Pulse of the Peninsula: Library plan needs more public input

Karen Rubin

It may surprise you to learn that Nov. 19 we will be asked to approve a bond referendum for $10.4 million (or thereabouts) to fund the renovation of the Main Library. 

It may surprise you because there hasn’t been a single presentation – not a concept, a vision, a drawing, a chart, a model, since a new architect was hired in January. And yet, at its July 23 meeting, the library board plans to adopt Option 7 (what happened to Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6?).

But to hold a referendum in November, that means the library board will have to make its final decisions by Oct. 1 in order to approve the language for the referendum to the Great Neck School Board, which technically holds the election and raises the money on behalf of the library. If you are in the middle of construction and the amount of money allowed runs out, well too bad.

The November date was decided at the library board’s June meeting. Asked for a summary to describe Option 7 (how many square feet?), board President Marietta DiCamillo instructed me to check the Web site. As of Friday, July 12, there was nothing on the website (plans were finally posted Monday, July 15). 

In fact, the last minutes of the Building Advisory Committee posted were from April, the last published agenda for the Building Advisory Committee was for May.

This will be the library building that Great Neck community will have for the next 40 years – perhaps forever because of the built-in limitations.

Between now and Oct. 1, DiCamillo told me, there will be at least four meetings to which the public is invited to hear presentations.

But I question how any comments from the public at that point could be incorporated into the plan, or whether the presentations are merely designed to drum up support for the referendum to pass.

Unlike previous four library project processes which started with a “needs” assessment and then asked the architect to come up with a choice of proposals at various price-points, this process started with setting the parameters: zero increase in square footage in the building and a $10 million price tag. Everything was designed around fitting into that box. 

For example, the community room, which will essentially be switched with the children’s room, will increase in size by 300 square feet to 2,025, but what does this mean in terms of capacity, especially since the new configurations will all have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act? 

How does the capacity of the meeting spaces match demand? (In answer to my question, DiCamillo promised to come up with capacity figures for the meeting rooms).

And after four previous failed attempts, it was decided that this Building Advisory Committee already knew as much as it needed to know about the community’s and staff’s “needs” and “wants.” 

No need to ask for further input or engagement, or have the architect (Dattner was deposed and replaced with Kayer, Garment & Davidson Architects from Mt. Kisco NY) come and describe his thinking. Indeed, as we have seen over the past 15 years, there are always competing and contradicting ideas and little consensus from among the public. Instead, decisions about space and use allocation were accomplished with private meetings between members of the committee in the architect’s office.

But unlike the previous four rebuilding projects that were undermined and defeated – largely on the preposterous premise that there wasn’t adequate “transparency” and “public engagement” (remember the Visioning Evening organized by the Town of North Hempstead?) – this plan will likely pass. 

There are several reasons: the first is that the community is not at all engaged (ironic, isn’t it?),  and are being presented with the virtually done-deal at the 11th hour; second, the community is frustrated and after nearly 20 years and four failed projects (each costing the library tens of thousands of dollars), is tired of spending money on piecemeal fixes to crumbling and failing infrastructure, and wants to see something done before the building falls down or is shut down. 

No one can argue against the amount of money that is being sought, since it is minimal and it is obvious to all that something has to be done. 

Most significantly of all, the key opponents who successfully doomed every prior plan are now the planners (which is what they wanted all along), so there won’t be the organized, surreptitious disinformation campaign to torpedo it, like the woman who voted against the $20.8 million referendum, saying the cost of the new library would be $40 million.

It is ironic because this process has been devoid of public input and participation. Though the Building Advisory Committee meetings are theoretically open to the public, maybe two or three people have ever attended. By this time in the previous processes, you had coffee klotches, building tours, public surveys, focus groups, advisory committees, multiple presentations and “dog-and-pony” shows by the architect, options A, B, C, and D, concept drawings and even a model.

That ended after the defeat in 2011 of the last referendum, for a $20.8 million rebuilding and expansion plan that was supposed to create a 21st century building. 

The present leadership took that defeat to be a mandate for a minimalist renovation of the existing building and the first two actions were to adopt “pledges” that the new building would not  be any larger than now, and that all the Dattner plans would be ditched.

Remember that the difference in cost between the $20.8 million bond that would have expanded the building by 8,646 square feet and the most basic, $13.5 million,  renovation plan, amounted to a $30 difference in annual tax.

