Post-Crescent Livestream interview

"Slow down, you move too fast..."

The City Council-appointed Capital Facilities Committee has been meeting for a year, working to determine the future of our library facility. It has now been four years since the Library Board asked the City to address the issue. There have been two major studies, funded by the City and the Friends of the Appleton Library, as well as Board recommendations. People often ask me what's happening --and the simple answer is that we're still talking about it.

The Council has endorsed the Committee's recommendation for a single library building -- no branches. By now, there is a lot of agreement that a new downtown library building would be best for Appleton, but the location and configuration are uncertain and the funding is a very big question mark. Given the many unknowns on this project, it seems like a good idea to keep discussing, learn more, see how the economy and other factors affect available funds, and defer any final decision. If a new building is by no means affordable, then we'll need to do the best remodeling and expansion job we can to address service concerns, add needed space, and increase efficiency.

There are many reasons why new would be better than remodeled, including greater impact on downtown development, best design for improved efficiency, a larger percentage of the project done with private funds raised by our Friends group, as well as more flexible space for future growth and changes. But after a year of discussion, there are unanswered questions about how we would be able to fund a new building as well as location and the architectural relationship of potential sites to other City offices. Thus the Capital Facilities Committee has gone on hiatus, but asked two task forces to do further study on building issues and finance issues. There will be no building or site selection funds in next year’s budget, and we assume it will be several years before either an expansion of the current building or a new library could be built.

A wait of a few years is not a fatal problem: we’ve always understood that this would not be a rapid decision or a quick implementation once decided. But in our current situation crowding will get worse, it will be harder to realize efficiencies, and well nigh unto impossible to realize some of the requested service improvements that would make this library better for the community.

As time goes by, with increasing use and flat or decreased staffing, efficiency will become more important. As time goes by, with continued inaction, the library will become less of a nice place to be -- not the destination this city deserves, not the community learning center it needs. Form follows function, but form can also constrain function.

So I’m a bit disappointed that things cannot move more quickly or decisively, but realistically, this is a hard time to commit to any big projects. We need to wait for an improved economy or more funding sources. I appreciate the hard work and difficult deliberations of the Capital Facilities Committee, and trust they will reconvene in the future, with better information, to continue their efforts. In the meantime, we need to keep studying issues and possibilities, while working with our Friends and others to help the community understand the situation.

Capital steps

The City Council's Capital Facilities Committee had a good meeting this month, and Chair Joe Martin assigned committee members to answer questions and share thoughts on a decision matrix to help determine whether Appleton should plan to build a new library or remodel the current facility. He will assess the collective answers of the respondents and use them to guide committee discussions.

I'm looking forward to seeing the range of responses from the thirteen member committee -- I'm sure there are many ideas I'd agree with, and maybe some I won't. Although I do not sit on the committee, Ald. Martin solicited feedback from Library administrative staff. Herewith, his questions and my responses:

---

Project Feasibility Decision Matrix
BUILD NEW OR RENOVATE LIBRARY FACILITIES?

STUDIES

Have the past two architectural and consultant studies sufficiently established the need to address library facility concerns?

• Yes – there has been a lot of public input, including scientific random input from users and nonusers, as well as architectural and operational analysis that documents real needs.

SITE ISSUES

What are the requirements of the users that may influence the site location?

• There are several market segments with identifiable site-related needs, mostly due to transportation mode:
• Automobile drivers need convenient parking
• Automobile and private bus passengers need convenient, safe drop-off
• Pedestrians, especially downtown workers and shoppers, need a site close to the central city
• Valley Transit passengers, including school children, need a site within a few blocks of the Transit Center
• Elderly, parents with multiple young children and handicapped, need convenient parking near the library entrance

What affinities to other groups are necessary?

• It is highly desirable that the library be perceived as serving virtually every demographic in the City. In looking at affinities to other organizations, public schools and other educational groups would rank high, as would other government (local, state and national) and a range of community nonprofit groups who would either use library space or do joint programming with the library.

Is the site compatible with the long-range plan of the library?

• The current site is basically compatible, but the current structure lacks both design features and space for current and future community needs. Concerns in the long-range plan would be most fully addressed by a new structure designed to address current priorities and future needs, but could also be addressed by extensive remodeling.

POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES

Are there potential donors to the project?

• Unlike police stations, water plants or other municipal construction projects, libraries have the potential to attract significant donations to help with construction. 25-33% of project cost is not unusual for public library projects.
• There are numerous potential donors, ranging from philanthropic individuals and corporations to grass-roots donations from a wide range of the library’s 86,000 cardholders.
• Realizing this potential will require considerable effort, and we assume much of the private fund-raising could be done by the Friends of the Appleton Library (FOAL) -- our community support group. Success of private fund-raising will be greatly enhanced by two factors: naming rights and perceptions of civic presence. A new library will have significantly more potential to bring in donations than a remodel.

Can revenue generation be used to fund the facilities construction or on-going costs? i.e. leasing OWLS, Literacy Coalition, other non-profits

• Some, although this is limited and related to project scope. Potential tenants among nonprofit organizations are unlikely to be able to afford anything comparable to prime commercial rentals. OWLS (the Outagamie Waupaca Library System, which provides many services to APL) currently pays about $30,000/year, and while this is on the low side of cost per square foot in the downtown, Appleton derives many benefits from their presence in ways that would be difficult to quantify in dollars. Likewise, we once housed the Literacy Coalition pro bono. If we were to house groups such as the Literacy Coalition or Multicultural Center, it would be due to the Library’s ongoing participation in and support of these groups as much, if not more, than for revenue generation.
• There is limited potential for commercial development to be co-located with a new library, but absent the involvement of a developer from the inception of the project, this would be difficult to pursue and fit into a structure.
• The most typical commercial activity found in public libraries is a library friends’ store, which will usually sell used books, library merchandise and sometimes have a coffee bar. This would be part of library space to supplement operating income rather than to generate general revenue.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Is there an alternate solution for solving this space problem?

