Library Board Meeting Minutes - Lincoln City Libraries

LIBRARY BOARD MEETING MINUTESTUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005; 8:00 A.M.BOARD ROOM, BENNETT MARTIN PUBLIC LIBRARYLINCOLN, NEBRASKALIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynda Anderson, Marlene Cupp, Jeff Kirkpatrick, NormLangemach, Shirley Maly, Jim O’Hanlon, Darrell Podany. Absent: NoneOTHERS PRESENT: Carol Connor, Library Director; Barbara Hansen, Administration Aide; Paul Jones,Accountant; John Felton, Information Services & Technology Coordinator; Suzan Connell, LibraryResources Coordinator; Myrna Tewes, Public Services Coordinator; Pat Leach, Youth Services Supervisor;Carolyn Dow, Polley Music Librarian; Kent Remmenga, Information Services and Technology Librarian;Jodene Glaesemann, Walt Branch Supervisor; Rick Hoppe, Mayor’s Office.APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda/meeting notice was posted according to the Open Meetings Lawof the State of Nebraska. Ms. Maly moved approval of the agenda as posted. Second by Ms. Anderson.Roll Call Vote: Anderson, Cupp, Langemach, Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany - aye; Kirkpatrick - absent. Motioncarried.PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS: NoneAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Maly moved to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2005, board meetingas mailed. Second by Ms. Cupp. Roll Call Vote: Cupp, Kirkpatrick, Langemach, Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany,Anderson - aye. Motion carried.STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTSCommittee on Buildings & Grounds -Gere Energy Audit - Ms. Cupp reported the executive summary of the Charles H. Gere Branch LibraryHVAC Study was mailed to board members previously. Andrew Thompson and Ravi Maniktala of the M.E.Group, Inc. were introduced.Mr. Thompson reported M.E. Group, Inc. (MEG) was contracted to review the existing HVACsystem at Gere Branch Library and make recommendations on possible modifications. A building load wasperformed to determine if the existing equipment was matched to the building. This was completed usingthe Trane Trace program. The existing system based on building operation and occupancy is sizedsufficiently.Based on discussions with Gary Meier, observation of operating systems, control set points, and comparingactual energy consumption compared to a computer model. It was observed that the control system,although operating as designed, is incapable of providing necessary equipment controls for optimizedsystem operation. Currently the maintenance staff performs these operations manually.The existing equipment and systems are well maintained with no apparent system leaks, other than waterleakage at the coil side of the air handler located on the mezzanine level.Recommendations for existing system include:Based on discussions with Gary Meier and MEG experience a preventative maintenance cost has beenincluded in the comparative calculations. The calculations include an approximate $10,000 a yearmaintenance cost. This preventative maintenance cost of $60,000 is beyond the $10,000 per year. In thecalculations, the $60,000 is applied as an installed cost. Estimated Cost $60,000

Library Board Meeting Minutes Page 3June 14, 2005building. The existing boilers could remain to allow existing hydronic heating to remain and provide auxiliaryheat for the heat pumps. Existing chiller system will be completely removed along with the existing multizonesystem. The other system components and benefits will be the same as the California system but willhave additional energy savings by eliminating the cooling tower and boiler for normal heating and cooling.Also included in this modification is the addition of a new control system. Estimated Cost $350,000.All three systems could be installed without closing the library facility. All three systems utilize existing ductwork, building openings, and mechanical spaces resulting in no change to the building appearance.Although the conversion of the existing multi-zone system to VAV will have the lowest first cost, it utilizesthe existing condensing units and air handlers. The calculations also illustrate that the VAV system willhave the fastest life cycle payback of 3.2 years. The implementation of the VAV system is a temporarysolution approach. The VAV system utilizes existing equipment, which based on our experience will have areplacement cost of $150,000 between year 10 and 20. The VAV system will provide desired comfort andenergy savings for the immediate future, but the installation of this system is deferring replacement costs toan inevitable date in the next 10 to 20 years. Comparing the VAV system with the California Heat PumpSystem (Alternative 1 and Alternative 4) results in a 9.2 year life cycle payback for the California Heat PumpSystem. These results illustrate that the California Heat Pump System’s higher initial cost is offset by theVAV system due to the $150,000 replacement cost at year 10.The Ground Source Heat Pump System will have better energy performance than the California Heat PumpSystem, but the higher installation cost can not be effectively recovered in the life cycle analysis. Both heatpump systems will have similar reliability but the California heat pump system is $75,000 less first cost thanthe Ground Source Heat Pump System. The California Heat Pump system will have no impact on theexisting landscape as opposed to the Ground Source Heat Pump System.We recommend the implementation of the California Heat Pump System based on energy efficiency,reliability, ease of maintenance, comfort levels, and life cycle analysis.Economic SummaryAlternativeNumberInstalledCostFirst YearUtil.CostFinal YearUtil. CostFirst YearMaint. CostFinal YearMaint. CostLife CycleCost1 New VAV 182,500.00 21,727.44 31,652.77 9,491.46 13,827.26 930,573.302 Existing 60,000.00 61,352.83 89,379.48 10,066.70 14,665.28 1,520,697.653 Ground 350,000.00 21,321.71 31,061.71 8,628.60 12,570.24 880,920.05Source4 CaliforniaLoop275,000.00 20,341.96 29,634.39 9,491.46 13,827.26 803,847.90Economic Comparison of the AlternativesAlt. – Alt.First CostDifferenceSimplePaybackNet PresentValueLife CyclePaybackInternal Rate ofReturn1 - 2 122,500.00 3.0 yrs 590,124.35 3.2 yrs 34.7 %3 - 2 290,000.00 7.0 yrs 639,777.60 7.4 yrs 17.4 %4 - 2 215,000.00 5.2 yrs 716,849.75 5.4 yrs 23.0 %The full report is available for review in the Director’s Office. No action on the report was taken at this time.Elevator Car Door Replacement - Ms. Cupp reported three bids were received to replace the elevator cardoors on the courtyard elevator at Bennett Martin Public Library. Ms. Cupp moved to accept the bid ofO’Keefe Elevator Co. in the amount of $10,424. Second by Mr. Kirkpatrick. Roll Call Vote: Kirkpatrick,Langemach, Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany, Anderson, Cupp - aye. Motion carried.

