Written by On Friday I posted the following on Renton Patch in an effort to give as many people as possible an opportunity to participate in the development of the downtown library location ballot wording:
The Renton City Attorney’s Office has published a memo with a proposed library ballot title for council to consider on Monday. Council President Rich Zwicker wants the public to have a chance to review this proposal and make comment before council discusses at our Monday night meeting. Here is a link to this memo.
In addition, Mayor Law has published a memo with an explanation of the cost approach used to evaluate the costs of renovating the existing library. Here is a link to this memo.
I would encourage citizens with an interest in the ballot title wording to review these two memos, and email your comments to the city council at the city website here
_________________________________________
Late Friday afternoon the Renton Reporter ran a story on the topic, which can be found here
While I am glad that Renton Reporter ran a story on this topic to get the word out, I did feel compelled to comment on the story’s headline which read: “Cost estimates show Piazza library downtown is less costly.” Here is the comment I left on the story:
Comment from Renton Councilman Randy Corman:
I feel that the headline is misleading as it currently reads: “Piazza library downtown is less costly.” This headline gives the false impression that because I am a council member who favors keeping the library over the Cedar River, then I am trying to spend MORE money than my council colleagues who wish to move the library to the Piazza. But as an earlier commenter pointed out, construction of the Piazza library would also include remodeling and re-purposing of the existing library, which has not been accounted for in the cost figures. Given no other data, it is reasonable to assume that this remodeling for another purpose would be similar to the cost of remodeling the building as a library. For instance, the cost estimates of roughly half a million dollars for roofing, half a million for new plumbing, half a million for electrical, etc would not change if we did something else with the building.
Hence, this is a more accurate full accounting of the costs:
Library move to Big 5 costs:
New building costs: $9,337,159.
Costs to repurpose CR bldg: $10.1MM.
Total costs to tax payers: $19.4MM.
Remodel existing bldg: $10.1MM.
Temp relocation: $400M.
Total: $10.5MM
It is significantly less costly to the tax payers to keep the library at it’s present location. Put another way, the Piazza library will cost the taxpayers almost twice as much money.
As a final note, I think if we built the new highlands library first — nearly tripling it’s size– we could avoid temporarily relocating the downtown library during construction– we could simply close it temporarily. This would save another $400,000 with the remodeling option.
I don’t normally do my debating in the newspaper comment section, but I just do not want the public to get the false impression that remodeling the Cedar River library is the expensive option, or that I am being careless with their money just to preserve a beloved library building.
(End of newspaper comment)
_________________________________________________________
As a final note, the city has been receiving Freedom of Information requests for library cost and remodeling data, and my understanding is that our City Clerk is working to provide the requested data and get as much data posted to the city’s website as quickly as possible.
Hi Randy, I think there was a mistake inadvertently made in the information included for the council’s discussion of the ballot measure. The costs included for the council for the cost of the Big 5 site are not the new library costs. They are “Costs based on recent KCLS project experience” and are actually Exhibit A of the ILA, intended as an example of the level of detail that would be produced for the project budget for the actual site.
What I wrote the council:
On the Library Ballot, my concern is the last sentence: “If the Piazza site is chosen, Renton will keep the the existing building for future public use” without the resulting costs for refurbishment being reflected in the cost estimate.
If cost information is going to be conveyed to voters to allow then to make an economic choice, then costs for keeping the Cedar River building open for public use should be included in the library relocation costs if the ballot makes that particular promise.
Ben,
From an economic standpoint, I understand your reasoning to include the costs of refurbishing the current location for an alternate use if the new site is chosen. However, under that same logic, should the voters prevail in keeping the library at the current location, should we not also add in the cost of developing the site “West of the Piazza” (into whatever that might be)? Or do you imagine the city would just keep that property sitting vacant? Either way it appears there would be added cost to either approach.
