HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020.10.30 LBT Minutes - Special Joint with City Council Special Joint Work Session of the McCall City Council and the McCall Public Library
Board of Trustees
October 30, 2020 - 9:00 AM
Microsoft Teams/Legion Hall 216 E. Park Street
Call to order and roll call at 9:03
Library, Board and Campaign participants: Via Microsoft Teams — Library Director Meg Lojek;
Board members Lola Elliott, Dawn Matus, Patrick Coyle; Campaign Coordinator Amy Rush
At Legion Hall — Board members Jacki Rubin, David Gallipoli
City Council and City staff participants: Mayor Bob Giles; Council Member Mike Maciaszek;
Council Member Colby Nielson; City Manager Anette Spickard; City Clerk BessieJo Wagner;
Communications Manager Erin Greaves, Parks & Recreation Director Kurt Wolf
(Council Member Melanie Holmes joined later)
Amendments to Agenda: None
Welcome and Goal: Mayor Bob Giles welcomed participants and outlined the purpose of the
meeting: To bring City Council and Library Trustees up to speed on the Library expansion
project, and to come to consensus on the direction of the project by the end of the meeting.
History: City Manager Anette Spickard reviewed the timeline of library expansion efforts,
beginning with initial talks in 2001 between the City Council and the Library Board of Trustees
about the need for expansion and a long-range plan for city facilities; the adoption of a Library
Strategic Plan in 2003 that included a Library expansion plan; Council's 2017 approval to
proceed with the proposed Library expansion and an initial $3 million fundraising goal set by
Council and the Library Board; the May 2020 Library Expansion bond initiative, which narrowly
missed a supermajority, and Council's subsequent efforts to seek public feedback to help guide
a decision on how to proceed. Anette recognized the substantial time and effort put in by the
Board and other volunteers over the years to lay the foundation for the proposed Library
expansion, the cooperative work done between the Library and the City to explore different
options, and the efforts by Council, particularly over the past five years, into identifying a site for
Parks functions. Anette said the City looks forward to continuing to work together, and
expressed hope that by holding a dialogue, City Council and the Library Board would be able to
provide direction on the next steps for City staff to take on the project.
Update on protect activities.by Library Board: Library Board Chair Jacki Rubin thanked the City
Council for holding the joint work session, as well as Anette, BessieJo, Erin and other City staff
for creating the timeline of the Library expansion project's history. She said that the expansion
effort is at the best point that i,t has been in the past 20 years. She noted that the bond fell short
by just 29 votes in an election in which no similar bond initiative (hospital or school levies)
presented to Idaho voters passed, and that of all initiatives put forward, the McCall Library bond
received the highest percentage of"yes" votes (1107 votes). Since the election, the Building
Committee, the Library Foundation, the Friends of the Library, and the Ambassadors have met.
Jacki reported that all are on board with proceeding with the expansion project, as is the Library
Board. Informal conversations with voters by members of the board and different committees
suggest that two main elements prevented the bond's passage this year: worries about the
Page 1 of 5
Covid-19 pandemic and the cost of the Parks & Rec portion of the project. Jacki shared that the
Board wants to stay the course with the existing expansion plan, but recommends pursuing
changes to the bond and the amount to increase the chance of passage when it is resubmitted
to voters. That could include considering a renaming of the bond if the Parks component
remains intact. Jacki concluded by saying that the Board feels that the best time to put the bond
on the ballot again is May 2021. Mayor Bob and Jacki agreed consideration of the pandemic is
vital and that the timing of another bond is pivotal.
Results of focus -groups and other public feedback: City Communications Manager Erin Greaves
shared the results of personal interviews and small group discussions that she conducted to
gather feedback and opinion on the public about the Library expansion proposal, including
feedback on the need, the cost and the facilities. She shared that the majority of the 29
respondents see the library as important to the community, and were positive about the McCall
Library, its staff and programming. However, opinion was mixed on the proposed design and
cost, with cost being a priority in all focus groups. The desire for public gathering space came
up. Some proposed exploring partnerships as ways to expand the Library's collection, and the
need for the Library to use and provide access to new technology came up repeatedly.
