Loading...
Minutes - Library Commission - 06/13/2012 Approved Minutes For the Boulder Public Library Commission June 13, 2012 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Annette Mitchell Anne Sawyer Celeste Landry Donna O'Brien Dan King COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT None LIBRARY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Valerie Maginnis, Library & Arts Director Jennifer Miles, Deputy Library Director Kathleen Janosko, Administrative Specialist (Finance) Leanne Rizzo, Administrative Specialist Mary Jane Holland, Children and Teen Library Manager Wendy Hail, Carnegie Branch Librarian CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT David Mallet, Budget Analyst Glenn Magee, Facilities Design and Construction Manager Jennifer Bray, Communication Specialist III CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Plass INVITED GUESTS PRESENT Dennis Humphries, Humphries Poli Architects Ozi Friedrich, Humphries Poli Architects PUBLIC PRESENT Alice McDonald, Gale Day, Anne Hearn, Doris Hass, Peter Richards, Eric Cornell, Judy Volc, Jennie Grisham, J. Nold Midyette, Mary McCarthy, and Anne S. Norwood. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sawyer requested that the item `Decide July Priority Discussion' be removed from Items for Action since it was duplicated later in the agenda, and that `Discussion of Commission Forum/Hotline' and the 'Retreat summary changes suggested by Landry' be added to the Matters from the Commission. As agreed by staff and Commission, `Rules of Conduct' was added to Items for Action. Commissioner King stated that he would distribute a handout with information about Priority Based Budgeting under Matters from the Commission. Commissioner Landry requested a brief discussion, about open meetings and public notice pertaining to the current meeting, be included before public participation. Commissioner Mitchell called for a motion on the changes to the agenda. Commissioner O'Brien motioned to approve the changes submitted by Sawyer and King. King seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Mitchell called for a motion to approve the request made by Landry. King motioned to approve. O'Brien stated that she had a problem with changing the format of the agenda. Landry clarified that this was a special case because full public notice of the meeting had not been provided- The public was asked to participate without full notice of meeting. She wanted to make announcement about 1 J what the public may have missed. Sawyer agreed to allow it provided it was kept to one minute. Mitchell called for a motion. King seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Landry stated that the meeting packet posted online was missing many documents and that there was an important discussion item - Humphries Poli sole-source option. She said that she wanted people to know that the missing documents are now posted on the website and include an email from the Deputy City Manager responding to the Commissions question about a hotline and another about a public hearing. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Doris Haas stated that she wanted to speak about Priority Discussion item #5 and that she really didn't have anything to say until that item was up for discussion. Mitchell clarified that this was Hass's opportunity to speak. Hass asked if the person who was going to speak on item #5 was present. Mitchell confirmed. Hass announced that she is involved with the movies at 1 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, a combination of the Library and the Senior Foundation. On June 24th, the movie is "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Anne Hearn introduced herself as a Boulder citizen, previously an architect by training and construction manager, mother of three children, and library patron of 20+ years. Her daughter is heavily involved in the Boulder Teen Advisory Board (BTAB). She made it to Washington for the National History Day, thanks to the help of many people in this building. She expressed concern about issue #5. She said that there seems to be factions here and suggested that there should be a more unified approach to building our libraries. She stated that sole sourcing seems to be the major issue. As a construction manager and architect, she said that she doesn't have a problem with sole sourcing but she thinks that the Commission is confusing sole sourcing with the selection of the firm that will actually do the work- She stated that you can decide you want to sole source and then seek the appropriate organization to represent you and to go through construction documents and build the building. She said that it is kind of being handled backwards here because of a 2008-2009 study that was done for the library. She understands that everyone is really happy about the work done by the firm but that this doesn't mean that the Commission shouldn't be re-evaluating that firm now. Right now the Commission can't base its information on 2008 because what has happened in a library organization has radically changed since 2008. She explained that firms that were in business in 2008 are possibly not in business or have grown significantly. They may have changed their approach and she thinks those things are really important for this Commission to be looking at. She said that she just really wanted to emphasize that some firms are great to work for and firms sometimes select to not put forward a proposal in one year because they know their workload does not allow for that and two or three years down the line they're looking for work. She said the Commission may be taking part of the creativity and analysis out of what we need here as a library. She reiterated that her daughter is very active in BTAB and is excited about a new teen space. She also said that it may be one of the main priorities, but there may be some more weighty priorities that are overlooked because of the time change and what is needed. She stated that she wanted to be really clear that in regards to hiring the firm and doing a good job on the planning end, or the front end, this is time well spent. She said that what she read in the information given is a three month delay, not really important in the grand scheme of things because we're living with decisions for 20 -30 years. Mary McCarthy stated that not everyone was happy with the work that was done in 2008. She thought that many people were severely unhappy with work done by the firm in 2008. She stated that overall from the public's perspective in her mind; it is unethical and lazy to not look for other options. She stated that she couldn't believe that the Commission thinks that it could get away with it. She asked the Commission, didn't they think the public deserve