HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020.10.30 Regular Council Minutes MINUTES
McCall City Council
Special Meeting
A Joint Work Session with the McCall Public Library Board of Trustees
McCall City Hall--Legion Hall
AND MS TEAMS Virtual
October 30, 2020
Call to Order and Roll Call
Work Session
Adjournment
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Giles called the special meeting of the McCall City Council to order at 9:00 a.m.Mayor
Giles, Council Member Maciaszek, Council Member Nielsen, and all answered roll call.
Council Member Holmes joined at 11:19 a.m. and Council Member Sowers was absent.
City staff members present were Anette Spickard, City Manager;BessieJo Wagner,City Clerk;Erin
Greaves, Communications Manager; Linda Stokes, City Treasurer; Michelle Groenevelt,
Community Development Director; Kurt Wolf, Parks and Recreation Director; Meg Lojek, Library
Director; Traci Malvich, Human Resources Manager; Diane Penny, Library Associate
Library Board in attendance were Jackie Rubin, Chair; Patrick Coyle; Dawn Matus, Secretary;
David Gallipoli, Vice Chair; Lola Elliot, Friends of the Library;
Also, in attendance was Amy Rush, Campaign Coordinator
WORK SESSION
LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT
City Overview
Mayor Giles welcomed everyone and especially the newest members of the Library Board. He
explained the purpose of the work session is to bring the Council and Library Board of Trustees up
to speed on the Library Expansion Project and to come to a consensus on the direction for this
project by the end of the meeting.
City Manager Anette Spickard gave a history of the library expansion project and went over the
timeline to establish the current status of the project:
2001 - Council supports library expansion effort and creation of long-range city facility plan to
include purchase of former Fire Station now the Annex.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
2003 - Library Strategic Plan adopted including Library expansion and creation of Library District.
Council agrees with Library Board to expand Library on current site plus the former Fire Station
site. Council directs staff to pursue creation of the Library District.
2005-Voters do not pass Library District measure. Council approved remodel of former Fire Station
to house staff on a temporary basis. Library Director reminds Council the building was promised to
Library for future expansion.
2008 - Council approved updated Library Strategic Plan including goal to construct a new Library
on the City Campus and to establish a Library District.
2009 - City Facilities Planning effort developed by Police Chief and Library Director
2010-Library Trustees update Council on need for new Library Building due to lack of storage, no
meeting room, and small size.
2011 - Council continues facilities plan discussions, including concept of combining Library and
Community Center. Directs staff to develop action plan including a Parks Maintenance Facility.
2012 - Council discussed possibility of combining Library on Museum site but cited lack of funds
for the move and tabled the concept.
2013 - Council discussed the creation of a Library District. The Museum Board is receptive to
having Parks and Recreation housed at the Museum site. Councils renews Historic Museum lease
for 10 years including a provision to work with City to use a portion of the property for city uses
that do not interfere with the operation of the Museum.
2014 - Council discussed the creation of a Library District. Museum Board is receptive to having
Parks and Recreation housed at the Museum site. Councils renews Historic Museum lease for 10
years including a provision to work with City to use a portion of the property for city uses that do
not interfere with the operation of the Museum.
2015 - Library Board chooses not to pursue formation of Library District in favor of private
fundraising. Library Board applies for Local Option Tax (LOT) funds to develop conceptual plans.
Library Board creates Expansion Committee. Library Board gets energy efficiency
recommendations for current building. Council holds Campus Planning work session with facility
concepts for a two-story Library and cost to remodel Annex for Parks and Recreation purpose and
meet ADA standards.
2016-Council approves Request for Qualifications(RFQ)for design services for Library Expansion
and selects Humphries Poli (HP). LOT funds awarded to pay for design contract. HP reports that
current library is not ADA compliant, doubling of space will only accommodate current collection
and bring into ADA compliance. 7 preliminary concepts developed, two were selected for final
renderings. Option A expands onto Annex site and relocates Parks Department at estimated $5.8M
for Library and $630K for Parks move. Option B does not expand onto Annex site at cost of$5M.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
Expansion Committee recommends Option A. Council consensus to move forward with Option A
and directs staff to find funding options.