The proposed tax rate was not available as I prepared this (it’s vacation time for staff as well as residents), but based on the 2011 referendum rates, the cost to the average homeowner for the $20.8 million bond was $80; so the $13.5 million amount would have been $50.

Also, out of the $20 million amount, $6 million represented “soft costs;” the $10.4 million which is estimated for construction does not include the “soft costs” which are likely then to be in the range of $2 or $3 million, putting it right into that $13.5 million rate.

Here is how Option 7 cost estimates are breaking down: $4,249,608 for infrastructure; $180,075 for site development; $4.110,619 for renovation; $463,470 for new construction (which is minimal, consisting of a new front entry at $266,050, new bay windows and a new stair), plus contingencies. The construction cost works out to $192/square foot for the building which will wind up 38,505 square feet (from 37,344 square feet).

Now I am also wondering what $10.4 million will buy. Interest rates are now back on the rise; the economy is rebounding which means that labor and materials costs are rising. And we are still months away from any actual bidding, let alone a shovel in the ground (which DiCamillo, ever the optimist, said could happen as soon as spring or early summer).

Previous projects started with the “needs” list and did not give the architect budget parameters but asked for alternative proposals.

Instead, this process started with a number, $10 million, and found an architect that could squeeze the “needs” into the existing footprint for that amount of money. Basically the public will be asked to approve the funding, and if the budget goes over, well, we will have to toss out parts of the plan or have an unfinished building.

Another key issue for previous projects was to inject flexibility into the building, which was limited in terms of reallocating space because of the way the mezzanine sits on the book stacks below. This plan reduces the size of the mezzanine – in order to open up the view to the pond – but still rests on book stacks. This plan dooms forever any possibility of building a true second floor, the lasting legacy of former Saddle Rock Mayor Samansky.

However, as DiCamillo explained to me, flexibility is being designed into other portions of the building – such as book stacks on rollers and the ability to switch around dividing walls.

Another key controversy that helped doom all the prior building projects was the idea of a plan that was so limited in scope, that renovations could be “phased in” so the building could remain open throughout. This would seem impossible when it is the very infrastructure – the heating/air-conditioning and electrical systems – that are most in need of replacement. And, as was pointed out over and over again, construction would be faster and cheaper as well as safer, if the building were closed.

No final decision has been made, but the Building Advisory Committee is now looking to close the building for six months to a year.

“At this point, it was determined that $1-2 million will be saved if we close the building for a much shorter period of time [the prior plan anticipated closing the building for 1-2 years], no greater than one year and likely under a year,” DiCamillo told me. “We have a committee formed to research a relocation plan; we are looking at a transient office not far from the site, so people can bring back books, take out express books, and a secondary trailer to put computer equipment into lower level outside the building, that would save money on the hookup for the computers. We are looking at alternatives and try not to make [the relocation] as onerous as it was before.”

What’s In Option 7

The Option 7 plan clearly makes improvements over the existing building in space allocations, and gives more allocation of space to places allowing for face-to-face interactions and less to collections – in keeping with the trends toward e-books and online references and a growing social need to have gathering places.

The biggest improvements and changes – and the most radical innovations in the plan – involve switching locations between the Children’s section and the Community Room, and moving administrative offices to the mezzanine which will be reduced in size to open up the view to the pond from the entrance.

The children’s section will be expanded from 2.530 square feet to 4.020 square feet including 3.655 (up from 1305) for the children’s collection because this now includes the seating area for children’s programs. The children’s area will be moved to the lower level and take over  what is now the Community Room, the present gallery space and the storage area, fully one third of the lower level.

Also, there is a new Young Adult section on the main floor totaling 1.090 sq. feet including seating and desk (up from 415 for the teen collection).

Adult services space is decreased from 4.535 now to 4130 square feet, with most of the savings coming from reductions allocated to reference seating (now shared with Adult Circulation), but there will be a new 765 sq ft computer training room.

Meeting space is increased by nearly 25 percent, from 3.885 to 4.860, including an increase of about 250 sq. ft. in the size of the Community Room from 1.765 to 2.025, tripling in space for multi-purpose rooms from 450 to 1.510 but a reduction in size for group study from 465 to 280 square feet. Also the space allocated for the snack bar is reduced from 380 to 135 (take that, Starbucks! We should invite a snack truck like that have in Austin, Texas).

Levels, which will remain largely where it is now, will see a slight increase in space, from 3.260 to 3.395 square feet.

