MEMORANDUM

TO:

Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

FROM:

Bill Letteri, Public Works Director

SUBJECT:

Petition To Locate Branch Library Downtown

DATE:

April 23, 2007

INTRODUCTION

 

This memorandum provides information for Council in response to a petition presented to Council on April 11, 2007 by Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Nelson asked the Council to consider alternative locations for the expansion of the library, including a downtown site.

 

Council directed staff to provide a preliminary reaction to the petition and to address:

 

1)      Whether or not a relocated facility would be in conflict with the terms of the bond referendum;

2)      Allowable uses of library bond proceeds;

3)      Implications to the design process presently underway;

4)      Operational issues associated with a second library location, and;

5)      Alternative approaches to accommodating the expansion needs, to include lease, purchase or new construction.

 

For the purposes of this report, we have focused on the possibility of the library expansion in a location other than Pritchard Park.  If the Council wishes to pursue an option to relocate the entire library facility, we will need to develop additional information.

BACKGROUND

 

In 2002, the Town contracted with Robert H. Rohlf of Professional Library Consultants, P.A., to develop a recommended building program for effective library service for the Chapel Hill Public Library through the year 2025.   Adopted by the Town Council in 2003, the building program recommended a facility of 75,000 square feet, based on statistical and planning information regarding the library, its Five Year Plan, population served, and input on the part of the Library Board and staff of the Town of Chapel Hill.

 

In 2003, Chapel Hill residents approved a $16.23 million library expansion bond.

 

In 2004, the Town Council appointed a Library Building Committee to organize a process for selection of an architect to the Council, and to work with the architect through the design process.  The Town also sold $500,000 in bonds to cover costs associated with the initial design phase of the Chapel Hill Library expansion project.

 

In the summer of 2006 a Request for Proposals was issued for design services.  The design team of Corley Redfoot & Zack Inc. and Robert M. Stern and Associates were selected and have begun work on the preliminary design of the expansion in accordance with Council approved building program referenced above.

DISCUSSION

 

The following responds to specific questions raised by members of the Council:

 

Information Regarding Library Bond and Council Authority

 

  1. Bond Question.

 

The bond question that was placed before the voters and approved on November 4, 2003 read as follows: 

 

SHALL the order authorizing $16,260,000 of bonds secured by a pledge of the faith and credit of the Town of Chapel Hill to pay capital costs of providing additional library facilities, including, without limitation, the acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of real estate improvements and machinery and equipment required therefore and the acquisition of necessary land or rights in land, and a tax to be levied for the payment thereof, be approved?

 

On September 22, 2003, the Council authorized the Manger to distribute information to citizens through the Town’s website that included the following additional information: 

The Town Council has stated its intent to use the proceeds of the Library Facilities Bonds for expansion of the Town’s current 27,300 square foot Library in accord with recommendations of the Library Master Plan prepared using national standards, and adopted by the Town Council in April 14, 2003.  The Master Plan recommends a potential expansion of the Library up to 75,000 square feet to accommodate the community’s needs projected for 25 years.  The Master Plan envisions expansion of services to the public, including more internet access stations; more space for seating patrons and for storing books, compact disks and other media and more public meeting space.

 

2.      Statutory Provisions.

 

North Carolina General Statute Sec. 159-48(b) authorizes counties and cities to borrow money and issue bonds for the purpose of paying any capital costs including for “providing library facilities, including without limitations fixed and mobile libraries. . .”

 

This statute provides the following information regarding capital costs:

As used in this section (159-48), "capital costs" include, without limitation, the following:

(1)       The costs of doing any or all of the things mentioned in subsection (f) of this section; and

(2)       The costs of all property, both real and personal and both improved and unimproved, plants, works, appurtenances, structures, facilities, furnishings, machinery, equipment, vehicles, easements, water rights, franchises, and licenses used or useful in connection with the purpose authorized; and

(3)       The costs of demolishing or moving structures from land acquired and acquiring any lands to which such structures are to be moved; and

(4)       Financing charges, including estimated interest during construction and for six months thereafter; and

(5)       The costs of plans, specifications, studies and reports, surveys, and estimates of costs and revenues; and

(6)       The costs of bond printing and insurance; and

(7)       Administrative and legal expenses; and

(8)       Any other services, costs, and expenses necessary or incidental to the purpose authorized.

 

Subsection (f) of Sec. 159-48 provides:

(f)        For any of the purposes authorized by subsections (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section, a unit may do any of the following that it considers necessary or convenient:

(1)       Acquire, construct, erect, provide, develop, install, furnish, and equip; and

(2)       Reconstruct, remodel, alter, renovate, replace, refurnish, and reequip; and

(3)       Enlarge, expand, and extend; and

(4)       Demolish, relocate, improve, grade, drain, landscape, pave, widen, and resurface.

 

3.      Questions asked on April 11.

Following presentation of the petition on April 11, Council members asked questions regarding whether, based on the bond approved by voters, an alternative site could be considered downtown for additional library facilities.

Based on the question approved by the citizens on November 4, 2003, the Council is not legally limited to using the library bond proceeds to expand the current library facilities at Pritchard Park.  Information provided by the Town at the time of the bond decision did state that the Town’s intent was to expand the library at Pritchard Park.   

As indicated by the provisions of the statute cited above, bond proceeds must be used for capital costs.  Thus, we believe that merely paying annual rent would not be an authorized use of bond proceeds; however, purchase and improvement of land and existing structures for library use would be allowable.  The question of whether the acquisition of a long term interest in real property, short of outright purchase of the property, would be a permissible use of bond proceeds is a more complicated question that would need to be considered further in consultation with our Bond Counsel.  The answer could depend on the terms proposed for any long term lease or other interest acquired, including the length of time and method of payment for the interests acquired. 