better than that? She stated that she was sure that throughout this process Commission has heard the award winning library design a whole lot. She reminded the Commission that they were sitting in an award winning library design, and the "salad spinner" hasn't worked out that well for the public for the past two decades. She stated that the fact that something is called an award winning design does not have anything to do whether or not it is a functional, usable, workable, safe, urban public library design. She said that it's merely an award that architects hand back and forth to each other but it doesn't mean anything in the overall scheme of things. She stated that Humphries Poli (HP) in general, having looked at far more of their libraries than she ever wanted to, lacks the proper experience to do this job. She said the majority of the work that HP does is new, rural and suburban libraries. She said that the Boulder Public Library is not new, rural or suburban. She said the HP hadn't done any true urban library designs and they've done few redesigns. She said that HP has never done anything this complex, urban, and political in their lives. She stated that the initial design ignored severe staff concerns in many, many ways and she didn't know if the Commission saw, but HP actually presented three initial designs before they gave the final design, and those three initial designs had wildly varied amounts of space designated for each department, so they didn't actually do any study of how much room everybody actually needed. She said that staff told HP that plumbing was needed for the cafe and it was put in three locations where you couldn't plumb the building. She said HP took away all gallery space in one design and thought it possible to get away with just hanging pictures on the outside of the spiral staircase, amazingly calling it a gallery. She said that HP put the BoulderReads! in the tiny training lab in one design and in another it was put along with two-thirds of adult fiction in the Boulder Creek Meeting Room. She asked, rhetorically, how much space does the program need? She answered HP didn't bother to study it and didn't bother to put it in their designs. She said she didn't want to get started on the inadequate, inappropriate, unsafe design that was put forward for the youth services library. She said that what is needed is an experienced urban public library design firm that knows that moving some bookcases and putting some paint on the walls doesn't solve anything. She said that what is needed is a design firm that has experience working in Chicago, New York, Baltimore, and places that deal with what we are really dealing with in this building every day. She said that if anyone thinks she doesn't know, that she worked in youth services for two decades here and she knows exactly what is happening to children and teenagers in this building. She restated that what is needed are experienced urban library design planners. She stated that HP gets it wrong and are incapable of getting it right. She said that every library she looked at HP got it wrong and cited that parts of the Broomfield and Castle Rock libraries had to be re-done by staff within two years of the opening. Having run out of time, she asked Judy Voic if she wished to continue reading her notes. Volc declined. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes Landry stated that there were some errors. She asked Glenn Magee if it is correct to state as a 'bid build process' on page 3 under the Priority Discussion. Magee answered affirmatively. Landry suggested an addition to the bottom of page 3 "Magee noted that the Library is not bound by the 2009 Study for instance the children's section doesn't necessarily have to move." Mitchell stated that in future typos could be taken care of without discussion. Landry also suggested that "King and O'Brien asked that the public have as much notice as possible of the sole-source proposal." be added on page 4. King motioned to approve the May minutes with those changes. O'Brien seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Library Update (from memo) Sawyer requested that the `Overdrive questions' and the 'library workpian' be added to Items for Discussion. Landry asked that the 'You're en-Titled program',' Virtual Branch Manager vs. eServices Manager', 'Reorganizing films by genre', 'Kadir Nelson', and '2 calendars' be added under Items for Discussion and 'Library Budget' be added under Matters from the Department. Commission Update (from memo) Landry stated that the item in the memo about the Libcom responses will be included monthly. ITEMS FOR ACTION Motion to Approve Warner Charitable Trust Director Maginnis requested the Commission pass a resolution to accept a donation from the Warner Charitable Trust. Sawyer stated that she loves when this comes up every year it is fun to get money from people who value our library and she looks forward to approving it. Sawyer made a motion to accept the money from the Warner Trust on behalf of the Commission and the Library. King seconded. Landry asked 3 for clarification about why the Commission approves this revenue but doesn't approve other revenue and expenditures. Sawyer responded that the Trust leaves the funds to the Commission, so it must accept funds. Mitchell stated that the motion still stands and asked for a vote. The motion was approved unanimously. Mitchell agreed with Sawyer's comment that it is nice to accept these funds every year. Rules of Conduct (13:20) Maginnis provided an updated copy of the draft Library Rules of Conduct with the track changes removed. She pointed out two minor changes that the Leadership Team requested. Deputy Director Miles stated that the City attorney approved both of the changes. Landry thanked Maginnis for making the change back to how it was phrased in the first draft for rule #2. Mitchell stated that there were questions about rule #14 regarding the collection of signatures. Landry said that she had expressed concern previously about this rule because she thought there might be a meeting in which people might want to pass around a petition and collect signatures. She said that the Commission thought that it was OK. Landry stated that she received an email from a neighbor that said come to this meeting at the library. We want people to be circulation petitioners. Here are the two initiatives. We could really use your help. The email didn't say come and sign a petition. She stated that it said everything but that, so she forwarded it to Mitchell and staff and asked if it would be a problem. Landry said that she received an email response from Sandra Llanes, City Attorney's Office, which said that staff should give the rules to anyone who uses the library, so that they are made aware that signing petitions isn't permitted in the library. Landry stated that she thought the Commission thought this was OK to get a petition signed in the library if someone had a political group meeting here and they wanted to have everyone sign the petition. Landry suggested that the rule be changed to say "Seek or collect signatures on a petition in any library facility except during a scheduled meeting with the site organizers permission" or something like that, so that people can collect signatures on a petition in a meeting if it's OK with the person who is organizing it. Sawyer asked how staff felt about this. Maginnis stated that she has never had a question come up about this and that the rule addresses the overt collection of signatures and petitions, up front and in the face of the library patron. Maginnis said that what may occur during a meeting is addressed by policy guidelines in which patrons who reserve a meeting room are expected to abide. Maginnis said that she has received no questions or concerns from staff. Landry stated that she asked Llanes if library staff knew that signatures were being collected during a meeting would they have to react. Landry said that Llanes confirmed that staff would have to react, but that to avoid this issue, all patrons should be given a copy of the rules beforehand. Landry stated that she thought the Commission's feeling was that it's OK to collect signatures if it's the appropriate venue. King asked if the rule could state "Seek or collect signatures from the general public on a petition in a library facility"with the understanding that if you are in a small group meeting, you are not the general public and have chosen to be there. Sawyer said she would be OK going back to Llanes to see if there is some way to accommodate a meeting where signatures are collected, but that she doesn't want it to affect members of the general public or library patrons. O'Brien stated that she echoed what Sawyer said. Mitchell asked if there was a motion. Sawyer motioned to table this item until the recommendation to revise rule #14 was worked out. King seconded. O'Brien asked if there were any other changes to be discussed so that the attorney only need be consulted one more time. Landry noted that the attorney removed the word personal from rule #17 making it more restrictive. Maginnis stated that it was removed to eliminate the need to discuss with a patron what is considered personal. Landry said it would be at the discretion of the staff to determine how to enforce this rule. O'Brien and King agreed with removing the word personal. Landry asked if there should be a catch-all added at the end "no one may disregard additional rules posted by library staff," (e.g. computer usage time). Maginnis clarified that those are procedural items not rules of conduct. O'Brien stated that she was not comfortable with an umbrella phrase like that. 4 Landry recommended changing the language under right of appeal to the third person. O'Brien asked if the right of appeal is worded, with the pronoun you, the same in the code. Landry said no, it doesn't use the word you. Sawyer stated that she was OK with making it more generic and not using the word you. King said he had no opinion. O'Brien said grammatically it should be third person. Sawyer suggested that Assistant Library Director be corrected to Deputy Library Director. Landry asked if there will be a Spanish version. Maginnis answered affirmatively. All of these changes will be submitted to the city attorney for approval and then brought back to Commission. PRIORITY DISCUSSION ITEM Commission Input on Project Team Recommendation for Main Library Remodel and Renovation Design Consultant. Humphries Poll Overview and Q&A (44:00) Mitchell introduced Dennis Humphries and Ozi Friedrich from Humphries Poli Architects (HPA). Maginnis welcomed Humphries and Friedrich. Maginnis asked the Commission to listen to an informal presentation about the firm's skill set and experience with library design and architecture. She stated that there was an action item before the Commission asking for support of the project team recommendation to proceed with sole source option for the design of the Main Library remodel and renovation of the children's and teen spaces. Maginnis stated that details of the project team's recommendation are in the memo to the city manager including specific qualifications, the competitive process, advantages and benefits of choosing the sole source option. Dennis Humphries introduced himself, a founding partner of HPA. He stated that his background has involved the design of public libraries since late 1970s. The firm's focus has been on the design of public libraries since the 1990s and has designed over 60 public libraries with the majority in Colorado, some nationally. Humphries said that he and Friedrich have been invited to participate in the Library Journal Design Institute with 6 top architects, 8 times, most recently in Denver. Part of the Institute is participation on panel discussions about the next generation of libraries. He also said that they were invited to the American Library Association conference to speak on future trends in library design in addition to the Risk and Reward conference held in the fall in Telluride which is intended to really look in to the future of the library institution. The firm is not only interested in library design, but also involved in understanding how libraries operate and the future trends Humphries introduced Ozi Friedrich, former librarian for 10 years, who holds a Masters degree in Library Science and in Architecture, and is now a licensed architect. They have partnered on a number of library design projects. Humphries stated that their libraries have been in a variety of contexts each uniquely shaped for its community. They are currently working on renovation of the Auraria Campus Library. HPA has designed libraries ranging from 2400 sf to the largest 180,000 sf at Auraria. Prior to joining HPA, Humphries was involved in the programming of the Denver central library. Humphries noted their collaborations and inclusive processes with great clients. He said that they don't think of any library they have designed as a Humphries Poli's library, but the community's library and they [community] designed it. He said that the best ideas come from the outreach engagements that are conducted during the design process. He said that they were very excited about doing the Facilities Sustainability Study, a very broad study looking at the branches as well as the Main Library. He stated that what was presented was a concept which evolved into the passage of the bond initiative. Humphries stated that he thinks HPA brings a lot of deep expertise to that level, but the Study is a concept. He remarked with regard to the Study that with more public, commission and staff involvement, it could change dramatically and be something much more exciting than what has been presented to date. Friedrich said that he worked on the Study with Humphries and that it showed concealed potential of the three unique buildings that make up the Main Library. He stated that this potential needs to be uncovered. He mentioned current issues with the building: site lines are blocked and things have accumulated over the years. He said there is an opportunity to sort them out and make this into a pattern that all works really well together. 