Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-06-04 PM CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO June 4,2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the City Council information session to order at 5:40 p.m. on June 4, 2001, at the Main Fire Station, 300 "B" Avenue. Present: Mayor Hammerstad, Councilors Schoen, Graham McPeak, Hoffman, and Rohde. Councilor Turchi was excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Janice Deardorff, Human Resources Director; Jackie Rose, Youth Services Supervisor; Mary Norman, Library Staff; Donna Ainslie, Library Staff Board Present:Herb Bumgarner, Colleen Bennett(Vice Chair), V'Anne Didzun, Martin Jacobs, Ben Sostrin, Michael Peters 3. INFORMATION SESSION 3.1 Joint Meeting with the Library Advisory Board Mayor Hammerstad recalled that the Council had asked the Board to consider some of the major issues needing discussion regarding a joint library facility, should the Council decide to pursue it. Colleen Bennett,Vice-Chair,read the Board's report on a shared-use library facility (see attached). She spoke to maintaining the high quality of library service to the public as a common goal of the Board and the Council. She mentioned the research done by City staff and Board members into this question. She reviewed the elements necessary to good library service as they applied to a shared-use facility: accessibility, databases, budget(estimated costs), administration, collection development, and maintenance/security (pages 1-3). Ms. Bennett read the Board's findings and discussion of them in the report (page 4). She stated that none of the facilities that they looked at compared in size and other factors to Lake Oswego. She noted the Board's conclusion that the City should not further pursue a shared-use facility, which it based on the literature review, the City's budgetary constraints, the city's library needs and the Board's desire to maintain the high quality of library service to the public. Ms. Bennett reviewed a list of services currently shared between the School District and the City libraries (page 5) and ideas for future shared services (page 6). Martin Jacobs,Library Board, clarified that the dissension on the Board was not with respect to the report's contents but rather on how the Board should approach the Council to present the report. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Council needed time to digest the Board's report. She observed that, with a shared-use facility as a Council goal, it was difficult to simply accept a recommendation that said 'do not pursue it any further.' She spoke to obtaining considerably more citizen input during the process, noting that they have heard from the Board but not any other community members. Ms. Bennett concurred with more public discussion of the issue. Councilor McPeak asked who the consultant was that the report cited as saying that Lake Oswego should have neither a joint research nor a branch facility, and when was that recommendation. Ms. Bennett said that the consultant hired by the City gave his report in December 1995. Mr. Jacobs discussed the process used by the consultant, one of the top two library consultants in the country. He noted that their thorough study cost$40,000 and used focus groups. He emphasized that the report stated unequivocally that Lake Oswego was not large enough to support a branch library; it also made recommendations on size and location for a new library. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 7 June 4, 2001 Councilor McPeak asked if the consultant addressed a joint use facility. Ms. Bennett read from page 26 of the library consultant's report, where the consultant advised against a shared use facility for Lake Oswego. Mr. Jacobs asked if the District was designing the new high school library larger than it otherwise would have if there were no plan for a joint facility. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that it was a little larger. Mr.Jacobs emphasized that, based on its research, the Board felt unanimously that a joint facility was not in the best interests of Lake Oswego. He expressed his hope that the high school library design was not set in concrete before the Council made a decision on the joint facility. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned that she asked today if a joint library made any difference to the District's design. She said that the Council would pursue that question with the District at their upcoming joint meeting. She commented that her impression was that the District designed it to be large enough to accommodate a shared use as well as meeting their own needs for space. She noted that a second floor location put the library close to the classrooms as an expression of the District's mission for its library (that it should be close to the curriculum). Councilor Schoen asked if the Board felt that under no circumstances would a joint use be advantageous to the city. Ms. Bennett said that the Board felt that the library did a lot with the District already without physically using the high school library. Mayor Hammerstad concurred that the Board's suggestions about joint activities with the District were something that the City could do. She discussed her concern about how the City served the community. She pointed out that the existing library did not have the full array of services, which the Board had indicated (in an earlier discussion on a new library) were needed. Mayor Hammerstad stated the Council's goal as providing additional library services at an efficient cost, which would allow the City to maximize its dollars in building a new library. She pointed out that a school library was only open 180 days a year, leaving it sitting empty for half a year. She explained that the Council looked at this primarily as a means of enhancing library service for the entire community, in addition to saving money. She held that if they could do both, then it was a worthy goal to pursue. Ms. Bennett mentioned that one result of their research was re-consideration of re-starting the music and art display programs at the library in some fashion. She asked for more discussion with the Council before it made the hard decisions. Councilor Schoen asked for clarification on the comment that the current library space needs were for workspace, and not for shelf space. Ms. Bennett indicated that without sufficient workspace, the library service started deteriorating. She recounted her experience as a volunteer with the problem of inadequate