1996-10-16MINUTES OF THE SOUTHLAKE PUBLIC LIBRARY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16,1996
Place: 400 N. White chapel
Time: 7:00 PM
Members present:
Karen Apple
Aloha Payne
Tom Doran
Elizabeth Ponder
Sally Hall
Arthur Sorenson
Kathy Harris
Anne Underwood
Cynda Mast
Lindsey Vinson
Members absent:
Richard Bartholomew
Maureen Curb
Karen Cienki
Danita Fierce
Billy Jon Curb
Diane Lacina
Visitors:
Curtis Hawk, City Manager
Joe Mast, Member, SPIN Standing Committee
1. The meeting was called to order at 7pm by Cynda Mast. The submitted minutes of the September
18th meeting were reviewed. The following revisions were discussed and incorporated in a motion for
approval thereof. The Sept 18, 1996 minutes, as below revised, were subsequently approved by unanimous
consent.
a. Para. 2.A., sub-para 2nd; delete "Australian"
b. Para. 2.A., sub-para 4th; delete both sentences as submitted, replace with "At this point,
it appears that the portion of Westlake lying within Carroll ISD will likely be developed as low -density
residential".
C. Para 2.A., sub-para 5th; change entire sub-para to read "There was much discussion of
joint use of school district and public (city/cities) library facilities and assets. The consensus of those
participating in the discussion was that joint use may not be workable due to
(1) space needs in already limited CISD facilities, and
(2) the need for school district control over age-appropriatenes of library inventory.
d. Para 2.D., sub-para 2nd; delete.
e. Para 2.F., sub-para 1 st; change entire sub-para to read "A comparison of local area library
operating budgets was presented and discussed..
Para 2.F., sub-para 2nd; delete second and fourth sentences.
2. Richard Waters, a professional librarian and consultant to the tri-city library project participants,
responded to a number of committee member's questions. The questions loosely followed those presented
on a sheet partially titled "Questions for Consultant" (attached to these minutes), which was given out to all
members present at the start of this meeting. Here follows an outline of the information gained by the
committee as a result of Mr. Waters' presentation.
a. The role of the library board (committee, commission, other appointed entity) in Texas is
customarily an advisory, not an administrative (goven-ng) role; and it typically advises a governing body
such as a city council which is under no legal obligation to accept or act on its advice.
A
> Generally speaking, an administrative entity has both the authority and
responsibility of fiscal management; an advisory entity has neither.
> Mr. Waters mentioned the existence of a "semi -administrative" library board in
San Antonio as an exception to the norm, and Cynda Mast cited a purely administrative, joint city - school
district board in Combine, TX as another. Both were acknowledged to have been created in environments
with little similarity to those extant in and around Southlake.
b. Funding of public libraries must be regarded as a two -fold proposition. Building a facility
and outfitting it for initial use is the first, and providing for its operation and maintenance is the second.
> The sources of funding may be both public and private. But public monies
(county, state, federal) not under control of the library's governing authority (e.g., federal grants, county
commissioner's funds) are "iffy" at best and should not be considered as budget factors unless in -hand.
> Bond obligations, paid over a future period from earmarked taxes , are the major
source of library -building funds. A city's general fund, from which it pays for current expenses, is the
customary source of library operating monies.
> Libraries may form foundation -like entities to which public and private
contributions of building and operating monies may be donated. Public grants and private endowments
and testamentary proceeds are major forms of such contributions. Italy, TX is thought to derive more than
half its operating funds from the private sector.
> Revenue -producing sales and services operated by the library or under its
authority may also be used as a funding source, but Mr. Waters encouraged a hard look at these sorts of
activities for compliance with laws which limit a public entity's authority to generate revenue.
(W > Libraries are one of the most -expensive types of facilities to build.
- Structures must support minimum floor -loading of 1501bs/sq ft and
may require as much as 3001bs/sq ft.
Climate control requirements increase design, acquisition and
installation costs of HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning).
Dedicated, protected circuitry for electronic equipment similarly
increases electrical system design and installation costs.
High finnishment costs are driven by items such as use -appropriate
lighting, mobile shelving, electronics equipment work/use space, acoustic -controlling wall and ceiling
finishes and high -traffic floor coverings.
Space provisions for communications, data-processing and audio/visual
equipment for today's library and accommodation for tomorrow's are relatively recent and significant cost
elements in library construction.
Additional costs may arise in response to the community's civic pride
in their library, which frequently leads to a degree of "gold-plating" in design features or construction
materials or both.
Libraries are also expensive to operate and maintain.