 

4. Debt Service

 

The Council could use an amount of funds now forecast for debt service for any other purpose, including rental of property.  Our current estimate of a full year’s debt service related to the Library Bond is $1.5 million.  Approximately $800,000 in debt service will be required in FY 2009-10 and an additional amount of $700,000 in FY 2010-11.  This amount would decline in subsequent years.

 

Information Regarding Design Process and Contract Issues:

 

The petitioner recommends, in effect, a re-evaluation of the approved building program as adopted by the Council in 2003.  The current design process for the library expansion is well underway.  We believe the following information is relevant to understanding the effect of reevaluation on the design process:

 

ˇ         Our Design team has nearly completed the “preliminary design phase” portion of their contract.  This unique, stand-alone phase was established to define a conceptual solution and expected cost of expanding the library prior to commencing the more customary phases of design (i.e. schematic design, design development, etc.).  Our contract with the design professional provides total fees associated with preliminary design of $186,000.  We have paid $130,700 of this amount and expect an invoice for most of the balance within the next few days.  If the Town decides to consider new alternatives, we will need to repeat the preliminary design phase.

 

ˇ         If the Council elects to consider other alternatives for expansion of the existing library, we will need to modify our existing design services contract or issue a new Request for Proposals for design services.   This is a step we would need to evaluate at greater length.  The current design team has expressed a willingness to extend the preliminary design phase and explore site and building options for a branch downtown.  We expect that such an extension to preliminary design will add approximately $150,000 to the total cost of design plus whatever time would be required if we either need to or want to solicit proposals for a new design process.

 

ˇ         The existing Master Plan includes a building program based on a single-location service. We estimate that developing a revised building program will cost approximately $15,000.

 

ˇ         If the study of relocating library functions resulting in resuming the original expansion plan, a total project delay of 9 to 12 months could be anticipated, resulting in additional erosion of scope due to inflation.  In the current construction market, inflation has averaged nearly a percent per month over the past few years.  Thus, each month’s delay would reduce the overall program by about 1%. As with our other recent project experience, time delays erode project scope by when available resources for the project are capped.

 

Information Regarding Operational Issues:

 

The idea of providing a branch library, either near or in downtown Chapel Hill, has been reviewed by the Council on several occasions. 

 

On November 13, 1989 and on January 14, 1991, the Council reviewed options for future library service, including maintaining the facility at 523 E. Franklin Street as a branch.  The Council resolved to pursue a single library building financed primarily with bond proceeds. 

 

The current facility is based on space allocations included in the library building program prepared in 1989. This program was downsized in 1990, due to lack of funds, to accommodate a Phase I and Phase II expansion on-site for a single-location service.  The Library Master Plan, adopted in 2003, is based also on a single-location library service.  Neither building program includes space for function areas required to provide branch services, such as preparation of, borrowing of and delivery of materials between locations. 

 

In a report to the Council in 1991, the staff provided the following reasons for not pursuing a branch library:

 

1.         Cost

 

In light of costs associated with operating the then new library, the Council agreed to maximize the use of the new, expanded facility and to not retain the 523 E. Franklin Street facility as a branch.  This was determined after reviewing the estimated annual cost of operating a 30,000-50,000 volume branch library for staff, collection development and utilities, and the one-time capital expenses to establish a branch for collection acquisition, equipment, furniture and a delivery vehicle.

 

2.         Patron inconvenience

 

Branch systems can create delays for patrons and may require additional travel and fuel.  In a branch system, a book may be in, out, or available at the other location, requiring a patron to either request the book and wait for it to be delivered or drive to the other location to acquire the material.

 

A branch library might house only a children’s or teen collection.  However, children, teens and adults often use adult and youth collections interchangeably.  Many patrons, not only children and teens, would want materials from the other location, requiring two library visits to fulfill the needs of everyone.

 

3.         Duplication of services and staff

 

A branch library would require duplication of at least part of the reference collection and the basic book collection.  More copies of a single title would be purchased, resulting in fewer titles being purchased.  Unless a library already has a large basic book collection, duplication inhibits the variety and the growth of a collection. 

 

In a branch system two circulation desks and two reference desks would have to be staffed.  Also, staff and a van would be required to deliver books between the two buildings. Additional staff hours would be required to handle the increased interlibrary loan activity.  A single facility requires only one circulation desk and one reference desk; no additional staff hours for delivery and interlibrary loan activities would be required. 

 

4.         Need

 

Branch library service is often found in areas of high population density (urban areas) and low population density (rural county library systems).  Medium sized municipalities usually provide library services from a single main library. 

 

In 2005-06, of North Carolina’s ten municipal public libraries, of which Chapel Hill is one, High Point and Hickory maintain branches.  High Point (population 92,500; 43 square miles) provides a virtual branch, with service limited to public computers and on-line reference links to the main library.  Hickory (population 38,018; 28 square miles) provides a small full-service branch.  Hickory’s 2000 census Metropolitan Combined Statistical Area population was 341,851, making it the 4th largest metropolitan area in North Carolina.

CONCLUSION

 

We believe that there are two primary options for the Council to consider with respect to this issue.  The first would be to simply proceed with the current process to design and construct an expanded library on the existing site.  This process has been underway for several months and is proceeding smoothly and on time.  The Design Team and Library Building Committee have made significant progress in defining an acceptable solution for the expansion and the group is poised to begin formal design.

 

The second option would be to temporarily suspend the current design effort and begin an expedited feasibility study of leasing, renovating or constructing a second branch downtown.  We believe such a study would take a minimum of 90 days and may require the engagement of outside resources (property searches, feasibility issues).

 

If this option is chosen by the Council, we suggest the following process: