustrations are of great importance but it would work for a music program, a puppet show, a magic show - the more entertaining types of programs. It also doesn’t work schedule wise. We have be generally unsuccessful in scheduling the Children’s Theatre for a Children’s Library program at any time besides the month of August when they are closed. We have programs at the same time. They have rehearsals and would not want us trooping through with an audience. It sounds like a feasible thing, but it really doesn’t work in reality. CIRCULATION DESK: Program called for 612SF; AltC has cut this to 475SF ¯ This is the checkout desk where clerks checkout materials to patrons, register patrons for new library cards, take fines and fees, answer circulation related questions, talk to patrons about upcoming programs, check for lost and found items, etc. Currently we have 90 SF and some materials have to be handles 3 times because of the limitations on available space. In the new edition, the. circulation service will be streamlined for efficiency and will eliminate double or triple handling of items. CIRCULATION WORKROOM: Program called for 664SF; AltC is now 290SF This will be where clerks check in the items being returned by patrons and from other libraries, answer phones, handle problem items (things coming back with missing pieces), processing magazines, gift books, items being taken out of the collection, evaluating damaged items and perhaps doing minor repairs, stamping date due cards, doing mailings, doing computer checks for various lists, and doing numerous other tasks as assigned. COLLECTIONS: Program called for 3686SF; AtlC is now at 3365SF ’ ¯The collection will be the existing library building with some in both wings. This will allow better access to existing collections. NOTE: The entire first floor of the old and new sections will be for patrons. The deepest value for the community is the collection and we have saved the prime space for access to our collections. But we do need staff space somewhere. It was decided that putting a basement under the existing building was not quality space and too expensive. So the decision was made to put part of the staff areas upstairs and part downstairs.