Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Ames Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes of the Regular Meeting 02/16/2012Ames Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes of the Regular Meeting February 16, 2012 The Ames Public Library (APL) Board of Trustees met in regular session on Thursday, February 16, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, with Bradley, Campbell, Luckett, Manus, Meier, Schill, and Stow in attendance. Budd and Rawlins were excused. Library Director Weeks, Assistant Director Carey, and Librarian Ross Petra were also present. Call to Order: Board President Luckett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Adoption of Agenda: Moved by Manus , seconded by Meier, to approve the agenda. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes: Moved by Stow, seconded by Bradley, to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 19, 2012. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Public Forum: None Consent Agenda: Meier moved and Schill seconded adoption of a resolution approving the consent agenda: 1) Claims Report 1/1/2012 – 1/31/2012 2) Financial Reports 3) Donations a) From the Heart of Iowa Chapter of the P. Buckley Moss Society to be used for Books for Babies ............................................................ $500.00 b) From the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ames to be used for Other Voices Other Views film programming ............... $300.00 c) From Don Wirth ........................................................................................ $25.00 Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Administrative Staff Report: Library Director Weeks presented the library’s 2010/2011 Annual Report and distributed information about Iowa Legislative Day, which will take place on March 7 at the State Law Library in Des Moines. He said the biggest concerns this year are related to funding issues, support of school libraries, and the effort to preserve hometown governance of Iowa’s public libraries. Assistant Director Carey said that discussion at the Story County Library Association meeting centered on plans for next summer and ways the eleven libraries might be able to collaborate, share performers and costs, and exchange materials. Ames Public Library Friends Foundation (APLFF) Report: Trustee Campbell reported that Raveena Levis and Eunice Kong had been elected co-presidents of the Teen Advisory Group (TAG) and new representatives to the APLFF. Upcoming APLFF projects include the spring book sale (April 13-15), development of a strategic plan, and review of the APLFF’s staff scholarship program. Trustee Stow added that the fall book sale is being tentatively scheduled for September 22; as usual, there will be a call for volunteers. Library Building Project Update: Weeks said that surveying and soil borings had been done in the last month and on Monday, February 20, the library will be closed and employees will meet with the architects. He invited the trustees to share lunch and attend the employee awards presentation at noon. A design, documentation, bidding, and construction schedule was distributed. Weeks stated that contract documents would most likely be approved by the trustees and City Council in October. The construction phase could begin in mid-December, commissioning of the building could occur in April 2014, and the new library could open in June or July 2014. Weeks went on to say that staff will meet to identify rock-bottom needs for a temporary facility after the upcoming meetings with the architects. The process of selecting the owner’s representative (OR) will begin around May 1. One of the OR’s charges will be to identify suitable properties for the library’s temporary relocation and determine how much retrofit will be necessary. Weeks said the space could possibly be fit out in August and the library could begin moving in by November. He would prefer not to lease a temporary facility for longer than two years. Trustee Manus emphasized that staff should start evaluating which specific functions were immediate needs and to mapped out the library’s priorities, since the OR will have a very short window of time and will need to focus on finding the location. Luckett added that an idea about the flow of work also needed to be laid out. Trustee Meier inquired about the status of Request for Proposal (RFP) for the OR. Weeks said the scope of work was developed with the architect and a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will be going out, rather than an RFP, because an RFQ will allow for more latitude in the selection process. He said a contract template had been drawn up by the City Attorney, and the City’s Purchasing and Finance Departments had reviewed it and offered suggestions. Weeks said he expected it to go out on February 21. Meier asked if the trustees would be able to see the scope of work and Weeks offered to send them the RFQ. Manus said it would be more helpful to see a brief summary of the scope and the deliverables, rather than the entire document. Stow asked if there was a maximum cost for the OR as a part of the budget. Weeks said that $151,000 was budgeted. Manus said she would also like to see a comparison of the budgeted costs to the amount the offers turn out to