• The only viable alternatives comprising complete solutions are either extensive remodeling and expansion or new construction. It would be possible to address some concerns with a smaller scale remodel and expansion project, but this would almost certainly be unsatisfactory in the long term and neither result in service enhancements the community is seeking nor the same level of operational savings to be realized through more comprehensive design changes.

Do the existing facilities need to be remodeled, or are new facilities required?

• Extensive remodeling and expansion could answer very well, but would neither offer as many opportunities for operational savings through significant design improvements, nor make as strong a case for private funding as would a new building. A new building could also spur other downtown development to a greater extent than an expansion.

Is the space currently available within the library?

• Neither space nor design features to meet the needs are available within the existing structure and the existing footprint.

LINKAGES TO OTHER PROJECTS

What effect will this project have on other projects?

• Much of the effect will depend on the nature of the project. For example, a new building would make the current facility available for other uses, such as a larger, more visible and accessible City Hall. A new building attached to this one and the East Ramp would likely require the relocation of Valley Transit. A new building close to the river front could impact other development initiatives.

Is there a domino effect where another building will need to be renovated?

• Presumably, were this building vacated by the Library, it would require some renovation for different use. While it is theoretically possible that some other building could be renovated as a library, this is not highly practicable due to design and engineering requirements.

THE SIXTH FACTOR IS ONE THAT LOOKS AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE WHICH IS THE PROS AND CONS OF REMODELING AN EXISTING BUILDING VERSUS BUILDING NEW

Remodeling construction during the operation of the library

• There are two scenarios: one where the library moves to temporary quarters and one where remodeling is done while library operations adapt. The first would require the library to close twice for two moves and maintain dual facilities, but remodeling could be done most quickly. The second would not require closing but would entail serial disruptions of various services, and add to construction costs and duration. The extent of renovation might be a deciding factor.

Disruptions, limited usage

• Disruptions and limited usage would be significantly less with new construction as opposed to renovation. There would only be one move and it could be phased to keep closed days to minimum. By tweaking loan periods and asking for public help, some portion of the collection could be moved by patrons checking items out from the old library and returning them to the new.

• The advantages here are relatively short-term, but would result in some operational cost impacts for about two years of any project.

Adapting current spaces vs. designing

• There are some substantive advantages to designing new vs. remodeling. The first is in better opportunities to design spaces to meet current and anticipated future needs, rather than adapting. New design offers greater possibilities for efficiency, ease of use, and meeting community needs. Adapting will necessarily require a greater degree of compromise. The goal is to provide the best possible public service, knowing that staffing and operational resources will be limited over the long term.

Community perceptions / values / civic presence / identity

• The second advantage to new design is the message we send to – and the presence we create in -- the community. A highly visible and substantial investment in this public service makes a clear statement that this city values education, family, opportunity and community space. It says that we value our downtown and will invest in its success, creating better destinations for people, and more reasons to be part of Appleton. The library is a gateway to knowledge, opportunity and community, as well as to our downtown.
• A corollary benefit is the opportunity to create as sustainable and green a building as makes sense for operational needs and costs: as an educational and highly visible public space, this creates a statement of community values and concern for the future.

A Capital Idea!

Our City Council’s Capital Facilities Committee is about to resume deliberations on the future of the library. The committee is slightly reconstituted, with a few new members and under the leadership of new Council President, Alderperson Joe Martin. Having already decided that Appleton will continue to pursue a single downtown facility and not add any branches at this time, the committee will take up the decision about remodeling vs. building new.

The Library Board, in reviewing the studies done in 2008 and 2009, has twice endorsed the concept of a new building as likely being the most cost-effective way to address current concerns and meet future operational needs. I also tend to favor the idea of a new building for two main reasons.

The first is because I think we can more effectively provide service into the future by designing rather than by adapting. While we can effectively adapt current space, we could more effectively design for 21st century services rather than shoe-horning them to fit. We could design spaces for meetings, technology, and reading, as well as areas for people and materials. We could more readily build for an automated materials handling system to save significant staff time. And we could work to create spaces that would serve public needs with minimal staff. Along the same line, by building new we can more effectively make Appleton’s most heavily used public building into a green building as an example demonstrating sustainability.

The second reason is that I believe a new building would more effectively capture the imagination of the community and generate donations to help with the construction. It would provide more opportunities to promote downtown development and create both a civic presence and a clear identity as a “center of community life”, in the words of our mission statement.

Although the world is always changing and information is becoming more electronic, libraries have endured for thousands of years. In fact, libraries are becoming more heavily used as people appreciate that all learning does not happen when someone sits alone at their personal computer. As important as our home and office computers are, not everyone has them, nor expertise, nor specialized resources. Libraries provide computers and media technology labs where people can work together and get instructions, as well as opportunities for many other kinds of learning that do not depend on machinery. Learning happens when people come together, and public libraries are growing in importance as community learning centers, where people of all ages gain life-transforming knowledge and skills.