2017 - Council approves fundraising consultants contract using Library Fund balance. Laura Moore
Cunningham grant received. Council approves $60k LOT funds for expansion project. Council
approves Strategic Plan for Library Expansion Project, sets fundraising goal of$3M, and supports
idea of a Library Foundation. Council discusses required relocation of Parks Department to make
room for expanded library at a possible cost up to $2M.
2018 - Joint training of Council and Library Board on expansion financing tools including bonds,
property tax levy increases using overrides or foregone taxes, and lease purchasing agreements.
Council directs staff to pursue general obligation bonds. Council sets aside $100k in Capital
Improvement Funds for engineering and design services. Council selects Construction Manager
(CM)/General Contractor (GC) procurement method for project. Council reviews possible sites for
Parks and Recreation relocation: Museum, Riverfront Park, Public Works, Golf Course,
Commercial lease space, Idaho Power, County offices, Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) property
and the Community Center.Council reaffirms Museum site as the preferred location. Council directs
staff to prepare Civic Campus Master Plan.
2019-Library Board recommends selection of Humphries Poli(HP)as CM/GC.HP conducts public
engagement workshops and creates designs for Library Expansion. CM Company is selected as
construction contractor and prepares project estimates. HP works with Parks and Recreation to
develop site plan at Historic Museum and receive approval from Idaho Land Board for new
maintenance shop. Civic Campus Master Plan is created and adopted by Council showing new
Library expanded on existing site and Annex site.
2020-Council receives Library Expansion project update incorporating requested energy efficiency
upgrades. Final design, project estimates and Bond Ordinance adopted by Council. Bond Measure
referred to May 19 ballot. Measure fails super majority requirement with 64% yes vote. Council
holds work session for next steps and directs staff to conduct surveys and focus groups to understand
public opinion to inform future Council decision on the project.
Library Board& Subcommittees Overview
Library Board Chair Jackie Rubin gave an update on current project activities by the Library Board
and subcommittees. There has been much brainstorming in determining on how to move forward.
Below are summaries of those meetings:
Building Committee Meeting Summaries
The Building Committee's June meeting discussion included considering Option "A" a failure, the
Committee briefly looked at alternates, such as the 2016 Plan `B", or a new Plan "C" that would
phase the project. At the Committee's request, Library Director Meg Lojek spoke with Dennis
Humphries, who confirmed he does have capacity to work with the City this fall, in prep for a
possible May ballot. Mr. Humphries recommended to not let the grass grow and keep the bond
initiative as clean as possible to give people less to "pick at." The key question was "What
obligations does the library need to take on?" Mr. Humphries gave the Library Board contacts of
libraries who had failed library bonds twice in a row. Top takeaways from the Library Director's
conversations with those libraries were: Beware of other community initiatives going on
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
simultaneously; Don't wait too long in between ballot initiatives; Need endorsement from school
district and City; Lower bond amount, lower cost to appeal to community; Door-to-door campaign
is critical; Build volunteer team for honk-and-wave, postcards, phone banks, community
presentations.
In October,the Building Committee met.They questioned cost estimate validity as the plan becomes
a few years old. They would like to consider options to reduce the cost of the project, keep moving
ahead, and avoid having to go back to the drawing board closer to election date because of
unexpected cost increases. To allow cost reductions in small increments, suggested considerations
are level of finishes, equipment options, sewer line, plaza, and more. Andy Laidlaw will continue
work on cost estimates,once the Committee gets direction from Council to continue.The Committee
remains committed to move the project forward, make a good plan even better, consider post-
COVID design elements, like an even larger meeting room, and be forward-thinking about
assumptions made when making the case for a new library. The Committee will meet again after
this work session.
Library Board of Trustees Meeting Summaries
In June, the Board analyzed election results:
• No other school levy or bond passed in Idaho in May 2020.
• McCall Public Library received the highest percentage of Yes votes compared to all other
school and hospital bonds in the State in May 2020.
• 1107 Yes votes
• 29 votes short of the required supermajority 67%
• In talking informally with people, two elements came up with No voters: worries about the
pandemic and spending on the Park's building
• Election options are November and May only. November is a lower pass rate historically.