be. Campbell asked Weeks if he anticipates a reduction in services while the library is in its temporary location. Weeks said he expects that services will be somewhat disrupted, simply by virtue of being in another location, and the parking situation is also unknown. The library will probably have to close for about two weeks when it makes the move. Policy Review: Confidentiality of Library Records Moved by Stow, seconded by Bradley, to adopt a resolution approving changes to the Confidentiality of Library Records Policy as presented/amended. Librarian Ross Petra pointed out some of the small revisions being proposed and explained that staff recommended adding a new paragraph to address borrowing of electronic materials through licensing agreements with Amazon and other vendors. He explained that once a patron completes a third-party’s registration process in order to download materials, the library’s confidentiality policy does not apply. Petra said that some sort of statement or disclaimer will appear on the library’s website to notify patrons of this when they go to download e-books. Vote on Motion as presented: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. New Business: Selecting Vendor for Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Tagging Project and Requesting City Council to Award Contract Moved by Campbell, seconded by Luckett, to adopt a resolution selecting SirsiDynix/Bibliotheca as the vendor of choice for both phases of the RFID project, and requesting that the City Council award the contract at its meeting on February 28, 2012. Weeks stated that he, Information Services Librarian Mike Quinn, Circulation Supervisor Nancy Voltmer, and Network Services Supervisor Mark Harris had served on the RFID proposal evaluation team. Quinn explained that this phase of the project is to tag the library’s collection; the purchase of equipment will not take place until after July 1. He displayed a slide showing an example of an RFID stand-alone self-check unit and explained how it worked. Manus said she was all for efficiency, but asked whether the project would interfere with the remodeling preparation, what would be at stake if it were not done now, if the attorney had reviewed the contract, and what the maximum dollar amount was. Weeks passed out a list of the nine companies that responded to the RFP and a sample of the evaluation matrix used by the team. He said the recommended vendor is SirsiDynix/Bibliotheca, the same company that handles APL’s existing Integrated Library System (ILS), so there is assurance that the RFID system is compatible with it. In the aggregate of costs, he said SirsiDynix/Bibliotheca was also the lowest, falling well below the price points of $125,000 for Phase I and $153,400 for Phase II. Manus asked if Doug Marek had reviewed the contract. Weeks said, yes, he read the RFP, which included the contract; Marek is required to review all contracts that are signed. Weeks passed around some sample RFID chips and tags and reported that SirsiDynix/Biblio- theca’s cost for the purchase of 260,000 small tags was 15 cents each. The highest bid came in at 20 cents per tag. Weeks said the collection should be tagged by end of June and some check-out units could be installed in August. He feels it is very important to have this project done before the library moves. He would not want the work to be done in a temporary facility, where all books might not be on hand, and he wouldn’t want to move into a new building with old, obsolete equipment. In addition, RFID facilitates check-in and sorting with an Automated Materials Handling System (AMHS), which is included in the Capital Improvement Plan for 2014/15. Stow asked if Voltmer felt certain that items purchased in 2011 would integrate with an AMHS that will not be purchased until 2014, and how the system would work for the Circulation Department in a much larger, two-story building. Voltmer stated that she did not believe two stories would matter, as the plan is to place check-out machines throughout the building. She said that staff had gone on field trips to see different types of AMHS equipment. They had not seen a SirsiDynix machine, but all of them seemed to work fine and she has faith that they will still be compatible when APL is ready to get one. She added that her department is looking forward to tagging now, so that customers could be taught how to use the equipment while the library is in the temporary facility. Quinn estimated that tagging would take about 500 hours. Stow asked if vendors could be hired for a fee in order to free up staff to do their regular library work. Quinn said they could and that question had been posed in the RFP; however, the decision to do the work in-house primarily had to do with meeting the budget. Voltmer added that doing the tagging would give staff a chance to buy in to the project, and she felt there would be more consistency in the results if our own people were instructed in the procedure. Weeks said some libraries have reported the tagging process to be an enjoyable, team-building experience, as well as a change of pace. Meier asked if the warranty on equipment purchased in Phase II would start on delivery or when the library started using it. She was concerned that the library might lose a year of warranty. Weeks said