HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Ames Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes of the Regular Meeting 04/18/2013Ames Public Library Board of Trustees
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
April 18, 2013
The Ames Public Library (APL) Board of Trustees met in regular session on Thursday, April 18,
2013, in the City Council Chambers, 515 Clark Avenue, with Acker, Budd, Campbell, Eason,
Meier, Rawlins, and Stow in attendance. Trustees Bradley and Manus were excused. Interim
Library Director Carey, Library Construction Advisor Brad Heemstra, Assistant City Managers
Bob Kindred and Melissa Mundt, and City Planner Ray Anderson were also present.
Call to Order: Board President Stow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed
new trustee Tyler Eason, who had been sworn in previously.
Consent Agenda: Moved by Rawlins, seconded by Campbell, to adopt a resolution
approving the consent agenda:
1) Donations
a) From Meg Speer........................................................................................... $ 25.00
2) Minutes of the regular meeting of March 7, 2013
3) Minutes of the special joint meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission on
April 11, 2013
4) Claims Report 3/1/2013 – 3/31/2013
Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion approved unanimously. Resolution adopted.
Public Forum: No one spoke at this time.
Financial Reports: The reports were presented as information. Stow said that budget
amendments would be discussed under New Business and suggested that any questions be
posed at that time.
Activity Reports:
Staff Report - Interim Library Director Carey said that traffic control issues at Lincoln Center
continue to be addressed. Earlier in the month, pedestrian crosswalk stripes were painted and
six signs were installed at the handicap parking stalls. A “no parking” sign is being used next to
the book drop and a bike rack has been placed in one of the parking stalls. Carey thanked
Building Maintenance Supervisor Bo Duckett for making those improvements.
Some conduct issues arose in the last couple weeks and Carey said that staff was working
closely with the police. She thanked the Board for providing the Conduct in the Library policy, as
it has been very helpful to staff in dealing with these issues.
National Library Week was celebrated April 14-20. The bookmobile was parked outside today
(Thursday) and, in spite of the unpleasant weather, some people who had never visited it before
took advantage of the opportunity.
Carey reported that the spring book sale was held the previous weekend (April 12-15). The
committee had not anticipated the same level of revenue as in the past, but it exceeded their
hopes by bringing in about 70% as much as in the past. The parking situation had been a
concern, but Duckett had identified 48 parking spaces and an excellent group of volunteers
managed to keep up with the customers.
Ames Public Library Friends Foundation (APLFF) Report - Trustee Acker mentioned that the
library has a fabulous Teen Advisory Group—a very impressive group of kids engaging in lots of
activities. The APLFF spent some time discussing the building project. In addition, the
Agenda Item 1
Nominating Committee is preparing to fill some vacancies for terms beginning in July, and an ad
hoc Development Director Committee is working on a position description and looking into the
possibility of hiring someone to fill that role.
Library Building Project Update:
Narrative Report – Construction Advisor Heemstra said that structural demolition is still taking
place and is very evident now. Abatement Specialties has taken down the ceiling above the
north stair. Work is beginning on the new support elements in the southeast corner. Carey
added that someone who had been by the site earlier in the day had reported to her that the
workers seemed very excited about their involvement in this community project.
Project Cost Summary – Heemstra said that the April report reflects the change order for
Abatement Services to include the asbestos removal in the north stair and updates the total
amount of cash on hand.
Library Renovation Project Financial Report – No discussion.
Old Business:
Continued Discussion from Special Joint Meeting with Historic Preservation Commission – Stow
said that participants in the joint meeting left needing more information; they requested that an
invitation be extended to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to provide additional
facts. Additional information was also requested on potential costs of new replacement windows
versus historically preserved windows.
Heemstra said that he had had a conversation with MS&R. After the meeting with the SHPO, he
didn’t have information on what kind of storm windows should be considered. Architect Kate
Michaud identified an aluminum storm window from a company by the name of Mon-Ray. He
then looked to see what the cost would be to hand-scrape and encapsulate lead paint on the
exterior surface of the existing windows. Under this scenario, the new wood clad windows would
be deleted from the contract. Instead, there would need to be restoration of the existing wood on
the 1940 windows. Some, if not all, of the sills should be replaced; the exterior would need to be
painted the appropriate color; the existing cavity or jamb would need to be insulated; and the
new aluminum storm windows would need to be bought and installed. Heemstra said that that
scenario could be anywhere from cost neutral to plus or minus $10,000, depending on the
extent of wood repair needed. The library’s contracts with the abatement contractor, general
contractor, and architect would be affected.
Assistant City Manager Melissa Mundt said that she had spoken with David Wadsworth about
the lead-paint encapsulation concept. He does renovation and reconstruction work in the
Decorah area and was suggested by the Historic Preservation Commission. Mundt said that Mr.