workspace. Mary Norman,Library Staff, confirmed that staff did not have sufficient workspace. She mentioned there being no office space for a new reference supervisor without converting some of the public computer space into an office. Mr. Jacobs spoke to listening to the experts in the field, with reference to the consultant's report. He emphasized that the consultants found that a city the size of Lake Oswego could not afford the duplicate collection required for a branch or joint use facility, and that the lack of full services available at a branch would be a disservice to the residents. He argued that what the consultant was saying was that until Lake Oswego had sufficient population to support two full libraries, a branch was not a good option. Councilor Hoffman referenced the seven examples that the Board looked at during its research and the bibliography of articles on the pros and cons of combined libraries. He asked if the Board actually read all the articles listed on the bibliography. Ms. Bennett said that they split the articles up between individual Board members. Ben Sostrin, Library Board, indicated that he read all the articles. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 7 June 4, 2001 Councilor Hoffman observed that the article titles indicated a discussion of the pros and cons of combined libraries yet the Board's report contained nothing but the negatives. He indicated that, consequently, his reaction was that the report was a justification of a pre-existing position; the Library Board has stated over the last year that it opposed a joint facility. He asked what the Board's research process was. Ms. Sostrin discussed the examples that the Board found of combined library usage. He argued that none of them were analogous to Lake Oswego. He indicated that joint libraries were popular in communities without a main library, such as the impoverished community in Washington State, the Australian outback or the large dense impoverished urban areas (such as some boroughs in New York City). He pointed out that the joint facility in Scottsdale, Arizona served a community with a population six times the size of Lake Oswego and running 32 to 35 miles from north to south. Mr. Sostrin indicated to Councilor Hoffman that the report did not discuss the situations with positive experiences with joint facilities and the reasons for the positive experience, but he could provide the citations. Councilor McPeak commented that the Council would re-read their notebook. She observed that the Board's report found success in areas driven by budgetary considerations,just as Lake Oswego was. She spoke to separating out which elements made a facility work in a given place before drawing the conclusion that it would not work in Lake Oswego. She mentioned that one element might be the simple desire for it to work, which resulted in the community making it work. Mr. Sostrin commented that the one of the real things that made it work was no pre-existing facility. He conceded that that was not true of Scottsdale but reiterated that Scottsdale had citizens 25 miles away from the central library with no service. He pointed out that Scottsdale, although its population was six times higher than Lake Oswego's, had a circulation rate of 200,000 items, which was just slightly higher than Lake Oswego's per capita rate. He questioned whether those figures indicated that Scottsdale was serving its population. Councilor Schoen observed that the Council saw a joint facility as an interim or partial solution to the City's long-term problem. He questioned what the City's options would be if it did not issue bonds for a new library or library expansion for 10 years. He mentioned that the Council's intent during the original discussions had been to provide an enhanced research facility, and not to provide identical libraries. He spoke to that scenario as advantageous to both the schools and the community at large, as the City library did not have those advance research avenues or the space to provide them. Ms. Bennett concurred that enhancement should be central to the dialog. She questioned a joint facility as an `interim' solution, given that the District would not build it until 2004. She asked when the `interim' period started. Mr. Jacobs concurred that the original concept had been to relieve the pressure on the library and to move the research section of the library to the school. He mentioned that during their discussions with the library staff, they found no way of defining what a `research section' was, as the whole library involved research. He argued that moving anything from the City library to the school library made those items less accessible to the public, which disserviced the public. He indicated that they decided, on that basis, to move nothing out of the library to achieve that research purpose. He stated that their approach came out of budgetary restraints and costs. Councilor Hoffman mentioned the community discussion during the last election with respect to joint facilities used by the City and the District, including gymnasiums and a joint District- City library. He discussed a bigger issue of using a joint library facility to help break down the barrier between high school students and adults in the community. He mentioned articles on studies of the issue of why schools were separated from the community with their own libraries and facilities. He asked if those who worked on the bibliography found any articles discussing City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 7 June 4, 2001 the pros and cons of a joint use library in terms of the social interplay between the adult community and the children. Mr. Sostrin indicated that he did come across some articles. He concurred that there was a problem with adults accessing a library full of teenagers. He mentioned that the Lake Oswego library staff informed the Board that the high school students used the library heavily. He held that it would be easier to break down the barriers by having the students go to a community library than it would by having the adults go to a high school library. He observed that one reason for the separation of school and public libraries was their completely different mission statements. Mr. Sostrin spoke to doing a cost benefit analysis when looking at the shared use issue. He explained that a shared use facility could either be a full branch(which was cost-prohibitive for Lake Oswego to build) or a limited branch (which people did not use much because it did not have all