a year might be lost on items that weren’t being used, but the security gates might actually be used in the temporary facility, if they were portable. He noted that, rather than a warranty, there is usually a maintenance contract that was free in the first year and then has progressive charges. Weeks said he would make sure the company made good on something the library bought, if it turned out it just didn’t work, and it wouldn’t be hard to test the equipment upon receipt. He said the quotes on maintenance contracts were about $5000 per year, which is roughly equivalent to what the library pays on the equipment it has now. Weeks said that the price would go down if multiple-year agreements were purchased, and he would like to check on the possibility of doing that because the library could probably buy multiple years with the money left in Phase I. Stow asked if there are other libraries nearby that have the SirsiDynix equipment. Quinn said he thought Madison, WI, was the closest place right now. Voltmer stated that she had called three references and all of them seemed to like the company. Manus wondered how many units the library was planning to buy. Quinn said they had not settled on the number, since the equipment is part of Phase II of the project. He guessed that the library would probably want two or three on the main floor and at least one on the second floor, along with some table-top models. Manus asked about the maximum contract value. Weeks said the total cost was a “not to exceed” figure of $278,400. Luckett said it was important to note that the money for this did not compete with the library improvement money. Quinn showed a video clip of the system being used for check-out. Manus asked if check-out data went automatically to the library’s network storage area, and if the library then had to pay for back-up. Quinn said it would go directly into the integrated library system. Manus asked if the contract took the cost of data storage into account, or if there was any overhead, ongoing, or residual expense that the Board didn’t know of. Weeks said that training, shipping and handling were included in the quote. He thought the hidden costs the trustees would be most concerned with were the site licensing and the maintenance contracts for hardware and software. Luckett asked if RFID would facilitate book returns and shelving. Quinn said that one of the major advantages of an RFID system would be for the library to eventually have an AMHS that moves returned items down a conveyor belt and sorts them into the appropriate bins or onto carts. The AMHS makes it easier to get returned items back out to the shelves right away. Stow said the trustees were being told staff is recommending the lowest bid, but the blank evaluation form didn’t tell how the various offers came out in the ranking. He was concerned about the Board approving something that it would be passing on to City Council to approve without more detail. Weeks said it was his understanding that when the Purchasing Department has that information in hand, it is still proprietary and confidential, and it doesn’t get released to the public until after the City Council approves it. Weeks added that the library does not do the tabulations. He said he had asked the Purchasing Department for them earlier in the day, but couldn’t provide the information to the Board this evening because the library’s purchasing agent was out due to a death in the family. He said the Purchasing Department would help the library develop the Council Action Form in the proper format for approval. Manus wondered if the matter should be tabled, since Meier also had questions about the warranty. Campbell said he had a different degree of trust and faith in the committee and the technology than the others seemed to. He said these items have been on the market for quite a while and he didn’t think they would still be on the market if these types of concerns were major issues. Schill said he didn’t have any concerns from a technological standpoint, either. This type of technology has been around for several years. He said he had downloaded an iPhone and android app that synchs up with the database. He believes they are on the cutting edge of what mobile technology is doing in the rest of the world. He is also knows that Board has approved other contracts and worked with this company in the past. Bradley asked if it would make sense to wait on the RFID purchase until it is known where the library is going. Weeks said the equipment could be bought as late as June 2013. Also, if the library were not going to use it right away, the boxes could be opened up and equipment could be tested before being put into storage. Weeks added that the committee was not going to explain what units the library wants to purchase right now, especially the self checks, because the architect needs to be consulted about the models that will be most appropriate for the design of the building. Stow pointed out that there were two different ways of approaching this purchase. This way, if the Board approved a price of $158,000 now, staff would have to take that amount, divide it up, and see what they could get after working through the process with the architect. The other way would be for the library to work with the architect first, figure