Library Board Meeting Minutes Page 4June 14, 2005Committee on Administration:Closed Session - Mr. Podany moved the board go into closed session at 8:25 a.m. for the purpose ofdiscussing the Library Director’s annual evaluation. Second by Mr. Kirkpatrick. Roll Call Vote: Langemach,Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany, Anderson, Cupp, Kirkpatrick - aye. Motion carried.At 8:55 a.m. Mr. Podany moved to return to open session. Second by Ms. Maly. Roll Call Vote: Maly,O’Hanlon, Podany, Anderson, Cupp, Kirkpatrick, Langemach - aye. Motion carried.Mr. Podany moved to accept the Committee on Administration report. Second by Ms. Cupp. Roll Call Vote:O’Hanlon, Podany, Anderson, Cupp, Kirkpatrick, Langemach, Maly - aye. Motion carried.Bylaws Update Proposal - Mr. Podany moved to amend the Library Board of Trustees Bylaws to include“The board shall schedule at least four regular board meetings during each year to be held in a libraryfacility in one of the four quadrants. At least half of the regular board meetings scheduled each year shallbe an evening meeting scheduled after normal daytime working hours.” Second by Mr. Kirkpatrick.Mr. Podany explained he proposed the amendment to make board meetings more accessible to the publicand create more opportunities for members of the community to join the board. The current structureexcludes a significant part of the population from applying for the board or attending board meetings.Mr. O’Hanlon stated the amendment is a good idea but questioned the need for it to be spelled out in thebylaws. The current bylaws state the date the monthly meetings are to be held but does not limit time orlocation.Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that the advantage of putting it in the bylaws is that it locks it in until the board makes adecision down the road not to do it that way.Ms. Maly explained that board meetings at quadrant libraries are a good idea and would be part of boardoutreach activities but does not know if it necessarily needs to be in the bylaws. It doesn’t necessary haveto be an official business meeting either. The board has had great success with town hall type meetings.Mr. Langemach asked if it is not addressed in the bylaws, will the board follow through and do it.Mr. Kirkpatrick asked about the staff attendance at the meetings. Would moving the time and location ofboard meetings require additional staff costs?Mrs. Connor explained that staff attending the meeting is management so overtime would not be an issue.Some staff have child care responsibilities that may present challenges attending evening meetings.Mr. Langemach noted that per Article X of the bylaws, this serves as notice to members of the proposedchange. Voting must take place at the next board meeting.Ms. Anderson stated that she would prefer to see the bylaws state 1/3 of the meetings be held in theevenings rather than 1/2. The board could always add more evening meetings if they were popular andworked well for attendance.Mr. Podany accepted 1/3 of the meetings (four) as a friendly amendment.Mr. Langemach reviewed the motion on the floor calling for four regular board meetings being held atquadrant libraries each year and that a minimum of four regular board meetings be held after normalworking hours each year. Mr. Langemach reported that this is the board’s formal notice and that the votewill be taken at next month’s meeting.