5 He stated that designing the public process would be the first step to designing the project. He gave an overview of some of the different techniques they have used for public process. 1. Mindbreaking- which involves showing images from exciting libraries all over the world. Participants get sticky notes.to write down their likes/dislikes. These are put up on boards in general categories. Each comment is read back, giving all participants comments a chance to be heard. Appropriate for large scale projects. 2. Open House- beginning with a few ideas or spaces, tables are set up for each idea/space (e.g. sustainability features, building program, etc.). Participants are invited to come on and provide input at each table in a self-paced way. The session is open for 3-4 hours to accommodate schedules. Friedrich gave an example of an open house done for Carbondale; one of the stations had pieces of a floor plan that participants could rearrange. He remarked that this event was tremendous fun because it was a very creative community with a lot to offer, and HPA was able to take their ideas and incorporate them into design in a short period of time. 3. Charrette- involves bringing in lots of creative people and let their ideas come out for a very focused short period of time (e.g. over two days where participants could drift in and out, or for more concentrated, 3-4 hour sessions.) These work better in a smaller scale, i.e. addressed to library staff, teens, tech community, commissioners, etc. Participants may make models to explore ideas. The charrette can be focused on a room or space, or the entire building. Friedrich stated that an important question to ask is how to design the public process to address the needs of this project and that HPA is excited to take this as a starting point. King asked Humphries to address an earlier comment about urban setting vs. rural setting. Humphries stated that every library has a different context and requires a different solution. He said that because each is different that HPA digs deep to provide the right solutions and to get input from the community. Landry pointed out that the Auraria Library is a university library, so it wouldn't have a children's or a teen space. Friedrich commented that having been a librarian in an urban public library, he understands and has been under some of the same pressures that Boulder library staff faces. He stated that he knows the importance of site lines and at times defensible space. He remarked that some of his favorite work has been with urban public libraries (e.g. Denver, Commerce City) in settings with diverse people, of all ages, backgrounds, who speak different languages, all coming together. O'Brien asked Humphries and Friedrich to give a specific example of a really cool interior renovation. Friedrich described the Commerce City Library project which included a children's pavilion addition, a green roof, and HVAC system driven by geothermal wells. Sawyer remarked that the interior design of the Commerce City Library was very consistent with the design of the other Anythink Libraries and didn't require a different internal renovation. She asked Humphries and Friedrich to speak about other internal renovations that didn't involve additions or external renovations. She remarked that our library is unique and asked them to describe the ways they thought the Library is unique and how they would approach those differently. Humphries commented that one unique aspect was day-lighting and that a focus would be to maximize it. He said another unique aspect is the geometry which can be further developed in a creative fashion. He also mentioned the linkage between the buildings and creating a more intuitive navigation throughout the library to give patrons a better experience. He explained that the navigation could be designed so that people are not walking around collections, but walking through them to get involved and engage in the collections: the books, media and technology more. Landry asked what the division of labor would be between HPA and Group 3 Planners in terms of the 6 various steps in the process. Humphries stated that Group 3 Planners would only be involved, if requested, in the acquisition of furniture and shelving. Sawyer stated that the Study was a plan for the whole library and that this project is only a part of that plan which doesn't involve moving the entrance. She asked Humphries if only doing part of the whole plan presented a handicap. Humphries stated that he thought that looking at the bigger picture was a benefit. He said that the library would continue to change during the next 10-20 years and we have to be thoughtful of that bigger picture. He stated the best thing to do in a library renovation project is to think 5 steps down the line and not just focus on the task in front of you. Landry stated that she was happy to hear that the 2008-2009 process produced three different plans and a concern of hers was that staff and Commission would only get one plan. She said her hope was that whatever firm was selected would respond to various community concerns, resulting in two or three plans. Humphries affirmed that they try to respond back to the community. Their approach is to present multiple options. Landry stated that the Study only presented one plan which includes moving the children's library, a concern of some community members. She asked for Humphries' and Friedrich's thoughts on moving the children's library - where and why. Friedrich responded that they have developed a level of comfort with getting shot down and their method is to do an evolutionary process, developing ideas in parallel. He stated that there will always be strengths and drawbacks to any proposal and that an advantage of having public involvement as part of the process is that people are more committed to ideas when they are part of the process from the beginning. King asked Humphries and Friedrich to talk about the two most dissimilar libraries they have ever worked on, why they were dissimilar, to show the range of their experience. Humphries showed pictures of some of the library projects HPA completed including, the