out exactly what was needed, then bring that amount forward for approval and spend it. Manus asked what would happen if it turned out that $222,000 were needed in order to select units that would go better with the design and functionality of the new building. Weeks said he thought the $153,400 would actually be a goal to strive for, rather than a limitation. The money is already appropriated to the library, unless the Board decided it didn’t want the library to do the project. He cautioned, however, that if the library gave the money back to the City, it would not get to use it for something else. Stow said the Executive Committee had talked the previous evening about adding the phrase “in an amount not to exceed $278,400” into the motion. Luckett felt that that would be appropriate and Campbell agreed to the friendly amendment. Meier remarked that the Board would not see the contract before it went to City Council on February 28. Weeks said he would be more than happy to send them the contract. Vote on Motion as amended: 4-2. (Voting aye: Campbell, Meier, Manus, Schill; voting no: Bradley and Stow.) Motion carried. Resolution adopted. Approving Contract and Accompanying Attachments with Meyer Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd. (MS&R) for the Library Renovation and Expansion Project Moved by Schill, seconded by Luckett, to adopt the following resolution: Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees, Ames Public Library, approves the contract Document B101-2007 and all accompanying attachments with Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd. for the design, construction documents, and all necessary activities specified within the contract for the purpose of the library renovation and expansion project. The Library Board agrees to the $1,487,325 total professional fees, as specified in the contract, and to reimbursable expenses not to exceed $40,000. Weeks said this contract would be for Phase II of the expansion and renovation project. The contract specifies design of the building, development of contract (bid) documents, and monitoring of the construction, once that process gets underway. He said that MS&R had started on design and development on February 6 and advised that staff would like to get this passed and approved by City Council so the architects could be paid for their work in March. In addition to bid documents, the contract includes cost estimations along the way, bid procedures, building commissioning, and all other work necessary for the conclusion of the project. This phase also includes work on the design, selection, and procurement of furniture, furnishings, signage, and equipment. The City requested a $21,000 add-on to the contract that means MS&R will leave “as constructed” documents with the library at the conclusion of the project, so that there will be reference materials that can be used when repairs or modifications to the building are made up the road. Weeks said the contract had been vetted by the City Attorney, the Finance Director, and the Purchasing Manager, as well as the library staff and himself. After several days of negotiations, Weeks said they were nearing completion of a contract all parties are happy with. The contract is based on a single prime bidder, with a provision for an owner’s rep that the architect will work with at the appropriate times. Weeks said MS&R’s charges are equivalent to nine percent (9%) of the estimated cost of construction, with some credit given for work done in Phase I. Weeks recommended approval of this so the contract could be approved by City Council at its meeting on February 28. Meier noted that the contract was electronic and wondered if there was a summary of the costs. Manus said she also felt it would be good for the trustees to see a document that gave them an understanding of the scope of the contract so they would know who would be doing with pieces of the deliverables. When asked for clarification about what she was specifically asking, Manus replied that it would be helpful to know the roles and responsibilities of the parties the library is partnering with and what work each one will be performing, so that a year from now the Board can hold all parties accountable for delivering the work. She said she would not personally be looking at the project full time, but felt this was part of the fiduciary due diligence piece. She wanted something that explained, in a simplified, general way, what components of the whole project would be performed by whom. She said that when she takes a contract to her board of directors, she has to provide a summary of the major things they need to be aware of and what each of the parties are doing. In this case, she is seeing only that the board will be signing a contract with Jeff (the principal architect). Weeks directed attention to the briefing paper, which listed the architect’s responsibilities: design development; developing the bidding documents; and monitoring bidding procedures. He said the OR is strictly an advisor. He doesn’t take over any of the architect’s duties, although he may help promote the bid to interested contractors. The architect will be responsible for helping to negotiate with the general contractor, for getting the conditions over to the City Council, and will be