At its January 14 meeting, the Great Neck Library board authorized spending up to $10,000 to hire a professional fundraiser for the Main Library renovation project.
Library President Marietta DiCamillo was quoted in this paper as saying that the $10.4 million that was authorized in the November bond resolution is all they need for the renovation and furnishings, and characterized the fundraising as extra money for novelties and niceties like enhanced video equipment and a garden (she actually made a personal donation toward the garden).
“Board President Marietta DiCamillo said the bond, passed by voters in November, would go to the ‘basics for the building,’ which she said includes furniture, library equipment and the infrastructure of the building.
“Money raised by a fundraiser would go to ‘special projects,’ DiCamillo said.
“‘The fundraiser is if we want to do anything special like a reading garden or better video equipment’,” she said, according to reporting by Anthony O’Reilly.
Except that’s not what was said at the December 17, 2013 board meeting, when trustee Josie Pizer inadvertently let the proverbial cat out of the bat.
At that meeting, Pizer said that the $10.4 million would get us only “half way” to furnishing the building. She pointed to money that have been amassed in the Main Building fund from the budget surplus and a windfall – that is, money that was never anticipated but happily fell into the Library’s lap – of $251,000 from the Great Neck School District (the library’s share of PILOT payments unpaid for the past 15 years) that would go toward refurnishing the building after the renovation. As of December 31, that amount was $1.4 million.
She said, “We need a minimum $2 million in the Main Building & Services [account] to take care of most of the items we want to include in the renovation costs. If we had $2.5 million, I would feel better.”
Just two days later, at the first meeting with the architect and construction manager, practically giddy after the bond referendum, hearing that there was aggressive fundraising underway, Russell A Davidson, President & Managing Partner of KGD, asked point blank, “How much money do we really have to work with?” as he moves forward with more detailed plans.
Because, you see, only about 5% of the planning had been done at the time of the referendum (in order to save money, in case the referendum would have been defeated), but based on that, the architect was able to come in with a price tag that amazingly hit the $10.4 million target precisely.
But that $10.4 million supposedly includes a 5% contingency, which means the project is really supposed to cost that much less.
DiCamillo told the architect, “We funded half the furniture budget in the $10.4. We know the other half has to come from somewhere – we are working on being as creative – cost savings from the fiscal budget in the closure, certain items that will yield a plus. We are being very creative. The fundraising group is trying to think of other ways – we looking at all the grant opportunities, but at this point, $1.4 million in Main Building & Special Services is committed to this project.”
Now, I did not support the referendum because in the first place, the project is too small and prevents any flexible accommodation over the 40 year life this building will have (did you realize that to enter one of the meeting rooms in the lower level, you have to go through the first meeting room because there is no separate entrance?).
But I also have great skepticism that the project can be completed for $10.4 million. Since the public only authorized $10.4 million (which was not really an arbitrary number but the highest amount that a former Library trustee would permit in order to be pacified from organizing opposition to the bond, as he had to defeat the previous referendum). That means that if the bids are higher, the project will have to be scaled back even more, or cheaper materials substituted for other materials. (The construction Manager says this does not mean they are less quality, only “cheaper” so that begs the question why anyone would pay for more expensive materials?).
Here’s what emerged from the first BAC meeting with the architect and construction manager that followed the bond, on December 19, and why I am skeptical:
Russell A. Davidson, president and managing partner of KGD said, “Cost. In an ideal world, we got it right, and the cost estimate matches up to conceptual – We have some contingencies built in for design, as design develops, we spend that contingency – construction contingency, we wait until construction, not atypical, when jump into schematics, we work hard to accommodate everything people say and we’re over – we start design development, we need to trim back this, this, this – fairly difficult part of process – trying to please everybody, get as much as possible – during this process, not uncommon you’re over, got to prioritize.
Russell A. Davidson, president and managing partner of KGD said, “We know you asked the public for a fixed amount, but we talked about having money in a capital fund and funding some furniture over period of time. We need to know what is the expanded target for all of these things, because we tabled that; $10.4 million is the ask, but you have these other funds. We need to know what our cash on hand is.”
He continued, “We had a discussion when you were setting your budget that Dominick and our office said would be more comfortable with ‘x,’ but you said we want ‘y’ but we have extra funds. What is the number? What are you prepared to spend?”
He pointed to the $200,000 for Hazmet which was on the board’s wishlist but set aside so not to pierce that magical $10.4 million threshold. and questioned whether they should add that in now, as the schematics are being finalized. “We need to know our target. This is not a shell game. If you have the money, we need to know.”
Levels, for example. “When we showed the Levels plan, we showed it as grey –needing infrastructure. If we do more, that would be added scope, outside the $10.4.”
DiCamillo remarked that during an engineering walk through “We heard there had been past discussion that said pieces were falling off. We need a study to know its condition. If not, it would be outside the $10.4. There are things we uncover,” she said, which would be managed under the contingency.
Then she added in a stern tone, “Don’t walk away with the idea this is $11.6. The project is $10.4 – for what was there.”