Participants also want a Library that reflects McCall's unique characteristics. Overall, people
recognized the need for an improved Library building, but questioned the cost. Responses
indicated the public was not fully informed about the fundraising campaign, and supported more
private funding and small-scale donations to represent community buy-in. Responses also
showed that the inclusion of the Parks facility in the May 2020 bond muddied the waters for
voters. While they support what Parks & Rec does, many respondents said they would prefer to
remove the Parks facility from a future bond, even if it meant using taxpayer dollars to pay for an
alternative. Erin concurred with Jacki, saying that if the Parks facility remains part of the project,
a more transparent name might be preferable. Regarding timing, Erin said that considering
issues such as uncertainty stemming from the pandemic, concerns about costs and funding,
constituents seem to think that more time is needed before the Library expansion is put on the
ballot again, and said questions remain over marketing and communication, fixed and operating
costs, and what will happen to funds committed already if the project's timeline is extended.
The floor was opened to discussion. Council member Mike Maciaszek said he's absolutely on
board with finding the best way forward, and added that trying to taper down the bond to the
lowest possible amount is also important. Council member Colby Nielson said there are a lot of
factors to consider, and he would like to find a way to proceed with the project that provides the
most value to the community. Lola Elliot said the feedback from Erin's outreach efforts provides
a lot to think about. David Gallipoli said our messaging needs to be stronger; we need to answer
voters' concerns and question about cost, but we have the momentum and with the right
messaging, we should be able to successfully resubmit the bond in May. Dawn Matus
concurred with the need for skilled messaging, especially concerning cost and also to highlight
the fact that the Library is a long-term investment. Jacki suggested focusing on three major
takeaways from the presentations so far to reach some decisions: Everyone in the community
loves a library and people want a new building (64% of voters approved the bond initiative); the
bond amount of$6.2 million was a big number of most people, and the pandemic was probably
a factor; and the question of the timing of next bond initiative. Jacki noted that while some
people may feel that next May is too early, waiting has pitfalls including potential increases in
construction and borrowing costs, and the possible loss of grants, pledges and momentum
among project volunteers and committees.
Council/Trustee discussion: Mayor Bob led and moderated the discussion. He outlined the items
Council members and the Library Board would try to reach consensus on as a group: a)Timing
Page 2 of 5
of another bond (May or November 2021); b) Scope, including design elements of the original
design, Parks relocation, etc.; c) Cost and financing of the bond; d) Communication and public
education efforts. The Mayor's goal was consensus and to relay guidance to City staff through
Anette. The Mayor stated that it's very important for the City Council and the Library Board to
retain credibility with citizens, and the way to achieve that is by telling constituents how their
input was used and to craft changes that reflect their input, with specifics. To begin the
discussion, the Mayor suggested exploring a bond amount of around $4 million, which could be
achieved by either reducing the cost of the Library building's interior or exterior features by
about$500,000 (not square footage), and eliminating an additional $1.5 million. He said he was
open to taking another look at relocating Parks & Rec, the plaza, and extra parking. Two other
concepts to discuss are the technology hub idea, and how to meet the need for access to
computers, tablets, etc.; and fundraising. The Mayor called this extremely important. He said the
original goal was to cover at least 50% of the Library expansion, or around $3 million, through
fundraising, which includes funds from donors, LOT and City CIP dollars, and said the group
needs to review that goal and discuss it.