Wadsworth prefers abatement of the lead, rather than sealing the old paint, in order to have a
better end product. He warranties his work when working with bare wood. Mundt also spoke to
the City’s Risk Manager and it does not appear that there would be any problems with insurance
either way, as long as there is adherence to the building code.
Trustee Eason asked for a summary of the current cost analysis. Heemstra said that full
abatement would cost an extra $100 per window—$5000 to $6000 overall—more than
encapsulation. The contractor also expressed concern that full abatement has the potential to
warp the wood. Mundt said that Mr. Wadsworth did not have any concern about that.
Heemstra said the current contract calls for full abatement, but with a different method of
handling the waste. In response to a question from Mundt, he stated that the potential
encapsulation would be done on the exterior of the windows.
Agenda Item 1
Acker asked what kind of delay there might be if the Board were to change the approach.
Heemstra said there would be no effect, as long as the decision were made by the end of April,
but by May 1, the new windows need to be ordered or changes need to be implemented and an
order placed for the storms. If no decision were made by May or June, it would have an effect
on the construction schedule.
Acker remarked that there had not been much clarity on the status of the skylight or the north
staircase at the joint meeting. She wondered if it were possible to know more about those
features, relative to historic preservation, if the Library Board were to contemplate preservation
of the windows.
Trustee Budd asked when the State’s Historic Preservation staff could meet with the trustees.
Mundt said the individuals were not available this week, but could meet at 10 a.m. on Monday.
Acker asked if they were in a position to render an opinion about the staircase and the skylight,
or if it would be speculative. Ray Anderson, Planner, said they are prepared to look at the
windows, the skylight, and the entrance and give feedback on all three.
Trustee Meier inquired about the timing of decisions and getting materials to the City Council.
Mundt stated that the packet deadline for next Tuesday’s meeting is tomorrow (Friday). She
said it would be possible to add items on Monday, if necessary, but both she and Anderson
agreed that the state personnel might not have a final answer on Monday about the impact
removal of the wood windows would have on a National Register listing.
Trustee Rawlins asked if it were essentially true that until the application is complete and
reviewed, the Board is making a decision based on what someone thinks will happen with the
listing—a situation where “we think there’s potential, but there’s no guarantee.” Stow said that to
him it’s a question of whether the Board wants to maintain a historic look and feel or engage in a
preservation project. If they were to choose now to go back to the Council and say that this is
historically accurate in look and feel, then it really doesn’t matter. Acker said that that would be
sort of an implied negative. If the Board were to go ahead with the new windows, they know the
building would not be eligible; if they go the other way, it’s still a guess. Rawlins said that was
the point she was getting at.
Mundt offered the possibility of the City Council holding a special meeting. She suggested that,
if the trustees would feel more comfortable, they could wait until they have information from
Monday’s meeting, get back together to make a determination, and then request City Council
action. Stow said that if the Board were to go back to the Council and say they had wanted to
move forward as they had selected over the past few months, the City Council could still take no
action and remand the trustees to go back and get further information.
Meier said this conversation has been going on since 2009 and it seems to her that now it is the
eleventh hour—the library has a contract in place and it troubles her that they are being asked
to rush into a new decision.
Trustee Eason said the problem he sees is that the library is not going to have a definitive
answer. The state staff will give advice, but he doesn’t think they make the decision. Anderson
said the state staff’s position has a direct bearing on whether or not the building gets listed on
the National Register. The state does the review and then passes it on to the National Park
Service. The people at the National Register generally follow the state’s recommendation.
Eason asked if the people coming on Monday were part of that decision-making team and
Anderson replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 1
Trustee Campbell said it was his recollection that any building decisions were to be vetted by
Building Committee, and he did not feel comfortable moving in any particular direction until all
the information was received and went through the committee for a recommendation.
Review of Recommendation to City Council Regarding Historic Treatment – Stow referred back
to the resolution adopted unanimously in March, which affirmed “the recommendation of the
Building Project Committee to give priority to the considerations of energy efficiency, ease of
future maintenance, and fiscal stewardship when making decisions pertaining to the treatment
of historic features during the renovation and expansion of the library building.” He said that
there was no drafted resolution for this agenda item, but the Board had recommended to City
Council that the historic treatment specialist be removed from the contract and now it needed
decide whether to continue to move forward, delay project and step back, or send a different
resolution to the Council. He said he’d like feedback from everyone before crafting a motion.