It’s the vision of community learning and the public statement of the values of this community that I hope would encourage donors to support a new library. We know that while remodeling might be done with tax dollars alone, it could be an expensive band-aid. The library staff is by no means categorically opposed to remodeling, if it could be done to truly meet the community’s long-term library service needs. It’s not really about a building: it’s about meeting community needs and improving the quality of life by lifting up our values of what Appleton is and should be.

CFC: no branch libraries

On Feb. 1, the City Council-appointed Capital Facilities Committee voted 8-0 to continue with a single central library in Appleton, rather than to seek to develop any branches. This decision now goes to the Council's Administrative Services Committee, for action on Feb. 10, and then to the full Common Council on Feb. 17, unless referred back to the CFC.

This is the presentation I gave to the Committee, slightly modified to include some of the discussion that accompanied it. This slideshow summarizes the two facility studies from 2008 & 2009, along with the recommendations from the Library Board & staff.

Capital Facilities Committee 100201rev

10 building project misconceptions

We have a Frequently Asked Questions section on our website addressing library facility issues, but maybe we should refine it with a Frequently Observed Misconceptions section. Here's a few of the things I seem to hear or notice:

1. It's a done deal - Hardly! If it were, I'd have a lot less work to do. As of now, the City Council's Capital Facilities Committee is reviewing the situation and considering recommendations, but the City has made no decision. The amount of future dollars committed = zero. Are there a lot of people, including the Library Board, the Mayor, and me, who think that a new building is likely the best way to go for our community? Yep. Does that constitute a decision? Nope. A decision is a long way off, and any big changes are years away.


2. It's a lost cause - Hardly! See above. The fact is that the Mayor and Council have chosen to delay further expenses for at least a year. But committees are still working to find the best path forward and make recommendations. We know our Friends are organizing to plan for some fund-raising, to be ready when the time comes. A delay by Council and a few letters to the editor by opponents does not end the discussion.
   


3. It's all about space, so the cheaper space the better - no, it's all about providing library service to the community, as effectively and efficiently as possible for current and future needs. For sure, space is a big part of that, but efficiently designed spaces -- to make the most of our staff and volunteers, better security, better use of technology, and readily accessible low maintenance public meeting spaces -- are just important as square footage. A lot of the discussion in the past year was how to meet increasing service needs without increasing staff. Better design will be a big piece of that.
   


4. Branches would be better - Not quite. Branches would be cheaper to construct, offer neighborhood services and the Holy Grail known as "free parking." But branches would be more expensive over the long run, due to duplicated buildings, equipment, staff functions, collections, data services, and the new cost of transporting items among multiple locations. I love branch libraries, but they're not a cost saver: the neighborhood service aspect has to be worth the additional costs they bring. And they do nothing to fix the flaws and inefficiencies of our current building, designed decades ago for 20th century concerns.
   


5. You should move into the City Center (downtown mall) -- it's empty. No, it's not. There are a few empty storefronts, but the six floors of City Center West (the Prange building) are full, and the two floors of City Center East (the Gimbel's building) are pretty full. There's not enough room in the City Center for our overall operations, and splitting off any portion, such as meeting rooms, offices or technical services would add to operating inefficiencies and cost more in the long run. Splitting off the children's area or program space would divide families. Moving the whole operation into any other building not designed as a library is almost impossible from a safety engineering point of view. Book stacks are really heavy and require special construction to support them; even if the City Center were empty, it wouldn't make a good library building.
   


6. You should just add a third floor to the current building - again from an engineering point of view this is not workable. The foundation footings would not take the weight of a third floor. This building was expandable -- to a limited extent, and we're close to those limits. Without expanding our footprint, we could only add 12,000 square feet -- an expensive band-aid, and five years later we'd be having the same conversation. I'd also be concerned about staffing a building with three stories and a lower level; it sounds more inefficient than what we've got.
   


7. Electronic books/Google are making libraries obsolete - community wifi or computer labs would be better - This idea is characteristic of a limited, and flawed, conception of what public libraries are, and what this library is. The Internet, Google and electronic books have changed how we work, and will continue to do so. But libraries have been around for millenia and have evolved with society. We're not a book warehouse, not a computer lab. You can look up information online, but you can't replace our essential function by sitting at home with your computer. We're a community center, a place where people gather. Specifically, we're a community learning center. Paper books are not going away any time soon. Not everyone has a computer with high-speed Internet, and not everyone is proficient in using online resources. We're one of the busiest buildings in town and getting busier. Thousands attend our programs, bring their children, meet friends, ask for help, read, discuss, and learn. Libraries build community, change lives, and encourage the heart.
   


8. You shouldn't tear down the current library - some folks seem concerned we're planning this, but no-one has ever suggested tearing down this building. If we don't expand on site, and if this building were not used for other City offices, it could be sold and put back on the tax rolls.
   


9. You're planning to spend $40 or $50 million, and the taxpayers can't afford it - No, we're not, and I don't know. The rough estimate to build and furnish a new building would be $33 million or to remodel, $26 million. If the library were required to build its own parking structure as integral to the building, that would be an additional cost. We can assume that private funding will be needed to provide some percentage of the total cost; nationally 25% is pretty typical. And the City cannot tax any more than they normally would to build a library (unless citizens vote to do so in a referendum), so they would have to figure out how to finance it before we go ahead.
   