You are right, the cost impact of developing the Big 5 should be included in an analysis of net cost of the decisions we must make Aug. 7th. Put the building on the market for $500,000 and subtract that revenue from the approximatley 3 million dollar rational cost to remodel the Cedar River Library. Net cost to the taxpayers 2.5 million, which can be paid in a single year out of the current tax revenue which used to be spent on a real library.
I agree with your analysis if the ballot also made a promise about the Big-5 site.
In my opinion, the promise in the ballot about the Cedar River library being “put to public use” is to soften the blow on closing it as a library. I feel that it’s twisted logic to put it in there as a promise, yet not include the costs.
I understand the issue at hand on the ballot is deciding BETWEEN the 2 possible locations for the library – ESTIMATED costs as you noted Randy, are provided for the former Big 5 site and projected cost for the CR location. Just to clarify, aren’t we also paying for the Highlands new library @ a cost of $9 million?
So adding this to your numbers Randy, wouldn’t the total cost potentially be $28 million to taxpayers, this would include the eventual cost to repurpose the CR location if by some miracle it is not the chosen/voted in site for the future library location?? Also noting that cost over runs have not been added in.
Just an addendum to last post – Where I said …..’ if by some miracle the CR site is not the chosen/voted in site for the future library location.’ My intention was to say this would be a ‘travesty’ if CR site was not voted in as the site for the library.
The cost comparison also fails to consider the size difference between the buildings. A remodeled Cedar River Library could provide nearly twice the public space as the downtown location. Evaluated on a cost per sq. ft. basis, the downtown library is nearly twice as expensive as the Cedar River Library. For every other city building that I have seen built, a careful analysis of the cost per sq. ft. is made to ensure that the public is not paying more than the industry standard for a similar structure. Somebody has apparently dropped the ball and I have to wonder if it is a deliberate oversight.
This is not something that Peter, the city’s Facilities Director, would normally do. Check his work on the District 40 Fire Station 17 remodel, where he is pinching every penny twice.
I doubt that the nearly half a million dollars in costs to accelerate the remodel work are really needed. Three quarters of a million on HVAC? Spray some insulation / fireproofing on the underside of the bridge portions, add a few inches of insulation while spending .75 million on the roof, downsize the HVAC and save both capex and opex. Before you flame me for overstating the cost estimate for the roof work, check both sections of the cost estimate, for some reason the costs to rebuild the roof are split.
The local newspaper is again, not taking an unbiased approach to their reporting on library issues. Have they gone so far as to intentionally and repeatedly delete the thoughtful post of the City’s longest serving council member just because it does not conform to the story line of the ‘news’ article? What are they afraid of and whom do they actually serve?
http://renton.patch.com/articles/passions-remain-high-for-downtown-renton-library?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001
“Renner estimated “a general re-do of the building at $2 million,” plus the additional cost for seismic upgrades and *floor loading might bring a basic renovation to $3 million, but that’s just for the basic four walls and a room, he said. His estimate did not include anything additional such as furniture or landscaping.”
Just in case you missed The Renton Patch article. This was Renner, not the estimator, making these general re-do of the Cedar River Library. *The way I understand it a “general redo“ will not trigger bringing the building up to current seismic upgrades because the structure isn’t changing and weight bearing isn’t changing.
The library building was constructed to be a library and for the stacks to be placed where they are. The psi is exactly what it needs to be for safely holding them. There is no good reason for moving them elsewhere in the library simply because someone thinks they would be better somewhere else. They serve well where they are. The Service Desk, computer stands and various low psi stacks complete the center section of the library. It is well designed and efficient library.
There wouldn’t be much change in the furniture department. The stacks wouldn’t have to be replaced and much of the furniture wouldn’t have to be replaced because KCLS put their new stuff in upon annexation. They removed the excellent reading tables in the magazine and newspaper section and put in chairs. That was sad loss of tables for reading periodicals and spreading out study materials to do research or homework.
The landscaping is already done since it is the Cedar River Trail, Liberty Park, The Cedar River. All taken care of.