Acker said these decisions were addressed previously and she did not like the timing the Board
was now confronted with. However, it seemed as if the considerations of energy efficiency, cost
effectiveness, and east of maintenance could be met if the Board chose to adopt the historic
preservation approach relative to the windows, and it’s hard to anticipate how important the
historic status might be in the future. She said she was very concerned about the stairs and
skylight and is not willing to countenance any delays in the project because those imply major
changes in cost.
Eason agreed with Acker’s comments and added that he did not believe a historic treatment
specialist was necessary. He said he was troubled by the fact that Mr. Tindall was employed by
the contractor and then reported to other parties. He also said he felt that what the Board is
doing now, as it pertains to historical preservation facets, is satisfactory and agreed that delays
in the project were not acceptable.
Meier said she was still troubled that this came back to the board with such a late timetable.
This was not a preservation project; it was a library use project. She said the architects were
asked to respect the historical integrity of the building and she thinks they’ve done a great job of
it. She does not think the Board can stand to delay the project at all. She wonders if there will be
other things that come up along the way that the Board anticipated doing and will be told it can’t
do now. It also troubles her that the Board still won’t know whether or not the building will meet
the historical preservation guidelines (for listing).
Rawlins said she feels the trustees need more information, but agreed wholeheartedly that
delays would be unacceptable. She added that the same emphasis should have been placed
on the National Register listing in 2009 as is being placed on it now, when it’s a “crisis” moment
that is forcing the Board into these decisions. She believes the Board should consider the
information, but also keep in mind that this was never a preservation project, except to preserve
and restore the historic character of the building.
Campbell stated that he agreed with the other trustees, and his point of contention is that the
responsibility of pursing Historic Register listing was placed on students. He was troubled by the
fact that the responsibility was placed on them without the leadership of someone who could be
accountable.
Budd said he agreed with Acker that the steps and skylight have to be replaced, although the
costs are close enough on the windows. He said the thing that would disturb him would be to
spend a great deal of money and time and find out later that the building wasn’t eligible to start
with.
Agenda Item 1
Anderson said that the State of Iowa has already determined that the building is eligible. There
was discussion about eligibility and it was clarified that the state had determined that the
building was eligible for nomination, but not necessarily eligible for listing. The question now is
whether the removal of the wood windows would change the state’s initial determination.
Meier asked Stow for his input. Stow said he felt the Board was too far down the road to change
direction now. What may or may not have taken place in conversations between the Historical
Preservation Commission (HPC) and the former Library Director is history, but his feeling is that
if the HPC was adamant that the building should be on the historic register, they should have
seen to it that the paperwork was processed in a timely fashion and communicated their
progress with the Library Board. He also pointed out that the Library Board has done everything
in public—the Board has had presentations, the City Council got to see the contracts, and there
was opportunity for public input. At this point, he feels it is important to keep this project moving
forward so it can present the public with what it agreed to in the $18 million vote. He said he
was in favor of going back to the City Council and requesting that it accept the Board’s previous
resolution to remove the historic preservation specialist.
Meier asked if there was any guarantee that the new storm windows, in conjunction with the
single-pane wood windows, would make a difference in the way those windows perform now.
Heemstra said he thought they could be expected to perform as described on the websites and
by the architect. They would be much better than the storms in place today.
Rawlins stated that taking the already-approved motion back to the City Council to remove the
historic treatment specialist from the contract would not remove from the contract that there
should be special attention placed on the historic areas of the library, and it also would not
necessarily preclude the Board from still making the decision to retain or not retain the
windows—it simply removes the part that should not have been in the contract to begin with.
Heemstra said that was correct. He added that he had checked with MS&R to see if the Library
would need to retain the specialist if the Board decided to retain the windows; the architect was
clear that the specialist would not be necessary. There are already requirements in contract for
the contractor to follow proper protocol; the requirement for a specialist was an error in the
specifications.
Eason said it was very important to separate the historical treatment specialist from the fact that
the Board still wants to listen to what the state has to say on Monday.
Acker said that from what she had heard thus far, she feels the Board doesn’t need a resolution
changing anything.
Stow asked how soon the Library would get a report after the visit on Monday, and wondered if
the Library Board would need to reconvene as a body to receive that information and make any
additional decisions prior to May 1. Heemstra recommended that, at minimum, the Building
(Project) Committee should convene after the visit on Monday. He suggested that the
committee could decide if the information warranted having a special meeting for the Board to
make decisions before the Council’s next meeting after April 23. Heemstra said it seemed clear
to him that the Board could proceed with deleting the requirement for the specialist, as it is
unrelated to whatever decision is made about the windows. He did note that if the Board were to
decide to change course and retain the existing windows, staff would need to get in gear to put
the details into place so as to start the process as soon as possible in early May.
