CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES

Transcription

CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
LIBRARY FACILITIES MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
December 2009
Euclid
Richmond
Heights
Bratenahl
MYR
South
Euclid
East
Cleveland
Gates
Mills
Mayfield
Highland
Heights
RCH
GAT
Lyndhurst
Cleveland
Heights
Mayfield
Heights
SEU
Bay Village
University
Heights
Cleveland
BAY
Westlake
Brooklyn
Fairview
Park
BKL
PAS
PRG
GFH
Brook Park
North Olmsted
BPK
OLF
Olmsted T.
Olmsted
Falls
Berea
MDH
BEA
Middleburg
Heights
ADM
PAH
Parma
Parma
Heights
Chagrin
Falls
Bentleyville
Maple
Heights
STH
SLN
Valley
View
IND
PAR
Independence
Walton Hills
Oakwood
Glenwillow
0
BRV
STV
NRY
Strongsville
CHF
Moreland Hills
Bedford
Heights
MHR
Bedford
Seven
Hills
Orange
Warrensville
North
Randall
Heights
Garfield
Heights
Brooklyn
Hts
Chagrin
Falls T.
ORG
WVH
Cuyahoga
Heights
Hunting
Valley
Woodmere
Highland
Hills
Newburgh
Heights
Linndale
NOL
Pepper
Pike
Shaker
Heights
Rocky
River
FPR
Beachwood
BCH
Lakewood
North Royalton
Broadview
Heights
Brecksville
Solon
2
4 miles
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Preface
This report summarizes the goals, process, and conclusions of the Library Facilities Master
Plan developed for Cuyahoga County Public Library. In March 2009, the Library requested proposals to provide a Facilities Master Plan which would serve as a guide for future
renovations, additions, replacements or reconfigurations within the system. In May 2009
Bostwick Design Partnership was commissioned to carry out this Master Plan, in conjunction with a team of consultants outlined below.
Recommendations are summarized at the end of this report. The executive summary, facility assessment for each branch, demographic data and final presentation to Cuyahoga
County Public Library is available at: http://www.cuyahogalibrary.org/facilitiesplan.aspx
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Introduction and Goals
Compared to peer institutions nationwide, Cuyahoga County Public Library is a leader. In
2009, the Library was ranked first in Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings, and also
earned a Five Star rating in Library Journal’s Index of Public Library Services. These honors reflect the Library’s dedication to continuous improvement of the factors influential to
effective library service. Among these influences is the environment within which services
are delivered. Cuyahoga County Public Library recognizes that as their public face in the
community, each branch should reflect the same level of quality as the services provided.
While achieving system-wide excellence, there exists a quality disparity among individual
facilities, stemming from the history and complexities of branch development in each
community. This Facilities Master Plan quantifies these differences, to aid future decisions
about the size, location, design and function of library branches so that over time, all facilities may equitably and effectively serve their communities.
It is in this context that the goal of the Facilities Master Plan is to determine and prioritize
future capital improvements for Cuyahoga County Public Library. To achieve this required
an understanding of how the existing facilities work today and to what extent they support the ability to provide services consistent with the mission, vision and priorities of the
Library. This study evaluated the condition and adequacy of each branch, which were the
two primary determining factors for prioritization. Cost estimates for improvements are
also provided, which assisted in determining condition but were not the primary method
by which priorities were established.
It’s important to note that this Master Plan prioritizes future capital improvements based
on the observable condition and adequacy, but a third and unpredictable factor – opportunity - will ultimately establish the order in which any improvements become a reality. A project of lower priority may benefit from the presence of a future opportunity for
advancement and a higher priority may suffer for lack of one. Recommendations and
potential projects outlined in this study are only viable when an appropriate opportunity
to carry them out exists, as each decision must also remain consistent with the Library’s
responsible stewardship of public funding.
Demolition Notes
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee Presentation
CLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009