Library Board Meeting Minutes Page 5June 14, 2005Retreat - Ms. Maly reported the board’s retreat is Saturday, June 18, at the Pioneer Park Nature Centerfrom 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.. Betsy Kosier will be the facilitator. Coffee will be furnished. A lunch break will not betaken so Board members are encouraged to bring snacks to share.COMMITTEE ON FINANCE: Ms. Anderson reported on the recap of expenditures listing claims in theamount of $645,028.64 from operational funds and $113,234.38 from other funds for a total expenditure of$758,263.02. Ms. Anderson moved approval of the recap of expenditures and payment of all claims.Second by Ms. Cupp. Roll Call Vote: Anderson, Cupp, Kirkpatrick, Langemach, Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany.Motion carried.Polley Trust Payout Option: Ms. Anderson explained in the past the board has taken advantage of itsstatutory power to adjust the payout policy on the Polley Trust. Action must be taken on this each year todetermine if the board wants to go back to a net income payout vs. the payout based on the NebraskaUniform Principal and Income Act. The net income payout would be $49,953. If the board goes with thepower to adjust the payout would be $85,781.33. Ms. Anderson moved to continue with the payout policyunder the Nebraska Uniform Principal and Income Act as proposed by US Bank. Second by Ms. Maly. RollCall Vote: Cupp, Kirkpatrick, Langemach, Maly, O’Hanlon, Podany, Anderson. Motion carried.SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS:Future Library Development - No reportJoint Facility Development & Use: Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that the School Board will have to be coming upwith a bond issue at some point to build schools. The Arnold Heights facility may be one of them. Is thelibrary considering, or would it be possible, to piggy back on to the school’s bond issue for an ArnoldHeights/Air Park branch library? It seems to make sense that if a school is being considered for the area,that a library branch be considered at the same time.Mrs. Connor explained that the school bond issue would have to be separate from any public library bondissue. The City cannot be a part of a school bond issue.Mr. Kirkpatrick asked if the school could finance the library facility and the Library Board lease it from theschool?Mrs. Connor reminded the Library Board that a year ago the Library Board went on record agreeing to ajoint facility. The action did not spell out how it would happen.Mr. Langemach asked if there could be two bond issues at the same time, one for the library and one for theschool, with the understanding that there would be collaboration.Mrs. Connor explained the mechanism for the bond issue is something the City would have to decide. TheLibrary Board would need to follow the decision made by the City. It is more critical to the Library Board asto whether or not it is going to support an actual physical joint building.Mr. Langemach asked if the school was at a point where a decision needs to be made.Mrs. Connor explained at the June 6 th Super Commons meeting, the understanding was that the library hasagreed to the project in principle and the school is moving ahead. A copy of the meeting minutes and thestaff report will be sent to board members for their information.Mr. Podany stated that the point has been reached where clarification of what needs to be done has to takeplace. For instance, clarification about the need for separate bond issues is needed. That and questionslike it will need to be answered fairly quickly.

Library Board Meeting Minutes Page 6June 14, 2005Mr. Kirkpatrick agreed. This would be an appropriate time to go to the City and ask what the bond optionswould be.Mrs. Connor suggested the Library Board President send a memo to the Mayor asking that question.Mr. Podany agreed and recommended the board do that and at the same time maintain somecommunication with the schools to find out what their time table is for putting bond issues on the ballot.Jim O’Hanlon, Chair of the Joint Facility Development & Use Committee, stated that he would make somecontacts and see if an unofficial timeline has been discussed and how high a priority the Arnold Heightsarea is.Mrs. Connor stated that it is her understanding that the board’s question centers on the bond issue -whether the projects would require separate bond issues, whether the schools would do one bond issuewith the public library leasing back the public library facility, or if other options are available.Mr. Kirkpatrick noted that if they were separate bond issues one could pass while the other fails.Mrs. Connor stated that the board would need to check with the Law Department, but she assumes that wewould not build a library because the entire premise is a joint facility. In some communities the school willbuild the facility and lease it back to the library. It is unknown if that would be legal in Lincoln or inNebraska.Mr. Kirkpatrick also stated that co-locating is a possibility. Locate a library in the same area perhaps with aParks and Recreation facility so that all services are in the same area which makes sense for thecommunity. You do not necessarily have to share the same roof line.Mrs. Connor stated that may be an option. The community has been trying for many years to have jointpublic school/public library. The Arnold Heights location would be a good pilot project and has the bestchance for success. The community wants us to try it.Mr. Langemach stated that he would have to have more of an understanding of how a joint facility wouldwork.Mrs. Connor suggested that at a future meeting, the board could review the report prepared by staff lastyear. It has some specifics in it.One Book - One Lincoln Community Reading Program - Mr. Kirkpatrick noted the top 5 titles had beenannounced. Staff reported items were checking out briskly.Polley Music - No ReportTechnology - John Felton, Information Services and Technology Coordinator, updated the board onwireless access. A pilot project at Gere Branch Library will be undertaken. Funds are available from theGere Library Fund, a fund established by the Gere sisters and restricted for use at Gere Branch.PRESIDENT’S REPORT: NoneUNIFINISHED BUSINESS: NoneNEW BUSINESS: None

Library Board Meeting Minutes Page 8June 14, 2005Mrs. Connor explained there is some concern.Ms. Connell explained that older customers also find it difficult especially with the smaller devices that havesmall buttons that are difficult with arthritic hands. Also, if a customer has a DSL line it takes about 10minutes to down load a book. If you use dial up, it takes hours.Mr. Felton explained customers would be able to bring their iPod or other devices into the library and use alibrary computer to down load the title.LINCOLN CITY LIBRARY FOUNDATION REPORT: In Nicole Zink’s absence Mrs. Connor reported thefoundation legally changed its name to the Foundation for Lincoln City Libraries. The Cavett event raisedalmost $22,000. The foundation is beginning to work on its 2006 annual event.PUBLIC COMMENT: NoneADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m.