Agenda Item 1
Stow asked if the trustees were comfortable with the Building (Project) Committee taking the
information and making a decision based on what is learned on Monday. There was general
agreement, with the understanding that the information would be disseminated to all trustees.
Moved by Eason, seconded by Campbell, that the Board of Trustees, Ames Public
Library adopt a resolution reaffirming the motion previously submitted to the City
Council to strike the need for a Historic Treatment Specialist from the contract.
Bob Kindred, Assistant City Manager, said he appreciates the point that there really are two
things going on here. The matter about the historic treatment specialist is really what brought
the issue of the windows to the forefront. He said he believes the City Council will feel
comfortable in supporting the Board in that one step if that distinction is made clear. Kindred
said it would have put things in a challenging situation if the Board had ruled out any further
action on the windows without being privy to or giving the Council any information that is
obtained from the visit next Monday. Although this is a time-sensitive project, this action will
probably allow all three parties to have an opportunity to assess vital information and give the
Library Board an opportunity, if it chooses, to make a different decision about the windows.
Vote on Resolution: 6-0. Motion approved unanimously. Resolution adopted.
New Business:
Amended Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013 –
Trustee Meier said that this was an unusual year because of the temporary location and building
project, but the amendments essentially move amounts between line items. The total expense
budget is not changing, although revenues were adjusted downward slightly. She asked Carey
to comment on the computer replacement line.
Carey said she had worked closely with the Director of Finance and City Management on a plan
to put savings from this year into the computer replacement fund, with the understanding that
the money could be used to reduce the Capital Improvements Plan request for 2015/16, which
is for replacement of the Integrated Library System (ILS). The proposal created a win-win for
everyone, and all savings that have been identified have already been moved into that line.
Carey added that the monthly expense summary included in the quarterly reports now shows
the adjusted budget (which the trustees approved last fall and Council approved in March), and
the spring amendments will address any percentages that seem way off. She said the library
was taking advantage of the slower time and the proximity of the national American Library
Association Conference (in Chicago) to send many more people. Some will go to the full
conference for continuing education and two van loads will go to see exhibits only. It will provide
an opportunity for Outreach staff to see 15 to 20 bookmobiles, just as the library is planning to
purchase a replacement, and everyone will be able to see what is available for the new facility.
Moved by Meier, seconded by Rawlins, to adopt a resolution approving final budget
amendments for Fiscal Year 2012/13 as presented/amended.
Vote on Resolution as presented: 6-0. Motion approved unanimously. Resolution
adopted.
Interim Director Performance Evaluation
Carey requested that the meeting be closed under the provision of Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i)
that refers to the evaluation of the professional competency of an individual whose performance
is being considered.
Moved by Campbell, seconded by Budd, to close the meeting under the provisions of
Agenda Item 1
Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i) for the purpose of discussing the Interim Director’s
performance evaluation.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. (Voting aye: Acker, Budd, Campbell, Eason, Meier, Rawlins )
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was closed at 7:56 p.m. and everyone except the trustees left the room.
The meeting was re-opened at 8:40 p.m.
Interim Director’s Salary for Fiscal Year 2013/14 – Moved by Budd, seconded by Campbell,
to adopt a resolution setting the Interim Director’s compensation for fiscal year
2013/14 at 2% of the current Assistant Director’s salary plus the previously approved
5% out-of class additional compensation.
Roll Call Vote: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted.
Acknowledgment of Service of Retiring Trustee: Stow said that Laura Rawlins’ family will be
moving to Louisville and this was her last meeting. She was presented with a plaque in
expression of her three years of service on the Library Board.
Trustee Comments:
Budd thanked Rawlins for her contributions to the Board and said she would be sorely missed.
Campbell said Rawlins’s perspective was refreshing. He has appreciated her editorial skills and
hates to see her leave. He suggested that she add the opening of new library to her “bucket
list.” He also thanked city staff for helping the Board through the discussion of the windows.
Acker thanked Rawlins for her thoughtful comments, insight, and hard work. She also
expressed appreciation for the work done by members of city staff and the Building Project
Committee.
Eason said that it’s evident that Rawlins will leave a large gap upon leaving. He added that he
was honored to be able to serve on a special board that is such an important part of the city.
Meier thanked Rawlins for her thoughtfulness and ability to help the Board think things through.
Rawlins thanked her fellow trustees, library staff, and city staff, and said she already considers
serving on the Board a bucket list experience. She hopes her family will be able to come back
for the grand opening.
Stow echoed the others’ comments and wished the Rawlins family well.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:46 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be on Thursday, May 16, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council
Chambers, 515 Clark Avenue.
____________________________________
___________________________________
Karen C. Thompson, Administrative Assistant Jane Acker, Secretary of the Board
Agenda Item 1