Dear Title Email Phone Keith, Kirsten http://menlopark.org/directory.aspx?EID=61 > Mayor Email Ohtaki, Peter I. http://menlopark.org/directory.aspx?EID=62 > Mayor Pro Tem Email Mueller, Ray http://menlopark.org/directory.aspx?EID=59 > City Councilmember Email Carlton, Catherine http://menlopark.org/directory.aspx?EID=58 > City Councilmember Email Cline, Richard http://menlopark.org/directory.aspx?EID=60 > City Councilmember Email 650-575-4523 AGAIN THE BELLE HAVEN NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, IS CONTINUED TO BE IGNORED. WE COME TO THE COUNCIL MEETINGS TO EXPRESS OUR NEEDS AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE AREN'T TAKEN SERIOUSLY. TRAFFIC AND EDUCATION ARE A MAJOR PRIORITY. WE NEED A NEW STATE OF THE ART LIBRARY BUT IT ALONG WITH THE CIVIC CENTER MAIN LIBRARY CAN WAIT. THE CIVIC CENTER HOUSING IS A NEED. THE LIBRARY IS A WANT. I AGREE WITH THE LETTERS BELOW WRITTEN AND POST BY Jen Wolosin Resident, Menlo Park AND Lynne Bramlett, Library Commissioner *Rachel M. Bickerstaff* *MERDOM* *"the daughters fingerprints of success"415.264.7216 - Direct* *La Poll Realtorswww.lapoll.com http://www.lapoll.com/ >[image: file003.gif]* [image: photo] *Rachel M. Bickerstaff* COO, R Bickerstaff Consulting/MERDOM/La Poll Realtors 415.264.7216 | RachelBickerstaff_at_(domainremoved) | P.O. Box 2471, Menlo Park, CA 94026 http://linkedin.com/in/rachel-bickerstaff-b872a026 > Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff, I’m writing with public comments on staff report 17-243-CC or “Approve Next Steps for Library System improvements.” I’m out of town, so cannot attend the October 10, 2017 meeting. If present, I would ask you to NOT APPROVE the report for the following reasons: 1. *The process of developing this report completely bypassed the Library Commission*. We learned about the report *after* it was attached to the agenda packet. If there had been an urgency, a special meeting could have been called. In any other town, building consensus would be expected of staff. If you approve this report, it sends a message that it’s okay for staff to bypass citizen advisory groups and to develop their plans in isolation. Instead, please establish process expectations by informing staff that they need to work to obtain consensus before sending major plans on to Council for approval. City staff are here for the residents and they need to work collaboratively with us. 2. *The report is inadequate in its current form*. The background section paints an inaccurate picture of the approval process. It omits any mention of the meeting where Council re-thought their approval and the many public concerns raised about accepting the donation. The Analysis section is also too general and the milestones need more specifics as well as estimated dates. The suggested new Belle Haven Neighborhood Advisory Committee largely bypasses the current Commission which is fully in support of Belle Haven and trying to hold library management accountable for improving library services in the area. The document should detail the role of the current commission in the "library system improvement" process. While a steering committee will be needed, more stakeholders from the Belle Haven community should be included. (The current commission may also be out of compliance with Municipal Code governing libraries. I raise those concerns later.) 3. *The document lacks adequate budget details*. The document does not breakdown the additional $140,000 that staff wants for the Branch and what the requested $1M will be spent on. A current library budget that breaks out the Branch’s overall share should also be attached for transparency. On a related note, I’m attaching my rough estimate of the Branch’s share of the overall library budget. The public and members of the Commission requested this information, but did not receive it, so I prepared an estimate based on then publically available information. While my budget estimate needs to be updated to reflect the proposed $140,000 requested for the branch, the current estimate shows that per capita library spending in the Belle Haven area is *significantly* lower than the rest of Menlo Park. The Belle Haven residents pay taxes and they should receive an equitable share of library services. 4. *The report inadequately justifies why a new library management position is needed to oversee the project. *A significant portion of the library budget goes for personnel costs. The job descriptions for current employees should be attached as well as a job description for the new role. The report should include current staffing and planned staffing, such as the replacement position for the Project Read coordinator. The library should also explain why current employees cannot manage the project. The library should also factor in volunteer help to manage the project, such as through the Library Commission. Many of us would welcome a more involved role. More justification of personnel costs should be included. 5. *There was significant public opposition to this project, yet nowhere in the document are the public’s key concerns listed and how the library plans to address them.* Omitting the public’s concerns is one of the most troubling aspects of this document. In this way, the document presents a biased document rather than an accurate record. If Council approves this document as written, you send the message that staff doesn’t need to present the full facts and can instead present information that only supports their agenda. Please stand up for transparency and an honoring of the residents who take the time to attend and speak at Council meetings and to write Council. I also want to raise general concerns about the role of the Library Commission and the need for more management and operational oversight into the library. Unfortunately, the Commission, in its current role, is not able to give adequate oversight into library management and operations. Meaningful information is not shared with us and requests for information are often ignored. When we raise concerns or make suggestions that staff might not like, we are reminded that we are “advisory only.” This results in wasted time and opportunity. I have been an active commissioner, working in a hands-on way, and I have concluded that my time spent trying to help the library improve its services, based on best practices seen elsewhere, is mostly wasted. In short, I consider the Commission’s current advisory role to not be meaningful. Our neighboring cities don’t seem to have the library-related problems that I see in Menlo Park. For example, Redwood City and East Palo Alto have worked to serve all members of their community with library services. The Redwood City library consistently wins major library rewards as does the overall San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Association. If our neighbors can do this, Menlo Park can too.Yet, the Commission continues to hear complaints from the public about the library disparity in Belle Haven and the too slow replacement for the Project Read coordinator. As part of providing better library services for all of our residents, I recommend a strengthened the library commission with a meaningful role. First, our town may be out of compliance with the Municipal Code Governing Libraries http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=1.