In Mr. Waters' report to the tri-city project group the cost of hardware
was included: software was not. Software for an automated library management system suitable to our city
40 alone would cost as much as $200,000 for acquisition, and subscriptions for updates would be recurringly
added to that. Software for customer reference and other use is additional to this figure. He further
remarked `one of the toughest challenges today's librarians face is the balance of print and electronic
media', a balance which is not subject to a universal formula.
Staff salaries and benefit costs, asset maintenance, utilities fees,
inventory management, expendable supplies and other recurring expenses must be met out of a reliable
operating budget.
In the typical Texas city library, all funding (including that from outside
entities both public and private) must still be channelled through the library's governing agency. It may
therefor not be available for disposition to the funding priorities of the library's advisory board or staff.
Mr. Waters was thanked for his contribution by the committee. He departed at 8:20pm.
A general discussion of multi -city vs. stand-alone (single -city) libraries followed.
a. Tom Doran suggested our individual perceptions of pros and cons for each be developed
before the next meeting, at which we might compare and summarize them into the committe's initial
(draft?) position report. Mr. Doran's suggestion was well -received and so recommended by the chair.
(1) In the discussion of this agenda item, the committee was concerned that our
Southlake citizen's opinions on the matter not be assumed without qualified validation. Mr. Hawk
volunteered information regarding a forthcoming city-wide public opinion survey which may be able to
address library matters in some degree.
(2) The committee resolved to follow up on Mr. Hawk's information at soonest,
and briefly discussed the main points of consensus needed. As then agreed, co-chair Cynda Mast
subsequently telephoned this minutes -recorder with the following discussion outline for our next meeting;
Pro single -city: Control of location selection process
Control of operation and environment
Control of selectivity in services, inventory, quality of facility
Con single -city: Burden of facility cost and operating expense probably at higher per -
capita tax level.
Budgetary constraints probably resulting in fewer or poorer quality
services, materials, inventory selections.
b. Other discussion included a review of apparent current library -location options (Sally
Hall, visitor Curtis Hawk); inclusion of `senior center' facilities and resulting eligibility for additional
funding (Karen Apple, Aloha Payne); the need for meeting rooms for various municipal and civic activities
(all), a reminder that the city's historical society would be an appropriate user of the facility (Aloha Payne);
a suggestion that we might consider visits to area libraries individually or as a group (Kathy Harris); what
should be the content of our presentations to SPIN groups (Art Sorenson, visitor Joe Mast).
4. Co-chair Karen Apple suggested our time -line for further action be developed by backing up from
a completion date -certain, and that we needed to ascertain a firm date for presenting our recommendations
to appropriate staff and council. All agreed that much work must be done in a short time, that holiday
meeting schedules of other city entities must influence our own, and that our accelerated meeting schedule
should be continued. This item will be carried to the next meeting.
5. Our next meeting is to be held Tuesday, October 22, 1996 at 7:OOpm, at 400 N. White Chapel.
With the exception of the consultant's presentation (item 2 above), the agenda for the October 16 meeting
will be used for the October 22 meeting.
6. Adjournment was moved by Sally Hall, seconded by Aloha Payne and approved by unanimous
consent at 9:15pm.
Subn
Date
Appr
Date
Attachment
(aw
4
in attendance and recording.
;on for the committee.
SOUTHLAKE LIBRARY CONIIvIITTEE
QUESTIONS FOR CONSULTANT
OCTOBER 16, 1996
Is the entire 4 acres of land buildable?
How was the "exceptionally fine level of library service" mentioned on p.1 of the study determined?
What were the sources used for determining costs, specifically:
Construction, p.21, 1998 and 2008 differences
Appendix 3.1 avg increase 81/o✓year-Would that make SF cost $304.00?
% change over 10 yr was 78.2% in TX which would have led to $251.00.
What source used for determining SF cost in 2008?
P. 24, note 1 states cost per SF are less with a larger project. Data shows $173.00/SF, but is
inconsistent with $141.00/SF.
Do operational costs include preventative maintenance and advertising?
Of the three ways to govern a multi -city library, which form of administration is referred to in the study?
Were any other governance options considered?
Explain the costs for technology, and show where and how those were determined. Where are the
expenditures for the equipment, formulas for computer costs? Can you portion out the costs of computers?
Are any of the database search charges figured?
Does the study count on grant money to lay the cables and infrastructure for technology?
Will the multi -city library have the capability to connect with other libraries around the state and is the
cost of this operating system figured?
Will money be saved with joint library collection? Study shows approximately same amount?
What percentage of overall Southlake budget would go to a library?
A