The July and August Board meetings focused on the evaluating the 800+online survey results. The
Board stayed in a holding pattern while Council commissioned the Focus Groups. The following
points were agreed upon:
• Stay the course with a library of appropriate size for our community, as already identified
through extensive professional research and community outreach over the past 5 years.
• Based on survey and focus groups results,listen to community concerns about cost and scope
and present a slightly adjusted financial package to voters.
• There are several possible ways to get there, and the Trustees are ready to work together
with Council to solve this puzzle. One suggestion that keeps the library initiative library-
centric is to lower the cost by not including the whole Park's building in the bond itself.
At the September and October meetings, the Board welcomed 3 new members since June: David
Gallipoli, Dawn Matus, and Patrick Coyle. Mr. Gallipoli has met with Kurt Wolf to evaluate
cooperative ways to reduce the cost of the Parks building. City Manager Spickard attended the Board
meetings, and the Board again discussed timing(School anticipates November discussion regarding
possible March bond,but no decisions will be made until December 14th).The Board also discussed
naming/branding the bond, financial elements of the bond package, updating the cost estimate, and
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
receiving direction from Council. Library Director Lojek reported the $150,000 Laura Moore
Cunningham grant has received a one-year extension.
Library Ambassadors Meeting Summaries
In June, the Ambassadors met with the Building Committee and the Library Director, then took a
break. Starting in October,their meeting schedule is now every 2 weeks.They are ready to approach
new donors,but do not want to revisit current donors until the City gives clear indication of the way
forward. Contingency pledges are in place; none have cancelled but several will need to be
renegotiated when there is a clear picture of the next steps. Prior donors being re-approached will
need bond details (what will be included) in order to feel confident in their giving. Consensus of
fundraising volunteers is that holding the bond until November of 2021 may be advantageous to the
fundraising efforts, as long as the details of what is included in the bond are set by the end of 2020.
Library Foundation Meeting Summaries
The Foundation continues to meet on a regular basis and remains committed to the project.
• New grant efforts are underway. The Foundation will submit three Letters of Interest and
one grant application by 12/15. ($45,000 total between the four is possible.)
• Amy Rush, working for the Foundation and cooperating with the Library Director, is
completely revising the Case for Support. Ms. Rush has used these past months to pursue
continuing education opportunities and benefited from several state and national trainings
for library capital campaigns in a COVID environment.
• Existing Grants — STEMAC Grant extension has been allowed for one year (total of
$150,000).
Friends of the Library Meeting Summaries
The Friends group has discussed their $50,000 commitment to the project and have issued $25,000
so far. The next $25,000 is still committed and will be allocated to the expansion project in 2021.
Public Feedback Overview
Communications Manager Erin Greaves summarized the public feedback and insights since the May
election. She presented some highlights from her report which was more focus groups, majority of
people still get their news from the Star News and have a town crier. Her meeting goals were to
uncover what the public thinks and not necessarily to correct any misconceptions. There was a total
of 8 meetings and many phone interviews.The meetings were both in person and virtually,questions
were consistent for each meeting, people were shown renderings of both the inside and outside of
the new design plans, and the Walk-Through video created by the Library Director. Everyone who
participated had positive things to say about the library. However, there were mixed feelings about
the costs. Some feedback indicated the portion of the community spaces were an empty promise but
many like the idea of the building being more of a community center. There was some doubt about
expanding the book selection and suggested more partnerships instead. Some expressed the
pandemic has produced doubt about the need for more books and felt it important that the library
become more of a technological hub.
The cost of the project was a big topic. Many want it to be unique to McCall but felt the costs were
too much. Most were split on reducing the size of the building to lower the cost as they like the plan,
but they do not want to pay for it. Not many knew about the donor program. They would like to see
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page S of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
more private grants as well. It was expressed that including the Park's facility, plaza, and parking
in the bond created some concern for citizens and they voted no. Renaming the bond is important
for transparency about what is in the bond.The design was described as not unique to McCall,which
is what is desired.