&title=1.&part=11.&chapter=5.&article=2 >. The code clearly reflects the need for library governance for this important town institution. The word “may” has been interpreted as “shall” in many cases, such as in Berkeley (where the Board has hiring and firing power), to towns such as Newport Beach http://newportbeachca.gov/government/open-government/agendas-minutes/board-of-library-trustees > and Woodland http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/library/board_of_trustees/default.asp > (where the board has a middle level of authority). In our town, the Library Commission has no real governing power. So I suggest that Council ask the City Attorney to determine if Menlo Park is out of compliance with the code. If deemed out of compliance, the Commission could work on updated job descriptions for the Commission and also Library Management to reflect needed changes. Should Council need a general overview into California Library structure, the California Public Libraries Report https://www.library.ca.gov/lds/docs/CAPubLibOrg_2013.pdf > provides needed details. Longer term, I have become convinced that Menlo Park would benefit from joining a regional library solution in the form of the San Mateo County Library Joint Powers Authority https://smcl.org/jpa-governing-board/ >. By joining the JPA, Menlo Park would share in county-wide library programming and outreach services such as the bookmobile. I’ve visited many JPA libraries and I’ve been extremely impressed with their exemplary service to the public and innovative programming. The San Mateo County JPA libraries are consistently named a 4-star library by the *Library Journal *and they currently rank 2nd in California and 18th nationwide. Clearly, there are some best practices here for our consideration. Through economies of scale, and the sharing of ideas, the San Mateo County JPA libraries deliver an excellent library experience to users. Sincerely, Lynne Bramlett, Library Commissioner FYI - Here is what I sent to City Council: Dear City Council Members, This email is in regards to Agenda Item I2, the Library. After reviewing the Staff Report, I remain concerned about this project for the following reasons: Not Enough Community Feedback While there is community feedback built into the siting of the new library, there has been insufficient community feedback as to whether or not Menlo Park wants and/or needs a new main library. If City Council votes to move forward with this project, Menlo Park will be on the hook for at least $30 million ($20 million of construction costs and $10 million of soft costs). We should slow down and make sure this is something we truly need and want as a community before we rush into this big commitment. If you want to spend money on outreach, use it to see if residents even want a new library. While it’s nice to hear that Mr. Arrillaga is open to adding affordable housing to the project, which our city desperately needs, the Staff Report hedges this idea multiple times with words like, “may, could and possibly.” Some who may be troubled by the use of city resources for a new library may be supportive if this project included needed housing...but it is impossible to know at this stage what is really being suggested. Again, slowing this down and obtaining community feedback now would help illuminate these nuances. Other Real Priorities In addition to community engagement issues, I am also troubled that, once again, other previously identified city priorities will need to be demoted and delayed to accommodate the library. With many staffing vacancies in Public Works, especially the Transportation Department, and many open projects and other safety-related projects that need to be addressed, now is not the time to add “nice-to-haves” to our work plan. Everyday kids getting to school face unsafe walking and biking conditions. What is the status of the Willows Complete Streets/Laurel School Project, the Belle Haven Cut Through Project, the City-Wide Safe Routes to School Program? And that’s not even mentioning Safe Routes issues that have yet to become Council priorities like Santa Cruz & Sharon Road, Olive & Santa Cruz, the HAWK on Middlefield, Laurel & Encinal, to name a few. Please allocate funds and resources towards our city’s basic needs before indulging in unnecessary projects. Special Treatment There is also the issue of this project getting an immediate $1 million, a new staff person and a higher contract award authority to the City Manager. Yes, “free” money is exciting, but does a new library (or community center, or whatever it ends up being) deserve all of this urgency, changes to our policies and resources when there are other, bigger issues facing our city? Belle Haven Finally, it is not fair to the residents of Belle Haven to hold the Belle Haven library improvements hostage to the main library project. You should make immediate improvements in Belle Haven, form a Belle Haven Advisory Committee and get going on real change in Belle Haven, regardless of the main library. This should have been done long ago. To see these concessions, only now as a form of appeasement because of Arrillaga’s offer, is insulting. All this being said, please slow down and first see if this is what our city really wants. If Mr. Arrillaga can’t wait for us to do this right, then maybe that’s something to which we should pay attention. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jen Wolosin Resident, Menlo Park Create your own email signature https://wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=create_your_own > Received on Tue Oct 10 2017 - 19:17:54 PDT