15 December 2009
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Demolition Notes
Highest Priority

Condition
Adequate
Opportunity
Poor
+
No
+
?
Poor
+
Yes
+
?
Fair
+
No
+
?
Fair
+
Yes
+
?
Good
+
No
+
?
Good
+
Yes
+
?
Lowest Priority
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee Presentation
CLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009
15 December 2009
Prioritization based on condition and adequacy is summarized as follows: The physical conditions assessments for each facility resulted in a rating of Good, Fair or Poor.
These ratings were determined through physical observations, and aided by background
gathered from the Library Facilities staff regarding long term maintenance and care. The
adequacy of each library was determined based on size and configuration, parking capacity and configuration, plus site and building accessibility. These adequacies are important
in the Library’s ability to provide services, but did not necessarily equate to the condition
of a given facility. Once condition and adequacy were evaluated, costs for recommended
improvements as well as potential additions or replacements could be established.
This Facilities Master Plan also documented demographic data for Cuyahoga County
Public Library. Over the summer of 2009, all borrower data was collected and mapped
to show density and patterns of usage for each branch and system-wide. This data was
not used to prioritize projects, but was prepared as a useful tool to assist the Library with
future decisions about proposed improvements and potential relocations of branches.
The process by which conditions, adequacy, estimating and demographics were carried out
is outlined with additional detail below.
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Participants
The following entities and individuals are those with primary responsibility for producing
the information contained in this report.
Cuyahoga County Public Library
The leadership and guidance of the Library was instrumental to the successful outcome of
this Facilities Master Plan. In particular, the entire Facilities Department staff contributed
considerably, and while not named specifically here their collective knowledge established
the foundation on which much of this report is built.
Tracy Strobel, Deputy Director
Dan Chinrock, Facilities Director
RFC Contracting
Advisor to Cuyahoga County Library, Master Plan process management, facility assessment assistance, construction cost recommendations.
Roger Riachi, President
Bostwick Design Partnership
Team management and coordination, facility assessments, benchmarking, analysis and
synthesis of project data, documentation.
Rich Ortmeyer, Principal
Dave Miano, Principal
Sai Sinbondit, Technical and Graphic Assistance
June Garcia, LLC
Library Facilities Master Plan advisor, benchmarking assistance, branch size criteria.
June Garcia, President
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Public-Library.com, Inc.
Borrower use densities, market area maps, and demographic profiles system-wide and for
each branch.
Ken Dubberly, President
Tec Inc.
Plumbing, Fire Protection, Mechanical, Electrical, and Technology assessments for the
Facility Assessment documents.
Terry Kilbourne, President
Tim Pool, Principal
Bob Mehosky, Senior Associate
Kelly Moran
Atwell-Hicks
Site, Civil and Landscaping assessments for the Facility Assessment documents.
Bill Boron, Associate and Team Leader – Land Development Services
Turner Construction Company
Construction and project costs, assistance with facility assessments.
Ed Paparone, Business Manager
Dave Stahl, Preconstruction Manager
Tyler Mitchell
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Demolition Notes

Process
In simple terms there were two steps required to carry out the Facilities Master Plan: gather all available and relevant information, then summarize and analyze it for prioritization.
Our process outlined those two phases as follows:
• Discovery, Assessment, Research
• Analysis, Review, Estimate
Details of how these two phases of work were carried out are outlined below.
Demolition
Demolition Notes
Notes
Discovery, Assessment, Research
This phase collected the relevant and available data with which the capital improvements
were determined and prioritized. This work consisted of four primary efforts:
• Data Gathering
• Existing Facility Assessment
• Benchmarking
• Demographic Analysis
Data Gathering:
The project started with detailed meetings with the library facilities staff. All available
drawings, studies and photographs were shared to facilitate the remainder of the process.
The meetings went beyond simple data transfer, as the team also discussed the Library’s
experiences at each location. This important step allowed the team to focus attention on
those libraries where the facility assessments were most effective. As there was little benefit for the team of consultants to confirm that new or recent buildings are still in good condition, these dialogues directed the effort – in particular Mechanical and Electrical review
– to where conditions were considered historically problematic.


FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee Presentation
CLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009
15 December 2009
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Existing Facility Assessment:
The physical assessment process was the primary method by which Condition
and Adequacy were determined. 25 of the 28 branches were assessed, as was the
Administrative Offices building. The three exceptions were: Richmond Heights, which
was in the process of being newly opened; Gates Mills, which opened in 2006; and
Warrensville, for which an opportunity was already in process for a proposed replacement
facility. An assessment document for all locations is included as part of this study, including the exceptions above. The assessments of excluded branches simply outline the publicly available background data and current conditions as discussed with staff.
Bostwick Design Partnership and Atwell-Hicks visited all 26 locations for architectural
and site analysis, with Tec Inc. focusing their assessments of specific utilities and systems
on 16 locations based on discussions above. In some cases, additional visits were warranted due to extensive documentation requirements, necessary review with the Library
and RFC, or for discussions to determine proposed improvements and costs. Each branch
visited resulted in extensive written and photographic documentation, which can be found
in the corresponding Facility Assessment.
Each Facility Assessment document begins with general information and background
for the branch, gleaned from discussions with staff and from data available on Cuyahoga
County Public Library’s website. The overall condition is then summarized briefly, followed by the details of the field observations of all relevant disciplines, coded to plans,
site plans and images as possible. Recommendations are made for repairs and/or improvements, which provide the basis for the cost estimates summarized at the conclusion of each
assessment document.
Cuyahoga County Public Library supplied some of the data appearing in the assessments,
including information from other consultants under separate contract, which was summarized within this report. These include: Roofing - Willham Roofing Inc. has an ongoing
contract for roofing inspections; Hazardous Materials – EA Group was contracted separately to provide these inspection services; Elevators – ThyssenKrupp Elevator was con-
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
tracted separately for these assessments where they occur. The Library also suggested several branches where drive-up services would benefit the community, as well as those locations where new furniture and shelving were to be budgeted with future improvements.
Benchmarking:
It was important to learn how Cuyahoga County Public Library performs against
peer institutions, in several categories including overall development. As noted in the
Introduction, the Library sets a high standard, one which most other systems aspire to. And
while the data suggests that this is the case for systems against which the library was compared, this process determined which institutions were truly peers, organizationally.
In Ohio, all library systems serving 250,000 and up were reviewed. While data and conversations with representatives from Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Stark
County confirmed that Cuyahoga County Public Library led in services, the data on system size was skewed due to that fact that all other Ohio systems serving this population
range have a large main library.
All Ohio Library systems serving 250,000 – 999,999
• Akron-Summit County Public Library
• The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County
• Cleveland Public Library
• Columbus Metropolitan Library
• Dayton Metro Library
• Stark County District Library
• Toledo-Lucas County Public Library
• Public Library of Youngstown & Mahoning County
Given that the comparison in Ohio is not apples to apples, another comparison was done
using Public Library Association’s Public Library Data Service Statistical Report database.
These outline all of the systems nationwide serving 500,000 and up which do not have
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
main libraries. The specific data is not included in this summary, but was valuable in confirming Cuyahoga County Public Library’s position as a national leader as well as establishing targeted branch sizes outlined later in this report.
National systems with no Main Library serving 500,000 – 999,999
• Mid-Continent Public Library
• Montgomery County Dept. of Public Libraries
• Anne Arundel County Public Library
• Pierce County Library System
• Metropolitan Library System
• Baltimore County Public Library
• Salt Lake County Library System
• Lee County Library System
• Maricopa County Library District
• Wake County Public Libraries
• Sno-Isle Libraries
• Contra Costa County Library
• Gwinnett County Public Library
National systems with no Main Library serving 1,000,000 and up
• King County Library System
• Las Vegas-Clark County Library District
• Fairfax County Public Library
• Harris County Public Library
• County of Los Angeles Public Library
• San Bernardino County Library
• Riverside County Library System
• San Diego County Library
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Demographic Analysis:
Between June 10th and August 4th, 2009, system-wide circulation data was provided to
Public-Library.com in order to create maps showing use patterns and borrowing density
by branch. In addition to the usage and density maps, additional demographic data on the
population served is included branch by branch. As noted above, this data will be a useful
tool to assist the Library with future decisions about proposed improvements and potential
relocations of branches.
Demolition Notes

 