The majority of those who attended felt the library was for all people not just the city but did not
want to raise the price of library cards. They preferred the library being a McCall Library over a
Library District. It was stated a May election is too soon to give the City time to find other monies,
and could possibly be a strain on people's budgets at this time due to layoffs, etc. The suggestion
was to wait a year or year and a half. Suggestions given were to keep Parks in their current location
and use the space between city hall and the library for the expansion. The design seemed a little too
high end to most and they would like to see a design provided that was more appropriate for the
community.
Communications Manager Greaves covered some of the misconceptions people had and shared that
the exercise revealed the need for better communication. She went through the questions gleaned
from the focus groups for the City to reply which covered topics such as increased operational costs
outside of the bond, grant and private monies status if postponed, library budget increases, current
City bonds,Library revenue, and Park's building costs,operations and maintenance costs of the new
library.
Survey Feedback Comments
Council Member Maciaszek shared he is dedicated to looking for the best way to move forward in
a way that everyone is in agreement with, to taper down the building costs, and bring more private
donations into the mix. He is completely supportive of all of the people who have put so much effort
into this project. He does not have any questions at this time.
Council Member Nielsen felt there are many factors to consider and commended Erin Greaves for
collecting such quality feedback from the community. He has the same sentiments as Council
Member Maciaszek in moving this project in the direction the community feels will provide the
most value.
Friends of the Library Liaison Lola Elliot expressed her appreciation of the survey results, she was
surprised of the amount of people unaware of the timeline, the conversion from the quiet time to the
active needs looked at, and the community thinking it inappropriate to put the bond in the next
election. The feedback has given her much to consider and she needs time to absorb.
Library Trustee David Gallipoli appreciated the work done with the community but still feels the
May election is appropriate. He feels the time is now and it really is about better communication to
the voters.
Library Trustee Dawn Matus echoes Mr. Gallipoli's comments regarding communicating the costs.
She brought up the community is probably unaware or has not taken into consideration the life of
the library building in their comments which is an important piece to this project's passage.
Library Director Meg Lojek did not feel she could comment at this time due to missing half of the
session due to technical difficulties.
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 6 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
Library Board Chair Jackie Rubin felt survey results were a great resource and felt it important to
keep moving forward. She had three major takeaways from the feedback: 1) Everyone loves the
library so how to move forward, 2) Cost is a big deal at 6.2M for the community, and 3) When
should the bond go back to the ballot. The expression by the public that it was too soon to bring
back to ballot in the May election has her questioning if perhaps they cannot see the big picture.
Postponing a year or more creates issues; bond rates changing, increased building costs, grants and
personal pledges in jeopardy, and the momentum of volunteers to name a few.
Library Trustee Patrick Coyle felt the report given by Erin Greaves gave excellent feedback to
contemplate. He will save his questions and comments for the later portion of the work session.
Council/Trustee Discussion
Mayor Giles lined out the key elements to be discussed and asked the group to come to a consensus
on the following topics:
• Bond Amount - Mayor Giles asked the group to consider reducing the bond from $6.2M to
$4M by considering reducing the cost of the building materials by$500K and eliminate from
the bond the items addressing the Park's facility move,plaza, and extra parking.
• Technology Hub Concept
• Fundraising— originally had a 50% goal — would like to re-examine the goal to see if it is
relevant.
• Election Timing—Considerations to include are the pandemic uncertainty, time needed for
public education effort and additional fundraising, and status of previous grant and donor
commitments.
The discussion started with the timing of the bond going to election. Ms. Elliot acknowledged the
comments by citizens who felt like a May election was too soon but with the removal of the Park's
relocation and some tweaking, there is no reason the bond could not go to the spring election in
2021. Trustee Coyle agrees May is the most ideal time but the only way to make that deadline would
be to remove the Park's and the plaza pieces,which would allow the bond name to remain the same.