responsible for construction administration. In other words, MS&R will have a “boots-on- the-ground person” who can probably visit the construction site once a week or more. Manus asked if the frequency of boots on the ground was defined in the contract. Weeks said the OR was defined as being on site twice a month to advise the library on what he sees going on, indicate what he thinks is going right, or make suggestions about what might be improved. He will also be in contact with the architect if he feels there is something he should be advised about. Weeks said that, basically, the owner’s rep will be an advisor to the owner—meaning himself—who would ask for direction on which way to go, should there be conflict between the architect and general contractor. Manus asked if there were guidelines or conflict resolution protocol. Weeks said that it ranged from resolution on the informal basis all the way up to how the parties would mediate, if something went all the way to mediation, arbitration, etc. Manus thanked Weeks for his explanations and said she felt more comfortable after the conversation. Meier said she would still like to have a written document so she would know and be able to remember what the agreement is. Weeks said he would put the information in writing as soon as possible. Campbell asked if the contract could be made available electronically; he would like to read the entire thing. Weeks said he would get it out to the board. He assured them that the contract had been vetted by the experts and the City Manager would make sure everything was in order before it went to City Council. Weeks said he had taken the risk of directing MS&R to start work this month, but if the contract was not forwarded to the Council, the project would get stalled. Stow asked what the current total budget for the project was. Weeks said it remains $20 million. He said he had gotten some quotes that were going higher, but will be sure to bring them down. He urged the Board not to get too alarmed about cost at this point; multiple cost estimations will be done throughout the design development phase. Stow said a public document had gone to the city the previous week which said the current cost estimate was over $21,405,052. He said that would mean a budget shortfall of one million, four hundred and five (thousand) and the $2 million fundraising goal hasn’t yet been reached, so there need to be conversations. Weeks stated that $357,000 could be removed right away, because Phase I was included in the price quote Stow referenced. He said another $400,000 in change orders could be put in already and other items could be looked at, such as LEED certification or $50,000 for security gates, that don’t need to be there. He maintained that that estimation should not be cause for alarm at this stage because if the price goes higher, adjustments can be made. Meier said she felt $21 million was alarming at this point. Campbell asked where that document was available and if it was something the Board hadn’t seen. Stow said it was sent to the City and he had made a request for it. Manus said she did not feel too much alarm, but would still like a brief, summary document outlining the scope of the contract, and would also like to have the budget kept in the forefront as the project goes on. Keeping in mind that it will be adjusted, she thought it would be good to see quarterly—or however often the board reflects on it—how actual costs were comparing with the budget. That way the trustees won’t have to panic, but can be aware of what is going on. Stow said the citizens of Ames gave this project a very high approval rating, so the board needs to be accountable. Weeks mentioned that the Board of Trustees meets once a month, but these decisions are not always monthly matters. Stow recognized that, but pointed out that information flow was an important part of it. Weeks said that if the board had not received enough information in the past, he would make sure they got it in the future. Vote on Motion as presented: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Requesting the Ames Public Library Friends Foundation (APLFF) to transmit Library Renewal Project Donations to the City Moved by Stow, seconded by Campbell, to adopt a resolution directing the Ames Public Library Friends Foundation to transmit a minimum of $160,000 to the City of Ames in the month of March, 2012, for the purpose of funding start-up activities related to the library building renovation and expansion project. Weeks explained that with this action, the board was requesting that the APLFF transmit money it has received for the building project to the City, where it can earn more interest and be available to cover invoices as they come in. Carey added that the Friends Foundation would appreciate having a request to respond to. Vote on Resolution: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Stow requested that staff bring a recommendation to the March meeting on a protocol for the APLFF to make regular transfers of building project donations to the City. Strategic Plan 2011-2015 Weeks said the library’s last plan started in 2007 and ran to 2010. Development of it was an elaborate process took place that involved about 100 members of the community. After that, it was decided to have a strategic plan that was a little bit lighter in nature, developed by staff, for the staff. He explained that quite a bit of work was done to analyze strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) before the All Staff Meeting in February 2011. A consultant, Lois Smidt, then came in and conducted a dream pathing process with staff based on the SWOT analysis. Some things going on in Smidt’s family life prevented a timely return of the information she had gathered, but after it was finally received, Weeks said the supervisory staff took another look at it and produced this document. Weeks stated that the library needed to have a strategic plan in place to turn in with its accreditation materials, which are due on February 29. He emphasized that staff had a great deal of ownership in the 2011-2015 Plan, based on the meetings held in the divisions, on Staff Day, and in subsequent review. Manus said that, from her perspective, the plan lacked depth of vision. She feels strategy should be developed at a high level with the inputs of the constituents and, in this case, she feels the vision should come from the board. Manus said she also feels some objectives need to be outlined in the plan, as well as a way to move forward. Stow said he was concerned that this plan was coming to trustees just three weeks before it was due for accreditation and they have never seen it. He said the bylaws state that the board is to participate in the development of the long-range goals of the library and work toward the achievement of those goals. To him, this document seems more like a “to do” list. Weeks said the library was in a hiatus now, with having to move to a temporary location and deal with construction, so there was no intention of taking the long view until the library got into the new building. That will offer a great opportunity to stop and look forward, and get the community and constituents together. Weeks apologized that a series of events led to the plan being delivered late. He noted that there is a compliance factor here because it is important for the library to have accreditation; however, he does not believe the library is equipped to do a full strategic plan while working on RFID and the building project and moving to temporary quarters. Meier asked if it would be possible to get an extension from the state. Weeks said he was not sure, but he could ask. Manus said she thought that would make sense, because as the library takes on projects, it needs to have high level objectives that can tie them together She feels it’s especially important for a non-profit organization to have that high level vision so everyone can rally around it. Campbell said he was in favor of inquiring about the possibility of an extension, but felt the library should have a new plan when going into the new building. Moved by Stow, seconded by Campbell, to approve a resolution adopting the Ames Public Library Strategic Plan for 2012-2013, with Goal 1 removed because it has already been completed. Vote on the Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Stow also said he’d also like staff to think about developing a strategic plan for 2014-17. Recommending Change in Commencement Date of Trustees’ Terms of Appointment Moved by Stow, seconded by Schill, to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council that Section 15.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ames be changed so that the term of office for each library trustee shall begin on April 1 of the year of appointment. Luckett said that he had corresponded with Mayor Campbell to advise her that the library board would be requesting this change. She was pleased to hear that news because the members of other city boards and commissions are all appointed on April 1. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Next Regular Meeting Luckett said that he had learned that Stow and Rawlins would be out of town on the regular meeting date, but the Director Evaluation Committee (which includes Stow) reports to the board in March and he would like all the committee members to be present. The trustees consulted their calendars and discussed alternatives. Moved by Stow, seconded by Manus, to adopt a resolution setting the next regular meeting of the Library Board of Trustees at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at the Ames Public Library. Vote on Motion as presented: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution adopted. Trustee Comments: Schill said he was pleased to see the 2010/2011 Annual Report, is still full of exuberance and excitement about the building, and is very proud of being part of this dedicated board. Stow echoed Schill’s comments. He feels the board is being very diligent and he appreciates everyone’s input. He said they will continue to take the public faith seriously as the building project moves forward. Campbell said he was pleased about the idea of having a strategic plan going into a new library and was looking forward to that process. Adjournment: Moved by Stow, seconded by Campbell, to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Vote on Motion: 6-0. Motion carried unanimously. The next regular meeting will be on Thursday, March 20, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., at the Ames Public Library, 515 Douglas Avenue.