And the twisting and turning and arm twisting continues . . . It looks like the logic behind council actions on the library will be a tortured as the some of the things going on with the Edgewater..
BUDGET LANGUAGE
This is what the council passed:
New Central Library
This project includes sufficient funding for a Central Library project. In their evaluation, development and design of the new Central Library, City staff is directed to study and consider the feasibility of including either a rooftop intensive community garden and/or a green roof. This project includes $1.6 million of borrowing reauthorized from 2009. Other funding in 2010 includes $6 million from the New Markets Tax Credit Program and $4 million from the sale of land. Private contributions of $10 million are anticipated in 2011 and 2012 ($5 million in each year). The City will not commence any significant portion of the construction of its portion of the project until it has received assurance that the federal New Markets Tax Credits are available.
I looked at it yesterday to prepare for my show, because I recalled Verveer saying that the budget language didn’t say “new” and that is why they don’t need to amend the budget. Well, I found some more surprises in there, and asked Rummel and Verveer about them. I’ll get the interview up on Monday to see their responses, meanwhile . . . here’s few things to think about.
RESOLUTION TO CHANGE BUDGET
This is the resolution Clear and Palm have drafted:
WHEREAS, the 2010 Capital Budget includes $23,000,000 for a new Central Library; and
WHEREAS, the new library project was dependent on successful negotiations with a developer for several phases of the project; and
WHEREAS, these negotiations were not successful; and
WHEREAS, the existing Central Library building systems are past end-of-life usage, and the current building is not adequate for 21st century library operations; and
WHEREAS, the structure of the existing building is sound and capable of being expanded by an additional story; and
WHEREAS, a re-imagined Central Library, built around the structure of the existing building, can be architecturally beautiful, environmentally sustainable, economically feasible, technologically advanced, operationally efficient, aesthetically welcoming and can function as a vital community asset for many years to come;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council supports rebuilding of the
existing Central Library.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 2010 Capital Budget, Library Project #2, is amended to strike the word “new” and replace it with “rebuilt.”
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Common Council supports the ongoing process of
Engineering Division Facilities Management to recommend an architect and design engineering firm for this project and present a contract to the Council for approval.
City
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION
So, my first question is, where did this negotiation come from? What was to be negotiated? I thought there was a surplus committee and an RFP process and that was either accepted or rejected. But oops, wait, it looks like the council never voted on it – I think this turns out to be the fatal flaw. Instead they put money in the budget and made amendments (Amendment 1, 2 and 3) to the budget, but those just totally got ignored.
My second question is, what’s the fiscal note on this, they are looking for co-sponsors, but there’s no fiscal note. That would seem to have a very significant impact on the resolution and could result in this having to be a 15 vote item.
My other biggest questions are covered by Rummel:
From: Rummel, Marsha
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Clear, Mark; Palm, Larry; Verveer, Mike
Cc: May, Michael; Brasser, Dean
Subject: RE: Central Library resolutionAmending the Cap budget Library Project 2 by deleting the word ‘new’ and replacing it with ‘rebuilt’ does not address the adopted budget language of $6m in new market tax credits and $4m from the sale of the existing building.
Can someone provide an explanation?
Thanks
Marsha
There are many, many, many other questions, which will come soon, but those are the biggies. A taste of other things to think about are any where will the library be relocated during rehab? Will there still be community gardens on the roof top? Is the Mayor’s timeline at all realistic? What’s going on behind the scenes as the Mayor plows forward on the project regardless of what the council thinks? etc. etc. etc.
PALM EXPLAINS
Hello fellow council members-
I’ve been talking to a few of you about the unsuccessful effort to move the Central Library to the Network 222 site and sell the current site for redevelopment. As you know that deal did not (has not) worked out. As the Library Board member I was not part of the negotiations but as a Board of Public Works member I know of some of the complications that occur when trying to move from a “grey-box” purchase to a true public works project and how that could derail any negotiations. When the redevelopment of the current site was removed from the negotiations, it really did make the financial environment change. Change so dramatically that it brought a very worked-over reuse of the current site financially similar.
I’m not defending the Mayor for “selling” the project too well… Those Andrew Statz numbers were pretty compelling. Is this ‘bait-n-switch’? Maybe. But the numbers were all based upon a framework of a deal as opposed to an actual deal. Nothing was signed,
I have said to many of you that my preference was for the ‘remodel’ option:
• Floor size. Simply put it is more economically to staff a larger floor size on fewer floors than on multiple floors. Years of library data proves this. A three story library will be more economical over the long run than the seven story library. This is from our operating budget and will be a cost year after year.
• Reuse of a current structure. The current structure is strong. It is everything that’s wrapped around it that has fallen into disrepair, abuse. Just like the reskinning of the Meriter Hospital on W Wash, the basics are good. We can create a beautiful building on our current site.
• Location. I’m not sure what draws people to West Washington Avenue, but I find the connection to the Overture Center and State Street (and still be as close to the state capitol) to be very compelling. Technically this building serves two purposes: a local library branch and an administrative hub. For a local library branch, this is as good of a location as I think you will find in downtown Madison.