10. With the economy so bad, this is no time to be planning a building - On the contrary, it's a pretty good time to plan, to have the philosophical discussions about what we want and how to do it. You don't have to tell us the economy is bad; our use has grown even faster during the recession. Better times are coming, and when we can afford to go ahead, we'd like to be ready.
    

Library building: where it's at

Many folks are asking about the status of a potential library building project, as the City Council is close to adopting the budget for next year. In brief (with thanks to Library Board President Liz Witek for supplying some of these ideas & words):

• Some people seem to frame the question as one of space, and the most affordable space. From our point of view, the discussion is not about space – it’s about how to provide efficient 21st library service: well-designed space for current and future needs is one aspect of that.
  
• We'll need to meet rising demands without planning to significantly increase staff, and we recognize that the design concepts of the current building are not ideally suited to current and future concerns. We know that operating costs for the life of any building are substantially more than construction costs, and we need to give the most service at the lowest cost.
  
• Remodeling the current building is still a viable option, though perhaps less than ideal for long-term operational efficiency. From a structural engineering viewpoint, we can only add about 12,000 sq ft to our existing footprint – no third floor; the building footings would not support it.
  
• The Council's Administrative Services Committee has moved Site Selection money set out in the Mayor’s budget from 2010 to 2011.
• We know it's frustrating for library supporters to be on hold after three years of Library Board discussion, a lot of public involvement, two years of Council-approved studies assessing citizens’ library needs and library facility concerns, and getting two nearly identical recommendations…
• …but we recognize the need to be extra cautious in these difficult financial times,
  
• ...and we can use the extra time as a really good opportunity to
• help the Council and the people of Appleton to assess how and why two separate studies recommended what they did, and to
  
• see how library needs fit into the as-yet unpublished Facilities Master Plan for Appleton
  
• so we can all reach the best long-term decision for the City.
• We often hear that potential donors will need a firm commitment from the City before we can mount an effective capital campaign for private funds to supplement public dollars.
• We're often asked how much donors will contribute, and we don't know. Other communities have funded 25% of capital costs from donors, but we may want to do a feasibility study.

If that's "in brief", anyone still reading is probably glad I didn't discuss it at length, but comments are always welcome!

Mayor discusses library future

Today's Post-Crescent published an extensive interview with the Mayor: "Q&A: Mayor Tim Hanna talks about future for Appleton Public Library", including such topics as:

• including the site selection money in the budget
• whether the site selection money means a project is any more likely to happen
• if the city eventually is going to need a bigger library or a new library
• if he has an idea of what the public-private funding split would be
• figuring out a cost estimate
• which has to come first, the public funding or the private funding
• whether the library should remain downtown
• if the decision could eventually go to a referendum

He included some noteworthy points about the wisdom of having the discussion at this time. A number of people in the newspaper's online forums are denigrating the whole discussion. But I accept that construction is years away and agree with the Mayor's statements:

In fact, in an economy like this, now's the time to do the planning.

It's not the capital costs. It's the operating costs. You can plan for the capital costs.

We've got state levy limits. We've got local levy limits. We've got fund balance requirements. We have built a long list of requirements. So should it go to referendum as long as we stay within the framework that we built and we're not busting the bank and we're not asking to raise taxes significantly?

Some of the main opposing arguments seem to be:

• libraries are no longer relevant
• this will require a significant tax increase
• the priority is to save construction dollars, whether by remodeling or setting up branches
  

I disagree. Libraries have become increasingly relevant in the Internet age and are important as community learning centers offering equal opportunities for everyone. And Appleton is very restrictive in spending as the Mayor notes: taxes can only go up within strict constraints, whether or not a library is built.

It might be that remodeling would be a better option -- the jury is out. But we absolutely need to keep operating costs in mind, and design not only an attractive facility but one that creates maximum efficiency and lowest possible operating costs for growing service demands. Neither can we just move into [insert vacant building name here], because it's not about space, it's about library service.

Building dialog, some Q&A

Responding to questions asked by Ed Thomas in the online forums of the Post-Crescent:

Doesn't the Library Board have a clue to what's going on, and what the public apparently feels about their grandiose desires? Didn't they get the message?

The Library Board gets messages from online forums (including the Post-Crescent), from their phone calls and emails, from their friends and neighbors, from our elected officials, from library staff, from usage data, from community surveys, from focus groups, public meetings, and cost studies -- among other sources.

Have they taken a realistic look at the economy and state of employment in the Valley?

I think they are very well-acquainted and realistic, partly because of the impact of the economy on library use, and mostly because they are a connected and aware group of citizens. The first question is what's needed, and the second is how to afford it. I think everybody involved accepts the fact that we should not expect some significant tax increase to pay for this. But the fact is that cities build buildings, and pay for them using their debt service. Any amount added to the debt service for the library would have to be affordable within the constraints of state and local rules -- and Appleton is conservative about debt spending and tax increases. Beyond that, private dollars would be needed.

Why not, when it can be afforded, add to the existing building? Oh, it just doesn't fit our needs and programs. Then restrict your needs, and cut programs.

We’re not talking about the library’s needs for the library. We’re talking about the public’s needs for learning opportunities, for information, for meeting places, for cultural opportunities. We’re talking about family-oriented community learning, which this community seems to want and need more of. We’re talking about how to provide that service in the most cost-effective manner.

Why not add to the existing building?

We've always said that this is a viable option. But the preferred option would be a new building for two reasons: operational cost-savings and the opportunity to make a more positive developmental impact. There would be some savings in remodeling, but those would likely not be a long-term savings as a remodeled and expanded structure would be less efficient

You want a new building?