the resources available at that location). He argued that, with the City library and the high school library only 1.28 miles apart, one library would see lower usage. V'Anne Didzun,Library Board, commented, from the school librarian's point of view, that a joint facility would be difficult, given the differing missions of the school and public libraries. She concurred that school and public librarians did work together in many areas but held that they would need to address all the items mentioned in the report,which would be difficult. Councilor Schoen noted that there was more interest and need for computer accessibility than provided for in the current library. He cited the sold-out classes at the Adult Community Center. He commented that the community could achieve greater online access through the school library, although it would be limited to access between 3:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. He characterized the 43 computers slated for the high school library as a substantial investment in something that could be utilized by the community. Ms. Didzun commented that approximately 85%of the people in Lake Oswego owned their own computers. She questioned whether additional online accessibility was that big an asset. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the percentage was lower among senior citizens, which was why they have seen the activity at the Adult Community Center. Mayor Hammerstad opened the floor to public comment. Sarah Chaplin asked Ms. Bennett to expand on marrying the collections and the cost of marrying the school and library databases. Ms. Bennett said that staff provided that information. She mentioned the importance of the funding connected to the LINCC system(County library system), which she held they needed to talk about. Ms. Norman said that the cost of integrating the databases ran from$30,000 to $200,000. She mentioned that the conversion of 20,000 titles meant heavy weeding of the collection beforehand. She spoke of the City and the District doing cooperative collection development. Ms. Norman clarified that as long as their library met the requirements of the LINCC agreement, LINCC provided the T-1 line and back up for the automated system. She mentioned one of the requirements relating to the statewide standard of a certain number of volumes per population; depending on how one defined the service population of the high school, staff estimated 50,000 titles as a logical collection size. She noted that they had to be open 10 hours a week. Patt Thomas argued that the public could not discuss this question intelligently without access to the reports. She asked the City to put the information on line. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that they would also include an access to the database regarding shared use facilities. Jack Radow held that most citizens were stunned to realize that there would be a branch library at the high school. He spoke in support of getting more information to the general public and voters with respect to the details of the plan in order to provide them with a basis for an City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 7 June 4, 2001 intelligent decision. He commented that he had voted for$85 million for a new school but he did not vote for a branch library in the school. Mayor Hammerstad spoke to convening a task force to look at the issues identified by the Board. She referred to the large amount of information available on line, citing the Washup library system, "the partners of libraries opens the doors of opportunities for your community." She mentioned the need for cooperation and support in getting things done. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the moving of the research collection had been an early suggestion, made before any research. She said that she was taking that off the table because it was not the direction of the Council's current thinking, although the task force was free to discuss it. Mayor Hammerstad discussed the possibility of funding through the use of the now expired school levy (which the City levied to fund extracurricular activities in the District several years ago); because of Measure 50, that levy amount rolled into the City's tax base (although the City stopped the levy two years ago). The Council would consider levying that again only for school- related activities. Mayor Hammerstad argued that this was a school-related activity,to which they could allocate the $1 million a year that the levy would generate. She held that this eliminated the argument that funding the high school library would take funding away from the city library. She emphasized that the Council did not want to see any detrimental effect on the current library from this possibility. Mayor Hammerstad concurred with Councilor Schoen that this opportunity to provide enhanced service was an interim, and not a permanent, solution. She conceded that they could not do this immediately but argued that it was difficult to foresee passing a library bond in the near future when people would have property tax sticker shock this year from the new local option and the $85 million bond. She characterized those expenditures as `worthy' from a taxpayer's point of view and indicated that the Council did not want to go any further for the time being. Ms. Bennett said that the Board was sensitive to the budget. She asked to hear more discussion of the non-permanent enhancement. Mayor Hammerstad said that it would not be permanent if the city got a new library. She held that it was premature to discuss the details at this time. Edward Collins asked what the controversy was, now that the Mayor has stated that they would not move the city library reference collection to the school library; the school could put in its own reference library. Mayor Hammerstad explained that the point was greater community accessibility and services. She indicated that it would be difficult for the school to give the community access to its library without a joint agreement. Linda Brown mentioned that the District told its design team to make community access available in as many components as possible; the design team has included a community accessible auditorium, a community meeting room and zonable security access to the library. She pointed out that it would take 25 years to pay off the school; they were designing it for a useful life of 50 years. Ms. Brown argued that there was plenty of time to discuss how to make the best and most creative use of the access. She