He felt the bond currently is convoluted and it made the citizens suspicious. Trustee Coyle is for
cutting operational costs and planning in the technology portion. He feels confident the costs could
be reduced, however, not sure the $4M goal is realistic due to the rising construction costs. He felt
a better way to message this to the public is to communicate the life cycle of the building and rising
costs of construction. Trustee Matus felt the timing issue should be discussed after consideration is
made regarding the scope and financing, so she had no comment at this time regarding the election
date. Trustee Chair Rubin expressed concern about waiting until November as there will be
additional items up for election that could compete with the library bond, as well as concern about
postponing grant money which can be problematic. Delaying the construction will mean an increase
in building costs. She feels strongly that a year from now is too far out and the bond should go to
the May election and believes delaying the bond election would be a detriment.
Council Member Maciaszek is in support of the May 2021 election. Council Member Nielsen agrees
with a May election but would like to consider a discussion for May of 2022 instead due to budgeting
the Park's move as the cost being a major player with a new or remodeled facility. Waiting until
May 2022 would add some flexibility in how to fund the Park's facility and be able to reduce the
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 7 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
bond amount. He is also concerned about where the world is currently and feels it would be better
to wait to see how it goes as there are many unknown factors right now adding stress to people's
lives. He does understand the public comment of turning the bond around quickly feeling rude and
thinks one more year will give staff time to dial in the numbers and financing. He feels it will give
the bond a higher chance of success.Mayor Giles is good with either May 2021 or 2022.He clarified
that his statement regarding the Bond amount being reduced to $4M does not mean it will a $4M
building. It was not about reducing the square footage of the building, only the superficial niceties.
He has expectation of continued fund raising. With the additional costs of the plaza and parking
being covered in the City's budget rather than the bond, the City needs time to find that funding.
Next up for discussion was the scope of the project, including possible revised design elements and
consideration of the parking,plaza, Park's relocation, citizens hall meeting space, energy efficiency
upgrades, technology, and any other items needing vetted.
Parks & Recreation Director Kurt Wolf spoke to the costs of the Park's relocation to help clarify
that part of the bond and gave a brief explanation of what those costs included. This is a complete
relocation of the operation including a new basic design,prefab building with site preparation which
is costly. He has been looking for ways to reduce costs, but the more items trimmed off now will
mean higher costs at a future date when they run out of room to operate. He feels it is better to plan
for growth now rather than try to make accommodations in the future. He echoed Council Member
Nielsen's concerns for a May 2021 election. If the relocation is not on the bond initiative, there is a
limited amount of funds available which is competing with other Park's Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) and deferred maintenance projects. He reminded everyone the reason the Park's
relocation was added to the initiative was to provide funding that will allow Park's to keep in
schedule with the Library's building schedule. He is not partial one way or the other but keep in
mind, if removed from the bond, funding the relocation will be a challenge and he is concerned
about the ability to keep in line with the overall Library projected deadlines. Trustee Gallipoli
commented on properly communicating to the public the need for the Park's relocation, the issues
of tourism, and the strain on the Park's department.
Mayor Giles asked for input on the Park's relocation, plaza, and extra parking. Trustee Chair Rubin
spoke to urban renewal as a way to fund the plaza and extra parking and remove them from the
bond. Ms. Elliot felt the plaza and parking needed to be either eliminated completely from the bond
or be very thoroughly communicated for transparency. Trustee Coyle wanted to eliminate the plaza
but keep parking as the public made positive comments on having additional parking. He felt the
parking piece could help the bond to pass.
Mr. Coyle had other obligations and left the meeting at 10:55 a.m.
Trustee Matus is in support of removing the plaza and extra parking; however, she is still unsure
about the Parks relocation. Trustee Gallipoli feels it is prudent to keep the large projects in the
initiative as waiting to do the plaza and parking at a later date would cost more in the long run. He
believes the reduction can be had with the building costs and bid process by scaling down. As this
building is the place the library is going to be for the next 50 years, he feels it is very important to
communicate the life of the building to the public. He is concerned about cutting too much as theses
projects still need done and waiting until later will essentially cost more. Trustee Chair Rubin
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 8 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
wanted clarification on how much money could be scaled down. Trustee Gallipoli feels it could be
reduced by tens of thousands of dollars and reiterated it would be better to do it now as the prices
are just going to escalate. Trustee Chair Rubin feels everything is tied together and it is difficult to
pull the pieces apart to make a decision on all items collectively.