Not necessarily, but as stated above, it is likely advisable as more upfront investment could result in long-term savings, and have a better impact on the downtown and the whole community.

What do you plan to do with the existing one?

The City would have a couple of options. The present building would be a better City Hall than a library, and would address both space needs and citizen access concerns for the City. If located adjacent, a library and City Hall could more readily share some resources. Contrariwise, they could sell it as office space and return it to the tax rolls.

You need more space?

Library concerns are partly about space, and partly about good design for security and efficiency in providing 21st century services.

There are a lot of vacant store fronts around the City to set up neighborhood centers. Have you even considered that as an option?

You bet! It was my preferred option. I love branch libraries – for the community center, neighborly atmosphere they have. But the cold reality is that they are more expensive. The cost to maintain and sustain additional structures, as well as the cost to duplicate equipment, collections and staff functions, will quickly outweigh any savings in construction cost. A single facility, designed for efficiency will be best.

Obviously they would take private, taxpaying, property over for a new building. That is a hidden addition to our taxes.

Not necessarily nor obviously – it could be done on publicly owned land; there are a couple of options. And if privately owned land is taken off the tax rolls, that cost should be considered; no-one proposes hiding it. But now you’re talking about a site selection process, which we’re saying deserves considered open public debate.

Do you remember the School referendum? It lost.

I've been around awhile. I remember numerous referenda that have lost and numerous that have passed. This isn't a school issue.

Community space

Our library provides meeting spaces for community groups as one of our essential services. At Monday's meeting of the Capital Facilities Committee, examining the need for a new library building, one of our Alderpersons questioned plans to include expanded meeting spaces, asking:

"Why should the library incorporate everything for everyone? Why should the taxpayers pay for this when other structures exist? Why did the library provide space for a state legislator's listening session?"

Thankfully, another Alderperson, Michael Meyer, had a good answer, showing a strong understanding of the importance of public spaces in a public library. He said many of the same things I would say.

My answer is that of course we are not incorporating everything for everyone. We are doing specific things for specific reasons, in this case providing public gathering spaces to community groups, educational and cultural presentations, government, and library programs. I think we're doing it for some well considered reasons:

• It's our mission: "The Appleton Public Library is a center of community life, offering opportunities to learn, know, gather, and grow."
• Public libraries support democracy and democratic processes
• we're the new town square
• we're neutral ground, not on one side of issues
  
• we are freely accessible -- the ability to use the library is not dependent on ability to pay
• we promote free speech in collections and policies
  
• we promote access to information -- and public access to government, including legislators, congressional representatives, schools, and local, state and national committees and boards
• We're a well-known gathering place for all ages -- children, parents, seniors and families -- as well as all socioeconomic groups, all religions, all ethnic groups, all political viewpoints. The library is visibly for everyone
  
• We support community groups, through providing resources, information, a place to post public notices, as well as a place to gather
• Meeting spaces are integrated with library services:
• we provide library programs, and educational and cultural events, for all ages
• we provide a great many programs in collaboration with other organizations -- often the schools, but also colleges, the Multicultural Center, hospitals, social service agencies, and coalitions like the Project Promise Poverty group, and MoneySmart Week.
• we view collaborations and other meeting room use as an opportunity to help people become aware of books,reading, and other library materials and services -- once we've got them in the door, I love it if they walk out carrying a book!
• Our rooms are heavily used by a broad cross-section of the community: when I looked at several years of records, I found many uses by the local school district and various aspects of government (chiefly local), but also scouts, 4-H, religious groups, the League of Women Voters -- the list is LONG!
• Use is growing steadily over the long term, despite the fact that we have to turn groups away with no space available an impose limits both on the types of users and number of uses. We have a supply and demand issue and a staff cost to meet the demand.
• A new or updated building would allow for:
• Expanded meeting room hours -- available before and after library hours if designed for secure access
• Permanently set-up rooms (board rooms, lecture hall/auditorium) allowing for increased use with decreased set-up times & reduced staffing cost
• More use by business, perhaps on a fee basis, if there's enough space available that a sales meeting wouldn't mean there's no space for the soccer club
• The possibility that we could find donors to subsidize the cost of creating meeting spaces in exchange for naming rights.

The discussion continues...

Building with carts and horses

In a letter to the editor in the Aug. 8 Post Crescent, Jonathon Pettit wrote:

Anyone who has searched the stacks or tried to find an open chair only to be "up close and personal" with a stroller can attest to the need for more space at the Appleton library. You also would agree if you had ever had to place a reservation for one of 28 public computers on the second floor.

But he also added:

It seems that the discussion of library expansion has put the "cart before the horse." Debate is framed upon what the architects and engineers want to build instead of what the taxpayer can afford.

In response, a word about discussions, debates and decisions:

• I think the discussion, and the initial debate, are quite rightly framed on the questions of "what does the community want?" and "what is required to provide good, efficient service in response to long-term community needs?"
• Thus it's not at all about what architects and engineers want. Architects and engineers design to meet needs expressed by their clients.
• Members of the community, both directly and through their representatives on the City Council, are quite right to ask Library Board and staff to explain wants, needs and options.
• The question of what the taxpayers can afford absolutely must and will be addressed before any decisions are made. The City of Appleton has a levy restraint ordinance and is committed to keeping long-term indebtedness at a fraction of the maximum allowable.
  
