3 clarifications about tax and location.

The hard-working volunteers, who have piloted the GF Public Library Revitalization Project for more than three years, appreciate this opportunity to correct erroneous information that has been distributed and redistributed recently through a very deceiving email thread.

The majority of the information in the email message was based on conjecture and untruths. The most egregious of the misstatements are corrected here:

1. The amount of public dollars (sales tax revenue) to be spent for all costs needed to construct, furnish and equip a new library will not exceed $20.8 million.
2. Property tax revenue will not be used for the proposed library construction project.
3. The new library will be built at and on property or properties adjacent to the existing building at Library Circle and Library Lane, Grand Forks, N.D.
   (Source:  Minutes of the March 9, 2011, meeting of the Grand Forks Public Library Board.)

It’s important for Grand Forks voters to be correctly informed about the proposed library project. Our library website contains complete information on current usage data, consultant’s reports, feasibility studies/traffic studies authorized by City Council and official meeting minutes from the three years of working through the planning process.

Probably most important: Visit the library and see for yourself. GFPL has 825 visitors per day checking out almost 2,400 items daily. That’s more than any other public library in North Dakota.

The problems at our 40-year-old library will not disappear with a “no” vote on May 3. Total lack of ADA compliance, exploding light fixtures causing fire, antiquated HVAC systems, insufficient space for materials, programming, meetings and parking, as well as total absence of insulating material will continue to render our library inefficient, hazardous and noncompliant.

Let’s rectify the problems by approving a carefully researched, all-encompassing solution paid by a 1-cent sales tax with a hard sunset clause.

Vote “yes” on May 3 to provide the citizens of Grand Forks City and County with a 21^st Century public library.

Four answers about the Grand Forks Public Library.

If you haven’t yet caught Sunday’s Herald article, please do so. Brian Schill provides answers to the top four questions surrounding the library project.

As Brian points out, we’d also like to remind you that:

• We need a new library.
• Libraries are not obsolete in the Information Age.
• The site selection process was not flawed.

Vote “yes” May 3.

Q+A with Mayor Brown: Location.

Back in February at the state of the city address, Mayor Mike Brown explained he had questions surrounding the library project.

Since then, we’ve had some time to explore his questions and further explain why we’ve made the decisions we’ve made.

Here, we will share a weekly update addressing Mayor Brown’s questions, which are probably your questions, too. (And, if you’re still puzzled, be sure to comment directly on this post or ask us here. We want to be on the same page.)

Questions 1 and 2: When looking for a location for the Grand Forks Public Library, why was the line drawn at 32nd Avenue South, omitting anything further south?  Is the proposed location (the current site) truly the best location and how sure are we that if the vote passes, it should go there?

Answer: There were no restrictions placed on proposed sites at the beginning of the site selection process in January of 2009. A total of 22 possible locations in all areas of the city were considered. Sites were evaluated and ranked according to a standardized evaluation process provided by the library consultants.

In spring of 2010, when the Library Task Force began the process of narrowing down the site options to five finalist locations, it was suggested that three properties south of 32^nd Avenue be removed from the list of considerations. This decision was based on citizen input received via early comments in the Speak Up for Your Library process. Citizens overwhelmingly indicated that their public library should be:  centrally located, in close proximity to the high schools and middle schools, and easily accessed by those who walk or ride bike.

At the request of City Council, the Wellness Center location – situated in the 50^th Avenue area of South Washington Street – was reinserted as one of the three finalist options under consideration in July 2010. That location remained as an option until the final site – the current library site – was unanimously approved by the Building Committee on January 26, 2011.

If you check a map of the city you will see that the library is located smack dab in the middle of the community as it exists in 2011. There was no other possible site with more centralized access for patrons, including pedestrians and bicyclists.

Room for expansion and additional parking are available by purchasing adjacent property. Acquisition of a lot to the east will allow the necessary space to accommodate a city bus stop at the library – something that has not been offered for more than 30 years.

