After much research, investigation and thought on the part of the CLC, and input from various members of the community, we needed to determine if and where consensus existed within our group. To do that, we decided to define issues that we thought were important in the context of library services and the community. The CLC came up with 13 major issues that bear upon the future of the JJML.
They are, in no specific order, as follows:
- Designated Parking – Some CLC members felt, and our outreach confirmed, that parking at the current site was an issue, and that an expanded library would require a significant amount of parking dedicated to library use.
- Disruption to the historic district during construction – Because the existing building is on a small site bordered on two sides by narrow streets, representatives of Sullivan and Nickel, Inc., Construction Managers emphasized the difficulty involved in the construction of any addition to the building. Shutting down streets was a probability and disruption to traffic would be significant for one to two years.
- Long-term impact on adjacent properties and streets – Evidence from other libraries in the region shows that circulation and library visits increased dramatically when libraries expand. This information forced members to consider the impact an expanded library would have on its immediate neighborhood. How would increasing the size of the building impact the character of the neighborhood? How would the increase in usage and traffic affect the neighborhood?
- Total project cost – Whenever taxpayer dollars are involved, cost is a major consideration. The CLC tried to balance various elements outlined in the Needs Assessment Report against the cost of supplementing those needs.
- New Building versus a renovated historic structure w/addition – What would serve the community better, a new building or a renovated historic structure?
- Continuity of library service and disruption/dislocation of staff – If the CLC’s recommendation was to expand exclusively on the existing site, consideration needed to be paid to relocation of library services and laying off or losing current staff.
- Timing and time line of each project – Because any construction on the original site would be more complicated and more time consuming than new construction, some felt this was an issue for consideration.
- Future expansion opportunities and the flexibility of building – Faced with an expansion long overdue, and advised by many about the importance of flexibility in the design of a library to accommodate the evolving nature of libraries, this was deemed an issue for consideration.
- Changes to existing structure – Questions arose as to whether the integrity of the building would be compromised by an expansion.
- Long-term operating expenses – Expanding services means operating expenses will increase.
- Future use of existing building – If the CLC’s recommendation were other than full expansion at the current site, committee members expressed concern about the fate of the existing building.
- Design of building – Some felt that the architectural design of the proposed building was a factor in the failure of the first referendum, and therefore should be an issue for consideration.
- Value of historic district – In addition to the of the existing building, many consider its role in ‘keeping the Historic District alive’ to be vital to our community. The future of the historic district was deemed an issue for consideration.
After our issue list was generated, each member of the CLC prioritized the items in the order considered to be most to least important, giving a 1 to the most important and a 13 to the least important. Since so many of us thought a majority of these issues held great importance, we did not find this an easy task. However, the result of this effort is reflected in the spreadsheet entitled ‘CLC - Individual Priority List’. (see Appendix D)
From the ‘JJCLC – Individual Priority List’, we generated a schedule entitled ‘CLC Group Priority Analysis’ which reflects the results of the committee’s prioritization as a whole. The rows contain our list of considerations. The column headers represent the priority rating given by members of the CLC. The group’s results are sorted by highest to lowest priority. The results are shown by total and average priority, essentially giving the same information two ways. In addition, you can see how the CLC prioritized these items through a tally of the individual results. For example, ‘Future expansion opportunities and flexibility of building’ landed as our #1 priority with 2 of the committee members considering it the #1 priority, 1 considering it #2, 5 considering it #3, 0 considering #4, and so on.
The members of the CLC represent many segments of our community and thus many different interests and perspectives. At the time of this exercise, there was not a great deal of consensus on many points. However, it is important to note that the top 3 issues on the ‘CLC Group Priority Analysis’ did show that half or almost half of the CLC rated these issues one of the top three priorities. This is noteworthy because ‘flexibility of building’ can be better achieved with a new building. ‘Long term impact on adjacent properties and streets’ shows members are concerned about congestion, traffic, and parking issues. However, ‘future use of existing structure’ landing as the #3 priority shows the value held for the existing building in our community. Thus began the commitment to the two building scenario and the building of a great deal more consensus on the issues.