Timing of bond election: The Mayor reminded everyone of factors such as uncertainty caused
by the pandemic; time needed for public education efforts; time needed for additional
fundraising and the status of previous donor commitments; and the possible removal of Parks &
Rec from the bond. Lola favored May 2021, with the caveat that we need a lot of careful
communication. Patrick agreed that May 2021 is a good time, but cut the cost by taking out
Parks & Rec and the plaza. Dave said May 2021 is the time to go, we have the momentum, he's
very confident we can reduce the numbers of the project, and construction, labor and overhead
costs will rise in the future. Dawn suggested talking about scope and funding before deciding
timing. Jacki said she feels very strongly about May 2021 being the best time. In Nov. 2021,
there will be City Council races happening, costs will increase, grants are uncertain, and
construction costs will be delayed until 2022. The $3 million dollar fundraising goal was a guess
based on outside advice. As of now, $2 million has been raised, and fundraising efforts will
continue. She said a year from now is just too far out. Mayor Bob said he appreciated hearing
the reasoning and logic behind the May 2021 target.
Council member Maciaszek said he's on board with May 2021. Council member Nielson said
we should possibly discuss May of 2022, adding that cost is a major factor. Waiting would add
some flexibility with regard to funding the Parks portion of the project and could help to reduce
the bond amount. He noted the current uncertainty, and said one more year would make it
possible to dial in the numbers and financing, and might give the bond a higher chance of
success. Mayor Bob said he is OK with either May 2021 or '22 and recommended returning to
the topic after discussing scope and funding. The Mayor also clarified that his suggestion of
trimming the bond to $4 million doesn't mean reducing the cost of the Library building to that
amount. He assumes CIP and LOT funds and the Laura M Cunningham Foundation and other
private grants should add up to at least $2 million and close to $3 million. So, the Library would
be built as envisioned, with a possible $500,000 reduction in the cost of the exterior facade and
interior details.
Scope: Participants discussed whether elements of the original project should be revised
(parking, plaza, Parks relocation, citizens' hall meeting space, energy efficiency upgrades,
technology, etc.). Kurt Wolf explained the costs, and pointed out that the $1 million "parks
building" item in the cost estimate is mainly due to the fact that the cost of prepping the new site
is nearly equal to the cost of building the package for the new building (minus construction
costs). He said Parks & Rec is working on ways to reduce that cost, but cautioned that
eliminating elements of the building now, such as bays, will result in the need to address them
Page 3 of 5
later at a higher cost. He reiterated Council member Nielson's concerns about trying to float
another bond in May 2021, adding that if the Parks facility isn't in the bond initiative it will be a
challenge to fund an operational relocation in time for the Library expansion project. Mayor Bob
said the City supports making sure that the Parks relocation is done correctly.
The Mayor asked if the plaza should be included in the bond. Jacki said that while everyone
would love to see all of the elements included, changes are needed, and the plaza and the extra
parking should be looked at, perhaps funded from a different source like Urban Renewal. Lola
agreed that cuts need to be made, and she favors eliminating the plaza and extra parking.
Patrick said the plaza probably should be taken out, but parking is needed for the Library to
remain accessible. Jacki clarified that the discussion is about extra parking. Dawn favored
removing the plaza and extra parking from the bond. David said in the grander scheme of
things, the parking and plaza are not significant, and it would cost more to construct them later.
Council member Nielson said the cost of the plaza and extra parking are nominal relative to the
entire scope, and are necessary. He favors keeping them in and finding other ways to cut costs,
and suggested that there's potential in looking at working on the Parks facility in conjunction
with the Public Works facility. As for the Library, he suggested trying to design more efficiencies
in areas that people may not see but that would change public perception about the cost. He
said the bottom line in his view is that May of 2021 is really pushing it to try to get the bond on
the ballot and make meaningful changes to the concept, and for the City to have the ability to
fund things like the Parks facility. He added that he supports a new Library and would like to
figure out how to get it done so that the community feels excited and proud.
Bond Cost/Fundraising Goal: Mayor Bob asked for input on how much the bond amount should
be, and fundraising expectations. Council member Nielson said Parks facility will be pivotal in
coming up with that figure. The Mayor asked if Nielson would support exploring the idea of
relocating the Parks facility to the Historical Museum site with funding outside of the bond, on a
proper timeline, and trying to reduce the Library bond to $5.2 million. Nielsen said yes, although
he doesn't agree with the proposed site for Parks & Rec.
