CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES … · CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 2009 Broadvie w No rth G Height s

CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBL IC L IBRARYL IBRARY FACIL I T I ES MASTER PLAN EXECUT IVE SUMMARY

December 2009

Broadview

North Heights

Highland

Bedford

Beachwood

Shaker

Heights

Garfield

Heights

Bedford

Moreland Hills

Solon

North Olmsted

Linndale

Brooklyn

Olmsted T.Olmsted

Berea

Middleburg

Heights

Strongsville

Bay Village

Westlake Newburgh

Seven

Independence

Parma

Brooklyn

Cuyahoga

Cleveland

North Royalton Brecksville

Walton Hills Oakwood Glenwillow

Bratenahl

East

Hunting

Chagrin

Falls

Richmond

South

Mayfield

Heights

Bentleyville

MillsMayfield

Euclid

Heights

Valley View

Heights

Heights

Hills

Hts

HeightsWarrensville

Orange

Heights

University

Maple

RockyRiver

FairviewPark

Falls Heights

Lakewood

Brook Park

Cleveland

Heights

Cleveland

Valley

Falls T.

Chagrin

Heights

Heights

Highland

Lyndhurst

Gates

Hills

Woodmere

PepperPike

Heights

Parma

Randall

Euclid

4miles20

BAY

NOL

FPR

OLF

BPK

BEA

MDH

STV

NRY

PAR

PAHADM

PRGPAS

BRV

GFHMHR

STH

WVH

SLN

ORG

BCH

CHF

SEU

MYR

GAT

RCH

BKL

IND

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 request-ed 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 conjunc-tion with a team of consultants outlined below.

Recommendations are summarized at the end of this report. The executive summary, facil-ity assessment for each branch, demographic data and final presentation to Cuyahoga County Public Library is available at: http://www.cuyahogalibrary.org/facilitiesplan.aspx

Demolition Notes

FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Capital Committee PresentationCLEVELAND, OHIO © 2009

15 December 2009


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 hon-ors 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 facil-ities 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 sup-port 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 – oppor-tunity - will ultimately establish the order in which any improvements become a real-ity. 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


15 December 2009

Highest Priority

Poor + No

Poor + Yes

Fair + No

Fair + Yes

Good + No

Good + Yes

Lowest Priority

Opportunity

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

+ ?

Condition Adequate


Prioritization based on condition and adequacy is summarized as follows: The physi-cal 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 capac-ity 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.


Participants

The following entities and individuals are those with primary responsibility for producing the information contained in this report.

Cuyahoga County Public LibraryThe 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 DirectorDan Chinrock, Facilities Director

RFC ContractingAdvisor to Cuyahoga County Library, Master Plan process management, facility assess-ment assistance, construction cost recommendations.Roger Riachi, President

Bostwick Design PartnershipTeam management and coordination, facility assessments, benchmarking, analysis and synthesis of project data, documentation.Rich Ortmeyer, PrincipalDave Miano, PrincipalSai Sinbondit, Technical and Graphic Assistance

June Garcia, LLCLibrary Facilities Master Plan advisor, benchmarking assistance, branch size criteria.June Garcia, President


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, PresidentTim Pool, PrincipalBob Mehosky, Senior AssociateKelly Moran

Atwell-HicksSite, Civil and Landscaping assessments for the Facility Assessment documents. Bill Boron, Associate and Team Leader – Land Development Services

Turner Construction CompanyConstruction and project costs, assistance with facility assessments.Ed Paparone, Business ManagerDave Stahl, Preconstruction ManagerTyler Mitchell

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009


Process

In simple terms there were two steps required to carry out the Facilities Master Plan: gath-er 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.

Discovery, Assessment, ResearchThis 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 bene-fit for the team of consultants to confirm that new or recent buildings are still in good con-dition, these dialogues directed the effort – in particular Mechanical and Electrical review – to where conditions were considered historically problematic.


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, includ-ing the exceptions above. The assessments of excluded branches simply outline the pub-licly 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 war-ranted 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, fol-lowed 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 improve-ments, 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 summa-rized within this report. These include: Roofing - Willham Roofing Inc. has an ongoing contract for roofing inspections; Hazardous Materials – EA Group was contracted sepa-rately to provide these inspection services; Elevators – ThyssenKrupp Elevator was con-


tracted separately for these assessments where they occur. The Library also suggested sev-eral branches where drive-up services would benefit the community, as well as those loca-tions 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 com-pared, this process determined which institutions were truly peers, organizationally.

In Ohio, all library systems serving 250,000 and up were reviewed. While data and con-versations with representatives from Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Stark County confirmed that Cuyahoga County Public Library led in services, the data on sys-tem 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 – 999,999Akron-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


main libraries. The specific data is not included in this summary, but was valuable in con-firming Cuyahoga County Public Library’s position as a national leader as well as estab-lishing targeted branch sizes outlined later in this report.

National systems with no Main Library serving 500,000 – 999,999Mid-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 upKing 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 •

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009


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.

The data noted above is explained and available online at the following web address:http://public-library.com/mapping/cuyahoga-oh/

Analysis, Review, EstimateThis 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 region-ally and nationally in Hennen’s American Public Library Ratings; discussions with repre-sentatives from Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Stark County regarding best practices; recommendations from national library expert June Garcia.

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009


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 accommo-date 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 main-tain efficient staffing on one level.


With the proposed ratio and the minimum to maximum sizes for branches established, the population then determines each specific branch size. Population for the communi-ties 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 equi-ty among variable demographics. The proposed populations ranges and branch sizes are:

Service Population Range Proposed Branch Sizeup to 24,999 20,000 SF 25,000 to 34,999 30,000 SF 35,000 to 44,999 40,000 SF 45,000 and higher 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 elim-inates proposing inefficient and unrealistically small additions to meet a targeted size.



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 condi-tion 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 addi-tional 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.

Demolition Notes


15 December 2009


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 rela-tive 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

05 May 200905 May 200905 May 200905 May 2009


Conclusions and PrioritiesHaving 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 prioritiz-ing proposed capital improvements. The primary factor for prioritization was condition, with adequacy second. Projects with matching conditions and adequacies are then priori-tized 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 condi-tions 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 opportu-nity for replacement of this branch is already in process.

This Facilities Master Plan provides Cuyahoga County Public Library with valuable back-ground 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 them-selves, which will allow the Library Board opportunities to build upon this plan and con-tinue the advancement of library service excellence in new ways.

Documents

CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES … · CUYAHOGA COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY FACILITIES MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 2009 Broadvie w No rth G Height s