discussed the space needs of the 60,000-volume high school library. She mentioned the district-wide systems upgrade scheduled for this summer. She said that, since the voters were paying for the improvements, the District would like to keep a dialog open with the City on how the community could best use the facilities along with the students, as the District would not use them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Councilor Hoffman asked if the Library Board could envision this as a win-win situation or had it found any basis in its research to say that a cooperative venture could work at some level under these circumstances, as opposed to simply saying 'no, we do not want it.' Ms. Bennett said that City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 7 June 4, 2001 she could not answer that question on behalf of the Board as a whole. She indicated that they based their recommendation today on their research up to this point. Mr. Sostrin said that he did not see a library being like a swimming pool or an auditorium; it was more than just books. He indicated that he could see the city making an agreement for community access to the school library computers without involving the city library per se. Mr. Sostrin indicated to Councilor Hoffman that, in his research, he did not find a situation comparable to Lake Oswego where the benefits would outweigh the costs in a cost benefit analysis. Mr. Jacobs concurred that the scenarios in which a joint use facility worked were not analogous to Lake Oswego at all; either the community was too small to afford a public library and they put their library facilities at the high school or there were significant distances between the branches. He emphasized that they came across nothing in the research that discussed the concept working if a community did such and such. Councilor Hoffman referenced the article about Fort Collins, Colorado, describing a successful joint use facility. Ms. Bennett pointed out that the Board went into the research looking for a way to make it work but that they did not find one. She indicated that they could do more research. Mr. Sostrin questioned what was the point of having a second full service operational library only 1.8 miles away from the current library. Mr. Jacobs suggested bringing the consultant back in to review the situation and to see if things have changed from six years ago. Mayor Hammerstad agreed that that was a good step. Herb Bumgarner, Library Board, asked how a shared library would increase the ability of the students or city library patrons to use the school library. Mayor Hammerstad said that it would be open the other 180 days of the year and in the evening. She held that an additional facility would allow for enhanced services. Phyllis Jacobs said that she lived close to Lake Oswego High School but she would have to use her car to get there. She argued that, once in her car, she would choose to go the additional short distance to the city library. She stated that it would not enhance anything for here, even though she lived close by. Linda Brown addressed the question of how the joint use might benefit the students. She discussed the need for a supervised homework assistance program, which the City library did not have the space for and the school library did not have the staffing for; however, the school library did have the space for such a program after school hours. She noted that the District taught the same basic computer classes as the City library and the Adult Community Center. Ms. Brown argued that they could consolidate services to keep the cost down and the service level up. She noted that the District survey found that 70%of Lake Oswegans had their own home computer, leaving 30% relying on places like the library for their computer access. She observed that having more Internet accessible terminals available would increase the community's use. Ms. Brown noted that one of the District's biggest problems was that 65% of Lake Oswego residents did not have children in school. She said that connecting the students politically and socially to the rest of the community was an ongoing concern at the District. Mr. Bumgarner questioned how a shared library in and of itself would increase the number of terminals available; any one could use the computers available at the City library and the school library at the right time. Mr. Sostrin asked if Ms. Brown thought that the School Board would favor public access during school hours. Ms. Brown indicated that the Board's initial research into that question found some hesitancy on the part of the staff because of the increased supervision requirements. She said that the architects have found creative ways to zone the security system and locate the City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 7 June 4, 2001 . library to allow use by the public during school hours. She commented that she did not know if the staff and the parents would be receptive to that. Mr. Sostrin said that he wanted to discuss actualities of implementation, not possibilities. Ms. Brown reiterated that it was a possibility, given the designs that the District was selecting. She spoke to having more discussion. Mr. Sostrin argued that the Parks & Recreation Department could run the city computer program rather than the library, in terms of accessing the District computers. He argued that Ms. Brown's example of redundant education programs was not apt because the high school would not let citizens sit in on high school classes during high school hours. Ms. Brown clarified that this class was for adults and teachers, and was open to the community. Mr. Sostrin contended that they did not need library involvement with the computers at all, as it was already happening. Mayor Hammerstad reiterated that the Council wanted to look at the Board's report before meeting with the Board again. She spoke of having an ongoing dialog until the Council made its decision about whether or not to go forward. She suggested including the general public in the discussion prior to that decision. She expressed the Council's appreciation for the Board's hard work, commenting that they had a mutual goal of excellent library service for the citizens of Lake Oswego, although a difference of opinion. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Oh&stl& Jane McGarvin, Deputy ity Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jul 17 2001 t e 927 V /e / ie H. merstad, Mayor City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 7 June 4, 2001