Council member Maciaszek said he appreciated David's comments and said he believes in the
people and experts working on the expansion project, adding that the community is significantly
in support. He added that everyone has listened to the community's feedback, done research
and is being proactive in addressing the community's concerns. He said he supports the Library
Board in its desire to move forward. He recognized the need to cut the cost of the bond, and
said he would leave decisions on what and where to cut with the groups working on the project.
Mayor Bob asked Campaign Coordinator Amy Rush about fundraising and for her feedback on
the discussion so far. Amy said that there are several donors who made gifts that are smaller
than they have the capacity for. She said fundraisers are willing to talk again, but they need to
be able to go back with all the details of the project budget. The vast majority of contingency
pledges are still in place. Ambassadors are lukewarm or split on whether they're willing to go
back to donors right now (without complete information). She added that there is potential for
more fundraising, but stressed that fundraising doesn't lead the charge and comes after the
details of the project are clear. Amy said she doesn't feel it would be possible to set a
fundraising goal without more information. Regarding grants, she said that most granting
agencies aren't willing to provide general funding for capital projects, and the Foundation would
be in a better position to apply for grants post-bond.
Mayor Bob noted that the meeting was well into overtime and a decision was reached to
Page 4 of 5
summarize the discussion so far. Regarding the timing of the bond, the Library Board and the
City Council narrowed down the options to the month of May, but didn't reach agreement on
whether the year should be 2021 or 2022. The Mayor's advice was that if both sides agree to go
with May 2021, the bond initiative needs to be simple and easy to explain. Concerning scope,
the Mayor recalled that there wasn't total agreement on smaller items like the plaza or extra
parking, but there was a lot of interest between the Board of Trustees and the Council in having
the City explore how to move Parks & Rec responsibly to the Historic site, and remove it from
the bond amount. That would involve looking at using sources such as LOT, CIP, etc., in time
for a May 2021 election. As for the total bond amount, respondents in the focus groups did not
like the idea of re-submitting a $6 million bond, and said returning to voters with the amount
unchanged wouldn't be responsible. On communication, the Mayor said everyone is following
Erin's lead, and by paying attention to the results of the public outreach efforts, there's a good
story to tell constituents going forward.
Jacki asked a procedural question about whether it is possible to make decisions during the
meeting. Mayor Bob said that there is a quorum, so it is possible to issue specific guidance to
City staff on, for example, the goal for the timing of the next bond election. Dave raised a
concern about the timeline, and asked how long it would take the City to figure out if funding
could be secured for Parks & Rec, so it could potentially be separated from the bond. Anette
said the City's budget is already set and programmed for the year. She said either the city would
have to internally develop a list of choices for the Council about what should be cut and
transferred to Parks & Rec., or look at new revenues that start coming in in the spring. She said
the Council could make a commitment on the Parks facility in May, but the official decision and
inclusion in the budget might be after that, depending on the source. Jacki said everyone agrees
that the same bond can't be floated, and deciding on the timing is a critical piece. Mayor Bob
said if the Library Board and City Council agree to go with May 2021, then one big item — Parks
& Rec—should be targeted to make the bond simple and to reduce the amount by about $1
million. He said LOT funds should be explored, and Anette should help figure out funding. Jacki _
said that would make the Library Board very happy. Anette confirmed that the City should work
on figuring out what it would take to relocate Parks without bond funds, and work with Erin on
messaging.
Agreement was reached on aiming to have City staff provide more information and answers to
the City Council at the December 3 meeting.
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 11:52.
Next Meetings: November 19, 9:00 AM, Library Conference Room or Virtual
December 17, 9:00 AM, Library Conference Room or Virtual
Minutes prepared by Dawn-Matus, Secretary
Respectfully submitte y t5'i Rubin, Chair
Page 5 of 5