• Cities have to maintain infrastructures, including public facilities. To meet community needs and enhance the quality of life, cities build and maintain streets, storm drains, parks, and buildings such as police stations and libraries. Not all at once, but each in turn as needed and affordable.
  
• Nobody is advocating building a library for years yet.
  
• Nobody is advocating spending money we won't have.
• Anything wanted that goes beyond what the taxpayers can afford should be funded through privately raised funding.

So I'll respectfully disagree with Mr. Pettit. I think the horses and carts are lining up just right. But I want to reassure him that this City is a long way from a decision -- and his concerns must be addressed in that decision.

Building FAQ

Our library staff has done a terrific job of putting together a Frequently Asked Questions list about our building project. I hope and believe it will answer some of the many good concerns out there in the community. The FAQ is a work in progress and available on our library website.

Nice work, folks!

This really frosts my cake...

The online forums in the Post-Crescent (or any online forum, generally) are not always the place for reasoned debate. In particular, the anonymity of the great majority of those who post using "handles" makes it possible for people to say anything without attaching their names to it --and thus taking responsibility for their statements.

I'll let a lot of the things I read there roll off. I'll usually post -- using my name, natch -- if I feel there are some facts lacking that can be readily supplied. Sometimes I just have to take issue, which is the case when I read statements that appear prejudicial. There were two today:

PSY-OPS wrote:

"yuppy [condo] tennants probably wouldn't like mingling with the library's current daytime clientele."

helpusnow wrote:

"food, clothing and shelter are needs-libraries are wants; because poor people"want" a place to hangout i dont feel a "need" to pay for it"

Without even getting into whether education, culture, opportunity and hope are needs (and they are), I felt obligated to speak out on behalf of both poor people and all library users, and posted the following:

There are those who legitimately disagree whether this is a worthwhile project. But it is difficult to accept minimizing the need by belittling those in the community who may be poor or homeless. Yes, the poor, the homeless, the disabled, and the mentally ill use the library.

Many other people use the library in even larger numbers. There are lots of toddlers and babies here every day -- and doctors, housewives, teenagers, senior citizens, judges, business people, students, & mostly just plain folks. It's a place for everyone.

We've had 8,602 people through the doors in the last three-and-a-half days. With this volume of use, this many people, there are occasional problems & all are not solved instantly. But staff and volunteers do a good job of enforcing the basic common sense rule: keep it nice for everybody.

It's a lousy argument to say the library includes people to look down on & thus is unworthy of support.

Terry Dawson

Q&A: Appleton library director discusses building proposal

The Post-Crescent has published a lengthy article based on an interview by Larry Gallup, their Senior Editor for Community Conversation. Larry sat me down with a tape recorder and asked some important and insightful questions.

The Post-Crescent • July 16, 2009

It's a big decision — and it comes with a big price tag. Should Appleton build a new public library, which a consulting firm pegs at $33 million, with up to $7 million more to handle parking, plus the associated costs of a new building?
Advertisement

The Library Board has endorsed the plan in concept — a 140,000-square-foot building, which would be more than 50,000 square feet bigger than the current library and would be better equipped to handle its growing needs. For the plan to advance, the Appleton Common Council would have to approve the next step, which is selecting a site.

Appleton Library Director Terry Dawson has been front-and-center during the analysis and planning process — and will continue to be.

To provide some insight on where the process has been, where it is now and where it's going, we asked him some questions Tuesday. Here are his answers:...

See the full article here. My thanks to the Post-Crescent for giving so many column-inches to a topic that is important to many and will be a difficult public decision.

There's more to design of new library than space

Post-Crescent letters July 13, 2009

In response to the July 4 letter about the proposed library building, I appreciate Mr. Thiel's acknowledgement both of the need for more library space and the wisdom of a single downtown facility.

But I take issue with some of his points, which appear to be in response to The Post-Crescent's report on a brief presentation by architects, rather than considering the full study.

Mr. Thiel's statement notwithstanding, the architects who spent months designing spaces for a conceptual building program did, in fact, include engineering input and look at many alternatives, including four different design options for expanding our current facility.

While expansion on this site could feasibly address most library concerns, it would not likely be the most cost-effective option for library service in the long run. A crucial concept is that current and future needs are only partly about increased space.

Any design should also address functional needs for increased safety and security, accessible public meeting spaces, improved use of technology, automation of operations, fewer service points and generally more efficient use of staff.

Any design should also be as green and sustainable as possible. Dollars invested wisely up front will be repaid in the long term with more usability and lower unit operating costs to provide more service.

With a project of this magnitude and community impact, we should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. We encourage community members to read the full report, available at the Appleton Public Library, and at www.apl.org. We look forward to more conversation.

Terry Dawson,
Director, Appleton Public Library

Board endorses new building

The report on library facility options was presented by Engberg Anderson architects at a Library Board meeting and in a special presentation to the City Council this week. The Library Board has endorsed the report, which calls for a new library building as a better option for Appleton than an expanded building.

The preliminary report, available on the library website, looks at building design options for either an expansion of the present building or new construction. The Post-Crescent did a nice job reporting on the presentation to Council. I encourage anyone interested in the future of our library to read the report.

This takes the discussion into a new phase. The Library Board has asked the Mayor to consider a site selection process for next year. There's a lot of work and discussion that will need to happen before that decision gets made. A few points ...

1. The need is real -- and is not one that comes from the staff or the Board, but from the community, the public's use of library services and comparison with best practices in the state and nation. This was substantiated in the extensive community process we undertook last year, with lots of public participation. But I expect we'll need to keep repeating it and justifying it.
   