The data noted above is explained and available online at the following web address:
http://public-library.com/mapping/cuyahoga-oh/
Analysis, Review, Estimate
This phase synthesized all of the data gathered in the previous phase, and consisted of two
primary efforts:
• Align Branch Size with Proposed Services
• Construction and Project Estimates
Align Branch Size with Proposed Services:
In order to establish realistic project budgets, a process to determine future branch sizes
was required. Without the benefit of branch by branch programming, the method by which
library sizes can be determined is based on a ratio of square footage to population served.
The final square foot per capita ratio was based on a number of factors: an understanding
within the Library about best practices and which current branches best serve the needs of
their communities; benchmarking data and comparisons to top performing libraries regionally and nationally in Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings; discussions with representatives from Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Stark County regarding best
practices; recommendations from national library expert June Garcia.
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee Presentation
CLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009
15 December 2009
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Demolition Notes

 

The research above resulted in a recommended target ratio of one square foot per capita
for a typical full-service library branch. Branches of this size will have space to accommodate library services as currently provided as well as allow room to effectively carry out
Cuyahoga County Public Library’s six priorities.
The team also determined that a typical full service branch is not able to effectively deliver
services at less than 20,000 SF. At the other end of the spectrum, a maximum branch size
was established at 50,000 SF. A branch at this size can serve a large population, and maintain efficient staffing on one level.
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee Presentation
CLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009
15 December 2009
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
With the proposed ratio and the minimum to maximum sizes for branches established,
the population then determines each specific branch size. Population for the communities served by a given branch is drawn from the latest census data available. Given that
community populations will change over time, planning increments were established for
population ranges, to standardize future programming targets and establish relative equity among variable demographics. The proposed populations ranges and branch sizes are:
Service Population Range up to 24,999
25,000 to 34,999
35,000 to 44,999
45,000 and higher
Proposed Branch Size
20,000 SF 30,000 SF 40,000 SF 50,000 SF
Based on these criteria, the following chart outlines branch sizes today, determines
which are too small, right-sized or oversized, and for those which are undersized what
square footage is proposed in the future. Note that because the population determined to
be serviceable by a proposed branch size was a range, any current branch sized at 80%
of the targeted 1 SF per capita or larger was considered adequately sized. This also eliminates proposing inefficient and unrealistically small additions to meet a targeted size.
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary






















































































































































































Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Construction and Project Estimates:
Cost estimates were prepared for the following three categories
• Costs to carry out recommendations as outlined in the Facility Assessments
• Costs to build additions to those branches with an established need
• Costs to build new facilities for each branch considered inadequate
As noted above, recommendations for repairs, replacements and/or other improvements
were included within the Facilities Assessment documents. Where an observed condition required a solution beyond an easily quantifiable repair or replacement, a conceptual
scope of work was established upon which an estimate was based. In some cases additional graphics or drawings were prepared, and while not included in this document were
created to add as much clarity and specificity to the estimates as possible at a Master
Planning level.

ation
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
General conditions, contingencies, construction management, soft costs and fees are
included within these estimates in order to responsibly predict the potential investment
each project may require. It is important to note that these estimates are prepared based on
the best available information at this time, and primarily represent a target budget and relative order of magnitude for capital improvement prioritization. The order, timeframe and
market conditions which may exist for each project will influence the real costs once the
opportunity presents itself for a project to become reality.
15 December 2009
Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary










  






































































































































































































































































































Library Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary
Conclusions and Priorities
Having assessed each facility, established condition and adequacy, and provided estimates
as outlined above, it was possible to quantify the findings and achieve the goal of prioritizing proposed capital improvements. The primary factor for prioritization was condition,
with adequacy second. Projects with matching conditions and adequacies are then prioritized by the cost for recommended improvements to the existing facility. The following
chart outlines the final proposed priorities, in three tiers organized by the assessed conditions of poor, fair and good.
As outlined above, this prioritization was based on observable information, and while
establishing a theoretical sequence, the final order will be adjusted based on opportunity.
Warrensville is listed as first priority regardless of condition or adequacy, as the opportunity for replacement of this branch is already in process.
This Facilities Master Plan provides Cuyahoga County Public Library with valuable background data to support future decisions about capital improvements within the system. It
was designed to provide this guidance based on the current observable conditions and the
best available information. Unforeseeable circumstances will undoubtedly present themselves, which will allow the Library Board opportunities to build upon this plan and continue the advancement of library service excellence in new ways.