public library in Alta, WY (2400 sf), Green Valley Ranch Library (familyfocus, duet computer stations unique to that library), Delores Library (8000 sf, everything in the library was given by the community), and Wright Farms (45,000 sf, recognized by Library Journal among the top ten library built in the country since 2006). Sawyer remarked that she hasn't seen a lot of library design which bring the outdoors in and given where our library is located; the outdoors is a great value of our library. She asked if HPA has done any projects where this has been a priority. Friedrich gave examples of the Pitkin County Library renovation and addition (which is off a plaza that is part of parking deck). A key feature of that library are the movable walls to connect the community room to the outside), and the Bennett Library (which has a south facing porch feature). Humphries mentioned the Wright Farms Library at which a park was created around the library which includes an outdoor fireplace and seating area. Sawyer stated that her question was a little different and about how the outdoors are reflected in the interior design, but she heard from the examples, that Humphries sees the importance of connecting the interior design with the outdoors. Landry asked what Humphries and Friedrich see the role of the Commission as being in this project. Humphries stated that they would want the Commission's help in defining their role and that they are open to having them engaged as they would care to be. He described working with Commissions who were only interested in involvement in the final approval to a project where members of the Commission sat on a building committee. Humphries suggested that it would be great for the Commission to host some of the public engagement meetings. He stated that at this point they have no restriction for working with the Commission. Landry asked if Humphries knew of a project where a Library Commissioner chose the designer or sat on the selection committee. Humphries answered affirmatively. Landry asked how many HPA people would work on this project. Humphries answered that HPA has a staff of 21 people with a team of 6 people who have spent most of their career working on library projects. He said that Friedrich would be a key component and Humphries, himself, would be the principal in charge. He said they would draw from the 7 expertise of their team as needed. He said it is important to have a well planned building but it is also important to have it constructed on time and within budget. Commission Discussion and Action (22:00) Landry asked for clarification on the action that the Commission was expected to take. O'Brien stated that it was to support the sole source recommendation. King added- or not to support it. Sawyer stated that the Request for Proposal (RFP) was from four years ago and that she understood that the city manager wasn't asking for the Commission's permission, but that a point to make was that in the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) there were three situations in which an RFP was not necessary for capital improvement project of this size. She read the situations aloud from an email with the full text from BRC 2-4-3. She stated that the decision seemed to be based on the third point -that the manager thinks it is not practical or advantageous to call for a competitive bid. She stated that she was not sure that it's not practical or advantageous to do an RFP. She said that the Commission has one very good option, but that it doesn't know what its other options are. She stated that 4 of the 5 libraries toured were done by one firm so they have only really seen one and that the Commission doesn't know what it's comparing them to. While this was given as a qualification on the recommendation, it didn't appear to be a unique qualification to her. She said the disadvantage is that they haven't seen the work of other firms to know that HPA is the best. Landry said that she appreciated Humphries and Friedrich for coming to give a presentation. She said they may be the best, but she doesn't know. She said the justification for going sole source didn't seem complete enough. She said that she agreed with what Sawyer said about unique qualifications, and that Landry, herself, hasn't seen unique qualifications for HPA. She said that what is written in the recommendation doesn't seem like unique qualifications. She said that during a discussion about the competitive process for the 2008-2009 study [it was discovered] that there were only two firms who competed so she wouldn't call that much of a competition. She acknowledged that time would be saved, but going through an RFP process would still mean the deadlines could be met. She commented that she was frustrated because the RFP was supposed to be sent out by March 31, 2012 and the Commission heard the day before their last meeting that the Library wanted to do a sole source. Maginnis clarified that the timeline presented was not a hard and fast timeline and that the Library is working collaboratively with several other departments in this process. She said that the team has given its best effort to moving this project forward and that it is a number one priority. She said that along the way, there have been other projects that have bumped this, many of which have come from the Commission. She stated that the team is ready to move forward, to put this project online, to get this library's situation to where it can be a benefit to the community. As way to engage the Commission, she said that city manager suggested that this recommendation be brought to the Commission for their .consideration and discussion even though the decision is within her purview. Mitchell stated her appreciation that the Commission was asked to given its opinion and that Humphries and Friedrich attended. She stated that that a reason that this may have been presented to the Commission was the hope that they would be involved in the process. She also stated that she understood the timeline was not set in stone. O'Brien stated her support of the sole source and honoring past work. She acknowledged that a lot of work was done in the past on the Study and by previous Commissions and that she also believes in honoring professionals, and if the professionals are thinking this is the way the Commission should go, the Commission should hold that in high regard. She said that they saw some really wonderful things on the field trip and she liked what she heard tonight, which was a capacity to listen, and to bring in focus groups. She liked the idea of bringing in targeted focus groups, the technology community, teenagers, etc. and that this is not already a done deal with construction beginning tomorrow. She said it is really going to be open