   
2. The library is for everyone. It's frustrating to hear some people say that we wouldn't have the need, or the library would be worth supporting, if only we kept "those people" away -- and meaning those who may be different. I'll keep on saying it: the library is for everyone. We'll ask anyone to leave if they misbehave or interfere with other folks' library use.

   But we won't deny service to people because they're poor or mentally ill or disabled or speak a different language. This is a public library in a nation founded on equality and freedom. This is a place where everyone in the community can come on an equal basis to learn, to gather, and to create their own opportunities.
   

3. One building, downtown - we pretty much resolved in last year's process that branch libraries are not yet the solution for Appleton. Additional facilities will always be inherently less efficient, as collections, staff functions and utility costs get multiplied. Appleton is not yet big enough to justify this.

   And a central library as part of a vibrant downtown works on a lot of levels. We're readily accessible by bicycle and bus. We're within walking distance for many residents and convenient for senior housing and downtown workers. We collaborate with other downtown businesses and organizations. One of the busiest buildings in Appleton, we're part of making the downtown cool, and we're glad to be here!
   

4. We want to do the best job for the future of the community. Staff sees heavy use on a daily basis -- not just in the short term, but in the long term. In my 31 years here, I've seen use grow and grow and grow. We need to do it right, not short-sightedly or expediently. Quick fixes tend to just cost more in the long run.


5. We want to be careful in our decision-making. Many people say, "we can't afford this now -- maybe in a few years." But we're not talking about building now, we're talking about planning now so we can build in a few years, if we can afford it. Whether or not we build a library, our City is fiscally conservative, careful about structuring our long term debt and committed to not having big tax increases. That won't change, and we expect that some private dollars will be needed to make this happen. But it will take a decision by the City to proceed before we can effectively begin to raise those private funds.
   

Amid rather reactionary responses in the Post-Crescent's online forum, there was this small gem of wisdom:

payingattention wrote:

Rather than rapid-firing comments that have little basis, people should become involved in the civic process so they understand that what gets printed in the paper only skims the surface of the careful work that's been done. There is much more to running the city, library and schools than most people can imagine. In-depth planning is done years in advance and when need is anticipated, it is weighed and thoughtfully considered.

The library is many things to many people. It doesn't try to be a 'one-stop' shop, but it does have state standards to meet and a mission to carry out. Chances are, if you don't live in Appleton or use the library building, you have probably had benefit of the OWLS library system interlibrary loan of items from the APL, without having to drive there yourself.

Everyone knows this is a difficult time to consider spending money, but potential library construction is not expected until between 2012 and 2014. Please become informed and THEN discuss.

Library Building Program Design Study

He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator.

Francis Bacon

We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.

Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Things change. And in the 30 years since our current library was designed, library service has changed a lot. We're in the second year of studying our facility needs. Both year's studies were funded as part of our City capital budget, but with substantial dollars from our Library Foundation under-writing the cost.

2008
Our building study done in 2008 featured lots of community input: surveys, small groups, interviews with community leaders, and public town hall meetings. Altogether about 1,000 community members provided input. The conclusion was that our library needs more space and better functionality, including:

• More room for materials
• More room for public seating
• More meeting room spaces -- easier to set up and maintain and more readily accessible
  
• Improved security, including a better designed controlled exit and Radio Frequency ID for materials
  
• Technology, including more self-checks and an automated materials handling system to manage workloads
• Explore a drive-up window and cafe.
  
• 21st century services - spaces and connections designed for computers, more computers, shared work spaces, and learning labs
  

The study concluded that library service needs of this community would be best served by an new building or a major expansion of this building. We're proceeding with caution, particularly in the current economic climate, and don't expect that this would occur for years, but we still need to plan.

2009
This year, we're looking at program design. Thinking about the future of our library, this process will help us define the puzzle pieces, look at assembling them into different pictures, and present alternative building layouts to the Mayor, Library Board, and City Council. We can look at the pros & cons, the cost & value of different models.

In this year's process:

• We sent out Request for Proposals to:
  
• Define an architectural program to meet service needs
  
• Develop two conceptual designs: new building, and remodel/expand
• Fourteen proposals were received
• Three architectural firms were interviewed
• Engberg Anderson & George Lawson were hired
• Engberg Anderson library projects include:
• Shorewood
• Two Rivers
• Cudahy
• Beloit
• Brown County – Weyers Hilliard Branch
• 1994 APL study & preliminary design

The timeline for this year's study:

• Tour, identify issues, begin worksheets 4/7
• Complete worksheets 4/8-19
• Staff interviews & data refinement 4/20-22
• Review draft program with Library Board Building Committee 5/8
• Meet with Mayor & City stakeholders 5/11
• Draft concepts workshop 5/18
• Concept approval 6/1
• Present to Library Board & City Council 6/16 &17

And then there are political decisions to be made.

• Library Building Committee and Board will probably make a recommendation
• Mayor decides what to put in the Executive Budget
  
• Budget approval is up to the City Council – they approve long range capital plans, as well as appropriation for next year
• Marketing – sharing the story – will be a job for the whole library staff and supporters
  
• Any political effort to create community discussion will need leadership from our Friends' group
  
• Any project is likely to require significant private dollars. Fundraising through a capital campaign, led by our Library Foundation, will be important – and could start later this year
• A referendum is a possible way for the community to make a decision, though not it would not be my preference, as it would be expensive in its own right

A final thought, as we move (carefully) forward:

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Alan Kay

Library building study 2009

There's more unemployment. The world's economy continues to degrade, and is not likely to significantly improve before next year. Appleton voters defeated two school referenda. Is this any time to be planning to grow the library?