Council Member Nielsen addressed the parking and plaza as nominal in the total scope of the project
so leave it in the bond and pare back on total cost of the building. As for the Park's relocation, he
would like to be more creative on how to fund it and more time to do so would be vital in his opinion.
Overall,the building facility plan looks great and believes there are some modest changes to be had
that could reduce cost. As for the total amount of the bond, he did not feel the $6.2M was
unreasonable but some reduction would be ideal. He feels the Park's facility is the pivotal part in
determining the amount of the bond. He still does not agree of the proposed site of the new Park's
facility but in general agrees the City should figure out how to fund it.
Council Member Nielsen had other obligations to attend to and left the meeting at 11:12 a.m.
Council Member Maciaszek believes in the experts and people behind the project and feels the
community in large part are in support. He thought it difficult to pinpoint an exact number but
cutting costs by some amount would be beneficial and reiterated the bond came very close to passing
with the plaza and parking included. He felt the City has done a good job in being proactive to
engage with the community in an effort to hear their concerns. He is in support in shaving some of
the unnecessary items but feels a couple 100K is small in the scope of$6M. He feels the decision
on what needs cut belongs to the experts and he will support that decision.
Cost/Financing/Fundrai sing
Mayor Giles asked these questions: What should be the total bond amount requested of taxpayers?
What should be the fundraising goal? To be considered would be public feedback regarding tax
burden and more fundraising to create stronger community support.
Campaign Coordinator Amy Rush gave an update on the fundraising status. She shared that donors
do not like to give money if they do not know exactly where it is going to go and when it will be
spent. A vast majority of the contingency pledges are still in place. The Ambassadors are split on
whether they will go back to their peers for fundraising efforts at this time. She stated that expecting
the fundraising to lead the charge is not how it works when looking at combined private/public
funded projects. It needs to come after, She does not feel comfortable at this time to provide a
fundraising goal number. With grant funding, it is easier to obtain monies post-bond because most
granting agencies are not willing to fund something that is not concrete, and the project must be
completed within a year of receiving funds. Grant agencies generally do not give to capital projects.
Council Member Holmes joined the meeting at 11:19 a.m.
Mayor Giles summarized the work session has produced a consensus that the election needs to be
in the spring rather than the fall but whether it was 2021 or 2022 was not decided. He recommends
that if May 2021 is the date chosen then the bond needs to be simplified. There was no consensus
on whether to remove the plaza and parking but there was interest in exploring on how to find other
funding for the Park's relocation. He feels it is not responsible to present the same bond amount if
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 9 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting
brought back in May 2021. The.message he got from the group was all were unified regarding
communication efforts.
City Manager Spickard was asked to explain if the City could fund the relocation project separately.
She stated the budget is already set for 2021 so it would require staff to do some hard analyzation
to bring to Council a packet on what to cut in order to find dollars for the relocation. The LOT is
already allocated to the next year's projects and application process will not start for FY22 until
April 2021. A drastic choice would be to go back and reallocate the LOT funds already awarded,
but otherwise the City would have to wait until spring to allocate those funds. Staff will need
direction from Council to know what direction take. Communication Manager Greaves shared more
information about the survey comments stating the consensus of those people would like to see the
bond be less.
Overall, the group agreed the bond needs to be reduced even though there was not a consensus on
how to achieve that. Trustee Chair Rubin felt if the group could decide on when to go to election,
then the rest could be vetted out.Mayor Giles feels if the bond goes to back out for the same amount,
it will fail. He feels the removal of the Park's relocation project to fund separately will lower the
bond approximately$1M. There needs to be a better story presented than the status quo.
The consensus was to direct staff to work on finding funding for the Park's relocation without the
bond,work on creating a better communication story,and bring back some concepts to the upcoming
Council meeting on December 3.
Council Member Holmes asked for clarification on the election date and it was clarified no date was
decided for the election even though they are leaning towards May 2021.
ADJOURNMENT
Without further business, Mayor Giles adjourned the meeting at 11:52 a.m.
ATTEST: s'�� 4Zobert S. Giles, Mayor
O~
n ti.
BessieJo Wa er, City Cl
MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 10 of 10
October 30, 2020 Special Meeting