There will also be two new meeting rooms adjacent to Levels (where staff rooms currently are located) of 420 and 800 sq. ft. and where the meeting room is now will be converted to high-density storage.

Significantly, the space allocated to the audio/visual section, now one of the most popular and most cramped, is being reduced in size from 1.505 square feet to 1.350. DiCamillo said that this is possible because there will no longer be VHS tapes, which are obsolete.

Other reductions will be made for Technical Services from 4.105 sq. ft. to 3.300, mainly by combining the technical services work room (1350 sq. ft.) with the book room (which is expanded from 2.285 to 2.770).

Maintenance and support facilities space is reduced from 4.529 to 3.365.

Administrative space, now concentrated on the mezzanine is slightly increased, from 1415 to 1595 which includes a new 120 sq ft. copy room and a new 120 sq ft office for assistant director (other offices are reduced in size, and a slightly expanded staff room (from 410 to 480 sq. ft.), pantry (65 to 100) but eliminating the staff meeting room (160 sq ft). 

The mezzanine will also contain a 1,130 sq. ft. meeting room, plus mechanicals room.

There is hardly any renovation at all to the back stacks and the stacks and reading area of the main floor – only about one-fourth of the floor is being substantially improved.

I questioned whether there is enough time to complete the planning, the budget, hire the bond counsel and hold enough public presentations to engage the community before Oct. 1.

“We have August and September,” DiCamillo told me. “It will be two years in January that we started this. Every month we have to spend money on repairs because the system is old. We have an obligation to get the job done in the next several months.”

She insisted that public input will be incorporated into the ultimate project. 

“The design phase is post referendum. We don’t want to have to spend money on the design phase, when we’ve done that so many times before. Let’s see if the public is willing to approve and authorize,” she said.

“The reason we are doing it in this fashion – we are doing best job we possibly can to get the public engaged in the project, and will consider everything,” she added..

But once you have locked in the bonding amount, there is not much else you can do. All thoughts of creating a sustainable building – green roof and other innovations, for example – have to be tossed aside, though DiCamillo commented to me, “At this time we have no concrete plans, not to say they won’t be added after discussions with public.”

I greatly respect the time and effort of the members of our community who have worked so hard for the past two years to develop this plan. Marietta DiCamillo, as president of the library board and chair of the Building Advisory committee has been a superb leader who has been able to accomplish what her predecessors – each and every one well-meaning – were unable to do. 

But I just find it ironic – if not hypocritical – in how the process has unfolded, and I am skeptical that if the main motivation to abandoning any ambitious, visionary project was to save taxpayers money, whether this plan is likely to do so. 

Within the parameters set, the Option 7 concept is a decent plan, a fine plan – it preserves all the functions and makes the building more efficient (it remains to be seen what it will actually look like, and what choice of materials will be made in order to stay within that budget). 

My main complaint is that Option 7 is a minimalist plan, designed to correct the problems of the 1960s building. But, based on what is available to review at this time, this, the only Library Building that the community actually owns, is not going to be a structure of substance and importance that we pass along with pride to future generations.

In that, the library is squandering an opportunity.

All of this is unfolding without the guidance and professional wisdom of a permanent, full-time professional Library Director.

As hard as the library trustees work to be our oversight and representatives, and as hard as the volunteers on the Building Advisory Committee are working, they are not professionals in library science and do not provide full time administration. The most important function of any of our boards – park board, school board – is to hire a professional director or superintendent.

This library has been without a full-time, professional director since January, and despite being notified by Jane Marino last October that she would not seek to renew her contract, nothing was done. Nothing was done even after January when a Library Director search committee was formed – 

It is telling that when a search committee finally came up with a revised job description for the director, they removed  direct oversight of the Main Building renovation, rather than seek out someone, as Jane Marino was, who had experience presiding over a major renovation and the fund-raising that entailed.

No one on the library board seems particularly disturbed that no candidates are coming forward from a commutable range (should we be concerned that Great Neck Library has a reputation built up over the past 15 years), yet no decision has been made (I am told) about offering relocation compensation or hiring a search firm (as was done the last time, after months went by before suitable candidates came forward). There doesn’t seem to be much urgency in hiring a full-time professional Director, and that is telling.

Trustees are supposed to be the people’s representatives, overseeing management. They are not professional Librarians micro-managing the day-to-day administration.

Share this Article