The Cedar River windows need to be insulated, the heating/air conditioning needs updating, the electrical needs updating and probably the plumbing. Not sure, but I think that the carpet has been replaced in most of the library by KCLS….on our tax dollars. The carpet should have included padding for insulation and to retain heat/air conditioning. The back rooms should be reconfigured for more efficient use by the staff and public needs.
You have no doubt noticed that the KCLS Libraries use a lot of dead space in flying buttress type ceilings and roofs. They use a lot of glass as well which I’m assuming is insulated.
In a 15,000 sq ft building many computers we now have would be lost. They are all in use most of the time. I’m wondering how much of the 15,000 sq ft space will be composed of the extended roof lines. This space will also include office space, back room space (all much smaller), auto check in space, restrooms, reduced meeting room(s) and no study rooms. In some KCLS libraries they have made room for vending machines and tables to have snacks. I think that this has proven a headache for staff.
We need to understand what “state-of-the-art” translates into. As far as I can tell the Cedar River Library contains what makes up a state-of-the-art library. What it needs is updating of its basic infrastructure and not its structure.
I am glad to read your clarification of the Renton Reporter’s article regarding the costs of the library move and lumping all the council’s opinion as the same. Reading the signs “Support the New Library” and other pro-moving propaganda I get the idea the whole town is ready and happy to see the library moved off the river. Thanks for clarifying that it is only part of the council members and mayor who support the move.
I am so glad that the Renton Reporter published your comment too. The average guy can’t get anything into Letters to the Editor unless it supports the Mayor’s agenda. The editorials and news articles I have read imply the opposition to moving the library is a small group of poorly organized people.
Whether I agree with keeping the library on the river or moving it to Big 5 is not the only issue. The bias from the local print newspaper is deeply disturbing. The way the issue has been, and continues to be, promoted by the City is shamefully immoral. I have lost so much trust in my local government and the Renton Reporter that I now assume what I read and hear has been spun to promote a pet project. What is happening is just so wrong on so many different levels.
The Reporter has always been a mouthpiece for a certain segment of the City government rather than an unbiased and objective “news” paper.
There hasn’t been a legitimate newspaper here since the South County Journal.
I’ve been reading all the comments, questions and replies on various sites. This got me to researching the library move from the tax dollars angle. I think the real elephant in the room is the supposed re-purposing for an environmental center. This will cost taxpayers 20 -25 million on top of building KCLS a new smaller library for 9.3 to now up to 12 million. Why lose a unique asset to Renton to satisfy special interests – and cost ourselves nearly three times as much?
The proposed environmental center will not be feasible to build and maintain. If we couldn’t fund one of the best libraries in the area for 1.8 million a year (and this budget covered running both the Highlands and Cedar River libraries) then how are we to fund the ongoing expense of 2 million or more a year for an environmental center? Where is the 25 million going to come from to build it? There are a lot of factors that come into play if you change the building usage that don’t apply if we keep our library. For one thing, mitigation fees that aren’t due for buildings being remodeled for the same type of usage. And again, where are Renton taxpayers supposed to come up with the 25 million to build a new environmental center on the shell of the Cedar River Library bridge deck? Do we really want to lose a unique asset to Renton by letting the building go dark? What happens then? Will the park be gutted according to the Tri-parks plan and our library sold off along with the old city hall to developers?
I think voters need to take a hard look at the special interests behind the campaign for the library move. KCLS levies property taxes and is not paying for their new buildings – so they ARE NOT a disinterested, fair-minded party. The backers of the “Piazza Library” – the Big 5 site – appear to be realtors and construction companies – again, not disinterested parties. Let’s not throw away a perfect location that could be a state-of-the-art flagship library to help out construction companies, realtors, and one of the biggest special taxation districts in King County. I’ll gladly pay to remodel the library right where it’s at. Just from a dollars and sense standpoint, I agree that there is no better place.