to what the people of Boulder want this to be. Mitchell reflected that opinion and stated as someone who was sitting as a Commissioner when the Study was presented, the Commission had been sitting a little bit further back which may have been the wish of the Commission at that time. She stated that she was happy to hear if they want to be really involved they can be really involved. King agreed with supporting the sole source. He said that it will be a robust public 8 process and staff and Commission are looking for somebody to manager that process. He said that HPA has shown that they are eminently qualified and that there will be plenty of room for input. He said that he has no expectations that there is somebody out there who could do it better. Sawyer stated that similar to the [Facilities Sustainability Study] Request for Quote (RFQ) there was a Request for information and Estimate (RFIE) asking for information and estimates which was sent to 18 architects and only got back two completed responses- She said that it concerned her, being in the design field, that the RFIE process was overly burdensome which limited the competitive process and resulted in only two respondents. She said that from a business standpoint it concerned her that the Commission was using it to support this sole source decision. King stated in support of respect,of work that has been done to date, he sat on the Capital Investment Strategy group that forwarded this bond issue to the City Council. He said that he toured the library with Sawyer and Maginnis, and he was one of the champions of having this project in that bond issue. He said that it was his understanding that this was a project that had been thorough; that public process had been involved and it was a shovel ready project, ready to move. He said that he sensed a desire to try and reinvent the wheel and that he would almost feel like he committed fraud if the wheel was reinvented now. He said it was an advanced stage project with a robust public process behind it. It had support and vetting. He didn't think that opening it to another design firm is going to add value. Sawyer stated that again, for her, the question comes down to it not being practical and advantageous to call for a competitive bid because the city guidelines say things like this are made competitive. She stated that she could see going through the RFP process that Humphries Poli may be chosen because staff is very much in favor of them. She stated that she likes proper process. Mitchell stated that after the Study came out there was a lot of feedback from different members of the public who felt that they hadn't been heard and she thinks that may have led to the desire to reinvent the wheel to make sure everybody is included. She said from what she heard, if it did happen, it isn't going to happen again. Landry stated that she hopes it doesn't happen, that the Commission does have more public input in this next phase. She said that maybe the Commission was starting off on the wrong foot with this meeting because it didn't have very much public notice of this sole source option. She stated that she hopes this is not a trend the library is going in. She said that she wanted to respond to Maginnis. She agreed with Mitchell that she didn't think the schedule given to the Commission back in December stating that the RFP was scheduled to be completed by the end of first quarter was written in stone. She said that the Commission asked every month about the status of the RFP and other things too- She said they don't leave staff with nothing to do. She said Commission wasn't only putting things out there, that staff was working on the Family Place Library and the Wilderness Place project, none of which they brought to Commission and whereas every month the Commission asked about the RFP and the Master Plan. King asked how Landry's comments related to discussion at hand. Landry stated that one of the arguments for sole source is that time is running out and Commission has been asking for this. King asked if she was trying to place blame on someone for running out of time. Landry said that she feels frustration and she is worried about time management. King stated he doesn't understand where this fits in with the decision that the Commission has in front of it; whether it is going to recommend sole source or not. He recommended moving on and stated that Landry had made her point. Mitchell stated that not getting some of the materials up in time was an administrative error and that it probably isn't going to happen again. She stated there were 13 attachments and some of the Commissioners even had trouble accessing all of them. Landry stated she didn't think any official documents went out that said sole source until it was in the packet. Sawyer asked if this was affecting the decision right now. Mitchell asked for other comments related to the decision. King made a motion to add the Commission's recommendation to the sole source recommendation. O'Brien seconded. Landry asked if there should be a price on the last page of the sole source form and that #4 said TBD and asked should it be filled in. Maginnis said that she didn't have that information at this time. Landry asked Magee about the cost estimate he had given and if it was OK not to put it in_ O'Brien, King, Mitchell voted in favor. Landry and Sawyer opposed the motion. Landry stated that City Council wants a statement of the reason for opposition. Landry and Sawyer 9 I agreed to submit those in the meeting summary. [The majority and minority opinions are appended to the minutes.] Matters from the Department Recommendation of presentation by Sharon Morris, Colorado State Library Consultant, on Strategic Visioning Colorado Public Libraries. Maginnis asked to schedule this presentation at a later date. King suggested and O'Brien agreed that it might be a great way to kick off the master plan process. Sawyer suggested the boards /commissions from the other consortium libraries be invited; commission and staff agreed this was a good idea. Matters from the Commission Revising the Library Commission webpage Sawyer asked about the Boulder Public Library logo. Maginnis offered to respond in an email. Sawyer asked if Commission was OK with Library Commission webpage proposed and that it be implemented. Commission agreed that it should be implemented. Parks and Recreation Annual Report Sawyer shared two copies of the Parks and Recreation Annual Report and stated that it was really well done. She stated there was so much that the community doesn't know about the library and suggested that the library do something similar. Maginnis suggested that they get together with Jennifer Bray, Communications Specialist ill and come up with something similar or even better. Discussion