Emphatically, yes.

There are three reasons this is a good time for planning. First, to plan is not to build, but to be ready to build when the time is right. Second, the need to do this was well established years ago, and strongly demonstrated again in the study done last year, even before the economic downtourn. Third, the worsening economy has made the library even more important in many lives.

The library's volume of business has been growing steadily for years, but in recent months has grown in leaps with the economic problems. The added library use gives us a preview of how crowded we will continue to be without more space. The poor economy has re-emphasized our need to find new efficiencies in operations, even while it reminds us that we need to plan for brighter days.

Our 2008 study, involving about 1,000 community members in surveys, focus groups, interviews and town hall meetings, reaffirmed that our library needs a larger space designed to efficiently provide 21st century services. This year, we will work with architects to roughly lay out spaces to do this work. We'll plan sizes, adjacencies, and functions. We'll look at cost options for a new building vs. remodeling current space. We'll get a vision of what could be.

When that vision will be realized may be uncertain. But it is certain that we need to be ready for a better future and move in that direction. The staff and Board of our library will keep talking and will keep involving the community. We won't go forward until this city is ready to go forward, but this is a good time to plan: realistically and hopefully looking toward the future.

Building on our support

[my before-dinner speech at the I Love My Library dinner, Feb. 8, 2009]

There are a lot of people to thank for tonight, starting with all of you who came here in support of our library.

The best way I can show my appreciation is not to talk too long, because I know we're all waiting to enjoy a good meal. But I need to thank all the people whose names you see in your program: it takes a lot of work and not a few dollars to make an evening like this happen. So I first want to thank all those who sponsored, who solicited and donated silent auction items, and who did the work to prepare for tonight. Volunteers and staff have worked together so we can enjoy this evening.

Librarians are frequently asked questions, and a question I hear often is "What's happening with the Library building?" And to briefly share the answer with all of you, we're still looking at questions and making plans. We know that this is hard time for the economy of the whole planet as well as Appleton, and this is not the time to spend millions of dollars. But we also know that as things are difficult, libraries become more important to more people.

My job is to look at the long-term library service needs of our community. Most of what we do, libraries have been doing for millennia: collecting knowledge, organizing and making it available in service of education, commerce, spirit and community. More recently, public libraries are devoted to self improvement, helping people make informed decisions, family literacy, assistance in making productive use of online resources and providing open gathering places in a world where communication and learning uses electronics but depends on human interaction.

We know that libraries change lives and provide gateways and tools for transformation. We are fortunate to enjoy community support from donors, elected officials, volunteers and library users. We are fortunate to be part of a community that values learning and is rich in resources, with opportunities to collaborate with schools, community groups and other libraries in programs like Project Promise, Fox Cities Reads and the Fox Cities Book Festival.

What does that mean for the library building? Last year's study told us that we need more space for library users and materials. But even more, we need a facility that's designed to let us deliver service efficiently, that aids in security, that offers opportunities to access adequate electronic resources, that offers readily available spaces for gathering and programs. And so this year, we're going to look at some alternative layouts and costs. We're not ready to design a building, or to decide on location, until we first design some spaces and arrangements to provide the services the community needs from us. We'll be doing that this Spring and will keep everyone informed of the discussions, so the decision-makers on the Library Board and City Hall can determine next steps and a timeframe.

Neither last year's study nor this year's could have happened without funding from our Library Foundation. This effort has truly been a public-private partnership and I'm grateful that all of you have gotten us where we are. We know that as we go forward, we will continue to need community support on many levels. The staff will do our best, but the decisions about the library belong to all of you.

Thank you -- and now here's Rev. Will Bloedow to say grace for us.

Wanted: a new Carnegie or new LSCA

Between 1883 and 1929, Andrew Carnegie funded the building of 2,509 libraries. Between 1964 and 1995, the federal Library Services and Construction Act held out the possibility of federal funds to help communities build libraries. Neither of those possibilities exist today.

As Appleton is assessing the need for a new or expanded library building, I'm often asked if there are federal funds or major national grant funds available for library construction. I know of none; there have been a few state programs, though not in Wisconsin. Communities are pretty much on their own for local tax-based or charitable funding of their public libraries. Which brings us to the "stimulus package."

Today I've been on the phone with the offices of both our Senators: Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold. On Wednesday, 28 January 2009, the House of Representatives passed their version of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" with $819 billion for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, and assistance to the unemployed.

Public libraries are not included.

This is a shame in many respects. Anybody who's been reading or watching the news know that public libraries do a lot in job preservation, education and assistance to the unemployed, and that this has become more significantly more important in the current economic crisis.

According to the American Library Association:

School libraries are already included as a qualifying institution for the K-12 Repair and Modernization funding and academic libraries are also included in the Higher Education Repair and Modernization funding.

So as the U.S. Senate takes up the stimulus package, librarians are asking them to modify their version to allow state governments to allocate some of their funds to public libraries.

Bankers and auto manufacturers seem to be in the game. Schools and academic libraries have a shot. I'd just like us to qualify for consideration: we’d be a great infrastructure investment.

Over 120 years ago, Andrew Carnegie knew that building a library was one of the surest ways to help a community lift itself. Let's hope that idea hasn't been lost.