• Control. Simply put the city has much more control over a project that is on our own site versus another site. We control the architects, project managers, construction process and everything else you normally see with other city projects. Buying the ‘grey box’ was easy and convenient but it was a leap of faith. That might have worked on a project like South Madison and Sequoia, but it was certainly more challenging on an iconic project like the central library.As always, I’m looking to get a library project done. I’ve been through two other attempts over the past decade, and it would be a great disappointment not have a new central library. I ask you to not to get too wrapped up in “what went wrong” or searching for another site. While I certainly want the new central library to be a strong civic building, the real impact will always be what happens on the inside. Any project that we do will create a 21st century library: where books, materials, information, technology and people co-mingle and create knowledge.
Sure, there are still those that wonder if libraries will have a place in the next 50 years, but to me it is clear that it will. We need flexible spaces that can support unimaginable offerings to us today. Our current building can not do that.I encourage you to actively participate in whatever conversation we have. I appreciate the disagreements and discussions I’ve had with many of you over the years about the library, it’s position in the city and what the council should do to support the system.
Let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns about what I’ve proposed. I know that there is an actual resolution that is going around pushing forward with a substantial remodel of the current structure. Give what I know; I believe that is the only way to go at this point in time. I hope I can count on your support.
Larry
Some other notes:
1. Current library: how did it get so bad?
a. When I started on the library board in 1996, the building was old then. There were some improvements made (technology, paint and carpeting) but we knew that until the basic mechanical systems were either replaced or upgraded none of those little things would make much of a difference.
b. During the days before our current director (who also started in about 1996) the library had not opened, remodeled or invested in a facility in some time. This was politics and the engagement of the prior director. I would defer to other Alders and citizens for the specifics but suffice it to say the library was not in a position to support the changes to our physical facilities. As demonstrated since 1996 we have:
i. Opened Alicia Ashman branch
ii. Moved and re-opened Hawthorne, Sequoia and soon South Madison.
iii. Remodeled Pinney (actually twice), Monroe
iv. Envisioned a new far-east side library at Grand View Commons.
c. The library board continues to support the development of the library branches. We are actively looking at where a far north/eastside library would be best placed and continue to work on options for the far southwest side.
d. After years of neglect the only solution is a total overhaul/replacement. In the future I would hope the Common Council and Mayor would support gradual improvements, much like our expected improvements to Ashman in the coming years. At about a decade old, Ashman is showing its age and continue re-investment will help keep it strong. This reinvestment must be part of the package for any central library so that this investment is preserved for years to come.
2. Library structure: centralized or not?
a. Our library is based upon a centralized support function. All support function – administration, book processing, print shop, support, etc. – are based at the Central Library. Sure we could de-centralize it placing some of these functions at each branch or creating additional administrative buildings. Over the years the library board has looked at these various functions and has continued to support the dynamic synergy that comes from support staff that is together and embedded in a library facility.
b. I believe we save money in our operating budget based upon these support staff members working together in tandem.
c. The Madison Public Library is well regarded and rates consistently high against our peers, even as other cities of our size spend considerably more in library funding. Ann Arbor – a university community about half our population spends nearly twice as much on their library facilities. Yet, we continue to rank high on library indexes. Our system must be working – over the years I have seen the incredible creativity, knowledge, support and connections our staff have to each other, the system and the residents of Madison.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
According to Clear:
Ald. Palm and I have drafted the attached resolution, with assistance from Library Board chair Tripp Widder. Our intention is to introduce it at the April 13 council meeting with referral to BOE. The library board will consider this resolution informally at their April 5 meeting (since it will not have been introduced yet), along with a resolution to “un-surplus” the existing building.
LABOR SUPPORTS
Sigh, should I ask how many jobs?
I am writing this letter on behalf of the 4000 member families of the Building and Construction Trades Council Of South Central Wisconsin to express, in the strongest possible manner, our support for the Downtown Library project.
As you may know, every craft in our council is experiencing at least 20% unemployment at this time; many have a much higher rate. Some are experiencing rates over 50%.
It is our firm belief that you cannot have a great downtown without a great library. In addition to this, we need the jobs now, not years from now.
I cannot overstate our case. A project like this will literally keep some of our member families in their homes and out of bankruptcy. We need your support for the project now not years from now.
Although some pundits say the recession is over, I can state unequivocally that the construction industry has not been affected yet. In addition to this there are few other project on the horizon for this season, which will be the worst in decades.
Please join with us and support the library project today.
Sincerely,
Scott Vaughn
Executive Director
Building and Construction Trades Council
Hmmm, are temporary jobs a reason to make a commitment for the next 50 years?
FINALLY
Overall, I don’t mind a rehab, in fact I think I prefer it, but there’s a ton of issues to be resolved. I hope the council doesn’t let this discussion fatigue them like the Edgewater and they just go along to get along. I hope they sink their teeth into this and the many un-discussed issues with the Edgewater and take some leadership over the future of these two projects, but do that with an attitude to not just “get it done” but to “get it done right.” Our community deserves that.