of a Commission Forum and Hotline Sawyer stated that she wanted to check with Commission about the email sent by Paul Fetherston, Deputy City Manager that said the city attorney said all commission business should be conducted at the meeting. She stated that while she recognized that this would be ideal, there are things that come up that she wishes all Commissioners knew about prior to the meetings. She said she still feels like it is a good idea for the Commission. Commission supported Sawyer in researching forum/hotline options. She will report back to the Commission. Retreat Summary Changes Suggested by Landry Commissioners agreed to table this until the next meeting. Priority Based Budget (PBB) Handout King provided the Commissioners with a handout and asked them to take minute to review it. He pointed out that in the library section, there is one program in quartile one and the vast majority of the library services are in quartile four. He said that he thought it was a matter that the Commission could have discussion on in the future and that he wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of the information. O'Brien stated that the Commission had seen it last year. Sawyer confirmed that library priorities could be discussed between Mitchell, Maginnis, Miles, and herself at the end next agenda setting meeting. Overdrive Sawyer said the question was regarding an email she sent in December that Overdrive isn't working well for patrons. In it she mentioned there are an awful lot of holds for books, and it doesn't work with Macs or lots of different devices. She said that since then, another library system joined the Overdrive consortium. She wondered how that is being addressed, that music and movie downloads have been added, and what the cost difference was related to the streaming things. Sawyer stated that she would like to follow up with some additional questions. Mitchell asked to receive the answers to address a Libcom [patron] email that she said she would bring it up at the July meeting. Maginnis said she would have a staff member follow up with more information. Library Workplan Sawyer asked why the budget prioritization was not included on the workplan. She stated that it didn't seem to her to be a complete plan. Maginnis responded that it is an internal work document that she uses 10 to keep track of all the projects. Maginnis offered to add the budget prioritization, but she considers it a core function of her job. She said the projects listed on the workplan are projects that are above and beyond her primary duties. King said it wasn't necessary because these are one time projects and that the normal work doesn't need to be included. Sawyer said that she this workplan was meant to help Commission understand prioritization of library services and resources, the big P plan, as discussed at the retreat. She said while there were some details, she feels like she getting the little p plan and not getting the big P plan. Sawyer stated that she didn't intend to pile a lot of work on, and that Maginnis should work on it as she can, that this was just feedback. "You're EnTitled" pilot Landry stated that she was intrigued by the pilot project and wanted more details. She said that she had five questions that she would email to Maginnis. Virtual Branch Manager vs. eServices Manager Landry said that she noticed that the name was changed from Virtual Branch to eServices and wondered what the reasoning was. Maginnis said that staff is looking at defining programs using the word service as the organizational chart [structure] is being refined. She said that she felt it was important to use the word services to define positions both for the public and to help the library workgroups to keep the concept of service in mind. She stated that it also helps the library to be in alignment with its peers. She stated that she thinks the Digital Branch Manager title is somewhat limiting; that this position will do much more. Landry asked if it was being hired this month. Maginnis stated that the job description was being reviewed by Human Resources and that a recruitment has not been issued. Maginnis stated that the Commission would be informed at the beginning of the recruitment process. Sawyer stated that the library hasn't had a Digital Branch Manager before, and that as part of the Master Pian, the Commission wanted it to focus on a digital branch which is more than the website. Sawyer stated that the digital branch was more at the level of a George Reynolds or Meadows branch. Miles stated that the position is a higher level position than a branch manager. She said it is essentially the same job description as the one posted last year but with a greater focus on library technology; all that has really changed is the title. Landry asked if it is same why does it have to go through HR. Miles repeated it was essentially the same and with more of a library focus. Miles said that restructuring is taking place, and oversight of the network and technology infrastructure is being handled by IT so that this position can be focused more on library services. Maginnis continued that the staff needs to look more strategically to the future and figure out what the best technologies are; that this is a position that needs to have more strategic vision in order to keep the library competitive. Landry requested a copy of the job description. Reorganizing Film Collection by Genre Landry asked what prompted this change. Maginnis explained that it would facilitate browsing and improve convenience to patrons. She said that staff discussed the idea and decided that they wanted to try it. Scheduling Change for Kadir Nelson Event Landry asked if the event was cancelled. Mary Jane Holland, Children's and Teen Library Manager said that Mr. Nelson had to change the date. Alternative film programs were provided on the initial dates for patrons who weren't aware of the schedule change. Nelson will be presenting two performances the week of July 24, 2012 which is noted in the updated copy of the summer programming brochure. Landry asked when there is problem like this does the library calendar indicate that an event has been cancelled or rescheduled. Holland said it doesn't appear in the calendar as such. Two Calendars Landry requested that the two different calendars in the packet be consolidated. She noticed that the locations had changed for some of the dates. Library Budget David Mallet responded to a request from Sawyer for information about the different funds within the library. He stated the library has two types of revenues: ongoing and one time. He explained the different funds within the library budget: library fund, equipment replacement fund, computer replacement fund, 11 capital bond improvement fund, development