Access to the location is excellent, just a block off of two of the community’s best-traveled arteries:  South Washington Street and 17^th Avenue. Visibility is still a concern, but options exist for additional signage.

After carefully considering the options available at this time, the Library Board and Building Committee members have endorsed the current library site as the best possible location for new construction. Forty years of faithful service to our growing community has reinforced the site as a decidedly familiar location for library patrons – at the intersection of Library Circle and Library Lane – and easily accessible from all four directions.

Process: Picking a location for the new Grand Forks Public Library.

Potential library sites have been recommended for consideration on an ongoing basis throughout the entire three-year process of the library revitalization project.  City staff, Library Board members, Task Force members, library patrons, realtors and interested community members regularly suggest possible sites through a variety of methods, including telephone, email, the suggestion box at GFPL and casual conversation.

From May 2008 through January 2011, more than 20 potential sites have been considered. Site suggestions continue to be received and reviewed as of March 2011.

A formal site evaluation process was integrated into the project in January 2009 at the request of the Library Task Force for Revitalization.  The standardized structure for this process was developed and directed by our consultants, Library Consulting, PA (and specifically by architect, Barry Pettit).  The weighting, criteria and scoring metrics were utilized for sites considered to have potential merit when deciding on an eventual site for the library project.

Proposed sites that have been considered at some point include the following:

• Town and Country Mall (east side of South Washington and 17^th Avenue)
• Senior Citizen Center (620 4^th Avenue South)
• Former FNB Building (322 DeMers Avenue)
• Former Best Building (Columbia Road and 24^th Avenue South)
• Apollo Park (Columbia Road and 17^th Avenue South)
• Cole Paper (2^nd Avenue North and North 8^th Street)
• West of YMCA (4^th Avenue North and North 8^th Street)
• University Village near REA (North Columbia Road and 10^th Avenue North)
• Former Civic Center downtown (North 6^th Street and 2^nd Avenue North)
• Former auto parts store (South Washington and 22^nd Avenue South)
• Ponderosa/Hollywood Video (1800 South Washington)
• Former Target building at Columbia Mall (Columbia Road and 32^nd Avenue South)
• Duke Drive (34^th Street South and 11^th Avenue South)
• East of Alerus Center (42^nd Street)
• South of Alerus Center (42^nd Street South and 17^th Avenue South)
• Center Court Fitness site (1600 32^nd Avenue South)
• Proposed Wellness Center (44^th Avenue South and South 11^th Street)
• Farmland on South Washington south of GF Honda
• Farmland on 32^nd Avenue near Rex
• Former Leevers location (715 South Washington)
• Current site with addition and remodel (Library Lane and Library Circle)
• Current site with demo and new construction (Library Lane and Library Circle)

Criteria for consideration

An evaluation and ranking process was provided by Library Consulting, PA, and sites were considered using a standardized metric that included a weighted scoring system with the following criteria:

• Size of lot (116,428 sf for a two-story structure)
• Configuration of lot
• Adequate on-site parking
• Available off-site/shared parking
• Site topography – flood issues
• Visibility from major streets
• Access to primary streets
• Perception of the site – safety
• Location relative to population
• Proximity to service and retail
• Access by pedestrians and bikers
• Access by public transportation
• Sub-surface soil conditions
• Sun orientation to the entry
• Impact on property taxes
• Land price
• Is property available to purchase
• Availability of required utilities
• Impact of ambient noise pollution
• Potential for landscaping
• Quality of adjacent physical conditions
• Economic trend of adjacent properties
• Relationship to upper/middle schools
• Relationship to civic developments
• Extraordinary site prep/demo
• Zoning issues

Historical  verification for reduction decisions made during site selection process

1. Excerpt from minutes of the March 11, 2010 Library Board meeting:

The Board discussed site locations and it was the consensus of the Board that the Library must have complete ownership of the property rather than entering into a lease agreement. Mike McNamara entertained a motion that ownership be a fundamental part of a new library.  Lila Christensen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

This resolution effectively eliminated the former Target location at Columbia Mall and the former Hollywood video store location.