But the architect persisted, “It also affects our work, our compensation, so we need to know. There are thousands of decisions being made. We will make them based on how well we know you, some may not be right – we’ll make them, come to the table, they’ll be adjustments.”
Perhaps mindful of me sitting in the room, DiCamillo stated again, “$10.4 million. The project has a referendum amount. We recognize there are items we would like to do in addition and we appreciate that- but please understand, the public voted for $10.4 and that’s where it has to stay.”
The Architect revealed that he had actually done more on the schematics than was required to do pre-bond (because the trustees wanted to save money), and now, the plans are all but locked in.
“There was a big discussion of whether to produce schematic before bond and you decided not to…. [We went forward] at our own risk. We got you what you needed to get [the bond] passed.”
The “commentaries” from the public that came out of the “meetings” (not hearings) and emails are being “saved” but it is not likely any will have an effect.
What this also means is that the public meetings (not hearings) were a sham, having nothing to do with soliciting comments about the renovation plan, the meetings were only to forge support to vote for the referendum.
You will recall that the public was never asked to comment on the KDG plans as they were being developed, that is after the former plans were scrapped and the Board sworn by resolution not to draw upon prior plans; rather, the public was presented with Option 7, then told at the hearings that the process was only 5% completed, and public comments would be incorporated into the “final” design.
Yeah, right.
What this also means though is that I was right all along: this is not a $10.4 million building. It will be a $12.4 – $13 million building.
The board knew all along that $10.4 million would not be enough, and had anticipated needing to draw upon the budget surplus and outside fundraising.
Which is fine, except the Library trustees should have been honest with the public.
And I can’t help but point out that for $13 million, we are getting a minimalist building, compared to the $20 million plan, which would have cost taxpayers literally a few dollars more (and by the way, the $10.4 million bond passed with fewer “yes” votes than the $20 million bond.)
They are not being honest now, either, telling the public that the fundraising effort is merely for wonderful accoutrements, like a garden or enhanced video.
Which brings us back to the professional fundraiser. The Fundraising Committee apparently met with a professional fundraiser, a Great Neck woman, who offered some advice free – to hire a professional.
As Anthony O’Reilly reported, one idea she proposed was to send out a survey to 50 people asking them if they would support the project. “The fundraiser would then try to collect half of the amount needed for the renovation project, an amount not yet announced, from those 50 people for the ‘heavy lifting’ to be done.”
So, now the board is earnestly going out to seek the services of a professional fundraiser, approving up to $10,000 to spend. But what will that money accomplish? Interim director Laura Weir is charged with preparing and sending out a request to solicit bids, but she could not say what exactly the fundraiser would do for $10,000.
Would the fundraiser lay out a strategy? Figure out the potential donors to target? Receive a contingency based on how much money was raised?
“The money is to pay for a professional fundraiser to help us get started. This is in several phases. She would take us through, possibly to phase 2, and then we would decide at that time to continue or whether we were now savvy enough to continue on our own.”
I tried to attend the fundraising committee meeting on December 18 and was kicked out. No transparency here (they made sure that enough board members did not attend to avoid open meetings statute).
And has anyone questioned why more than a year after our Director left, there are no candidates who have come forward?
The strategy being advanced by the Director Search committee, headed by trustee Francine Krupski is to send feelers to the assistant directors of various libraries in Nassau and Suffolk and come up with six prospects from both counties to send a recruitment letter, the draft of which has to go through the Personnel Committee.
Mind you, this is 1 1/2 years after the Board knew they would have to replace the Library Director.
Apparently, there is great hope that now that the referendum has passed, “we anticipate more interest gained by that fact.” And I guess they are hoping amnesia will also have had time to set in.
The next step is to hire a headhunter, “which we would like to avoid.”
Let’s see. We need a professional fundraiser but this board doesn’t seem the least bit perturbed by the lack of an actual professional running the library or managing the decisions regarding the renovation.
As the architect noted, decisions have to be made extremely fast and there are The architect is instructed to send information about changes to the design to three people (the committee members, remember, are volunteers with actual jobs) including the Interim Director.
That’s because they don’t want interference. That’s what this board wanted all along: complete control over the process.
They even put it into the job description that the new Library director would not have responsibility for overseeing the renovation.
Here’s another peeve: the info on the website regarding the Main Building project is always out of date. Currently, it hasn’t been updated since December, and the last “upcoming meeting” of the BAC posted is Jan. 16, 2014.
Meanwhile, by the beginning of January, the staff was supposed to come up with a count of how many books they want to have on shelves, in order to decide whether high-density shelving (more expensive) would be necessary, or whether we can do without it.
Another question raised by Business Manager Neil Zitofsky, “In order to avoid compact shelving, we want to recycle shelving upstairs. Can we use less than ADA space between in storage?”
They discussed the schedule, so here are some of the pertinent dates: a cost estimate is due by mid-Feb. 12 (when the next meeting of the Building Advisory Committee is scheduled); the building, now, is slated to be closed November 14,2014-November 12, 2015.