excise tax (DET), funds from the sale of the Blystat- Laeser House (intended to purchase additional storage for Carnegie.) Mitchell asked that this information be presented in writing. Sawyer requested the balance of these funds. Mallet asked that the information be requested by the Commission as a whole group and that he would be happy to provide it. Sawyer asked for the total DET/impact fee amount for north Boulder. Mitchell said that she will request that the individual commissioners submit the budget numbers they would like to see along with the request for agenda items. Next Commission Meeting (rollover items and date) Commissioners agreed to identify the July meeting date by email. Maginnis informed the Commission of the Civic Area Master Plan Open House for Board and Commission members on July 11, 2012 at Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art. Commissioners discussed possible priority discussion items including communication, more on capital improvements, Master Plan, virtual branch or eServices, and items on the list established in January. The priority discussion for the next meeting is: Discussion of commission priorities and an action plan for accomplishing them. Meeting Adjourned 9:10 p.m. Approved byG k / Date 12 Appendix: Priority Discussion Item: Commission Input on Project Team Recommendation for Main Library Remodel and Renovation Design Consultant Minority Opinion submitted by Sawyer and Landry to Miles on June 15, 2012 The Library Commission endorsed by a 3 to 2 vote the proposed letter from Director Maginnis to the City Manager to recommend proceeding with selecting Humphreys Poli Architects (HPA) through the sole-source option for design of the Main Library remodel. The two dissenting commissioners felt that the justification for sole sourcing did not satisfy the requirement of being "not practical and advantageous to call for a competitive bid" (B.R.C. 2-8-3(a)(3) and did not provide compelling arguments for the 3 areas listed below. The evaluation form also left the price sections blank. 1) Unique qualifications - The listed qualifications for HPA were design of 4 libraries and participation in a design institute and a conference. Other firms have similar qualifications; the RFP process would help us compare firms. 2) Competitive process - This argument is based on a 2008 process (with acknowledged problems in the RFIE portion) for a facilities study, not a remodel design, and which garnered only 2 complete responses (out of 18) to the Request for Information and Estimate. Only these 2 firms were allowed to participate in the RFP, minimizing opportunities for analysis, competition, and ideas. 3) Leveraging resources and time - According to the city's facilities design and construction manager, undergoing an RFQ/RFP process, as opposed to sole sourcing, would not jeopardize meeting the city's bond requirements. The noted savings of $22,000 is less than 1 % of the $2.45M allocated for this capital project; a competitive bid process might recoup this amount. Majority Opinion submitted by Mitchell and King to Miles on June 19, 2012. Mitchell noted that majority opinion reflects the opinions expressed during the meeting, but that Commissioner O'Brien was by necessity excluded from the preparation of this memorandum due to open meeting rules in an email to Miles on June 19, 2012. To: City Council From: Annette Mitchell, Chair and Dan King, Member - Boulder Library Commission Date: June 17, 2012 Re: Support for the Sole Source Selection of Humphries Poli Architects for the Main Library Renovation At the meeting of the Boulder Public Library Commission on June 13, the majority of members voted to support the selection of Humphries Poli Architects (HPA) for the design of the main library renovation by a margin of 3-2. Speaking on behalf of the majority, we believe that the City will be well served by engaging HPA in terms of expediency, cost and the final completed project. Dennis Humphries and Ozi Friedrich of HPA made an excellent presentation of the firm's qualifications. They are recognized experts in library design and trends for the future of libraries. HPA has worked on the design of over 60 libraries. These projects range in size, location and the nature of the services offered. HPA's work demonstrates a commitment to finding unique solutions that work for each community that their libraries serve. A large portion of HPA's presentation focused on the importance of a robust public input process. HPA stated that the best ideas in their projects come from the public input process, and then went on to give us concrete examples of where this was true. HPA stressed the importance of the public input process without being prompted. This is central to how they will approach the main library renovation. Staff has estimated that moving forward with HPA will save three months and $22,000 in expenses. Some commissioners believe that the actual time and money saved will be more than this. Regardless, a savings of $22,000 and three months is significant, particularly since there is no evidence that a better decision will be reached by extending the process and spending the additional money. Based on the results of the process that selected HPA for the Facilities Study, it appears likely that the outcome of pursuing a full RFP would lead us back to the selection of HPA. Additionally, the knowledge that HPA gained during the Facilities Study should yield benefits during the renovation. There was some question concerning the prior selection process both in terms of its thoroughness and its relevancy given that four years have passed. The majority of the Library Commissioners did not find these questions compelling. The Main Library Renovation was presented to the Capital Investment Strategy Group, the City Council and the voters as a project that had been well vetted and one which was ready for rapid completion. Second guessing the process to date not only disrespects the work that was done by former Commission members and staff, but it also calls into question the validity of the process that was used in 13 bringing the bond issue to the voters. The majority of Commissioners believe that the process to date should be respected absent clear evidence of inadequacies. At the Library Commission meeting on May 2, Glen Magee, from the City's facilities department, reviewed the nature of the relationship of the architect to the project and the justification for seeking a sole source option with HPA. His presentation was detailed and persuasive and we have a high level of confidence in Mr. Magee's perspective as our staff representative and expert in dealing with construction projects. We are confident in recommending HPA and look forward to their work in renovating the library. 14