2. Excerpt from minutes of the April 29, 2010 meeting of the Library Task Force for Revitalization

5 sites remain under consideration:

• East of the Alerus Center
• Farmland on 32^nd Street, south of Center Court
• Leevers location on Washington
• Duke Drive
• New construction on the current Library site

3. Excerpt from minutes of the May 20, 2010 meeting of the Library Task Force for Revitalization

• Duke Drive property was removed from consideration at the request of the property owner

4. Excerpt from minutes of the June 24, 2010 meeting of the Library Task Force for Revitalization

• City Council has requested that the Wellness Center site be added for consideration
• Property east of the Alerus Center was removed from consideration

5. Excerpt from minutes of the July 8, 2010 meeting of the Library Board

(At the request of City Council,) Susan and Wendy met with the Park District concerning partnering with the Wellness Center. As Susan mentioned, the Board had previously voted not to go any further south than 32^nd Avenue. After some discussion a motion was entertained to remove the restriction of 32^nd Avenue South as a boundary for a new site. (MSC Fiordo, Christensen)

6. Excerpt from presentation materials for the July 19, 2010 meeting with City Council

3 sites under consideration:

• Proposed Wellness Center
• Farmland on 32^nd Street, south of Center Court
• Leevers location on Washington

These three sites were included as the “finalists” when the Speak Up for Your Library online survey was developed in November 2010.

7. Excerpt from presentation materials and research reports used for the December 13, 2010 meeting of City Council

Speak Up for Your Library campaign results

Responses to Online Survey

There were almost 1,300 responses to the online questionnaire. Results indicated:

• 69% of responses were in favor of a new library.
• 55% of responses indicated the “old Leevers grocery store” as their preferred site

Responses to Phone Research Questionnaire

There were 580 participants in the phone research. Results indicated:

• 70.7% of responses were in favor of a new library
• 73% of responses indicated the “old Leevers grocery store” as their preferred site

8. Excerpt from minutes of the December 13, 2010 meeting of City Council

Site Feasibility Study and Traffic Study to be prepared for these 3 sites and 4 scenarios for Council review:

• Proposed Wellness Center
• Leevers location on Washington
• Remodel and addition at current library site
• Demolition of existing building and new construction at current library site

9.  Excerpt from minutes of the January 26, 2011 meeting of the Library Building Committee

A revised draft of the Site Feasibility Study was reviewed, with special attention paid to a site scenario added for consideration following the last Building Committee meeting.  Scenario  #2a features a plan for construction on the property located immediately north of the existing library.  This option allows for continuous operation from the existing library while construction is in progress.   Committee members favored this scenario as the preferred project plan.  Motion by Jeff, seconded by Paul, to approve the Site Feasibility Study as presented, and recommend to the Library Board that Scenario #2a be adopted for the proposed project.  Unanimously carried.

10. From presentation materials at the January 31, 2011 special meeting of the Grand Forks City Council

The Library Board and Building Committee recommend Scenario #2a (GFPL Site Feasibility Study; January 27, 2011) as the preferred site and proposed budget for the Grand Forks Public Library Project. Scenario #2a assumes that the existing library will be demolished and a new structure built in its place. This scenario assumes the purchase of a property to the north as well as one to the east, across Library Circle. This option can allow the library to remain in operation during construction of the new facility, thereby eliminating the difficulty and expense of temporary relocation. Proposed budget for Scenario #2a is $20,828,359.

Map: Proposed locations.

Here is a map showing the three proposed locations for a new Grand Forks Public Library. Consultants started with a list of 25 potential locations and, based on 26 specific criteria, gave each location option a “score.” The three proposed locations scored the highest of the original 25.

More information can be found here.