Pulse of the Peninsula: Library plan promising but flawed

Karen Rubin

I have thought long and hard and agonized over whether I will vote in favor of the library referendum or not. I can’t say that I’m enthusiastic about the plan that is proposed.

Like just about everybody who cares about the library, I am sick and tired over a process that has so far taken more than 15 years, four defeated projects, tens of thousands of dollars wasted.

I’m told that this is the last, best chance to pass a referendum that will save the building, which is more than 40 years old and falling apart – repairs alone have cost something like $1 million in the past decade during which three other plans for renovation were defeated.

Regardless of what reservations I harbor, this plan will likely pass because there isn’t the organized opposition that was marshaled for every proposal since 1995. 

In fact, the key opponents to prior plans were brought onto the Building Advisory Committee, which worked virtually in secret for two years (the meetings were open but maybe one or two “spectators” showed up), making all the decisions including bringing in a new architect before presenting Option 7. The first time the “public” got to see Option 7 or meet the architect was during a series of summertime presentations. In all, about 300 members of the community have attended during the course of about eight public presentations. (At Parkville, the woman said she didn’t care about Main, but when was Parkville going to be renovated; and at Station, a man wanted to know, “But what can we get for $8 million, where’s the plan for $8 million?”)

The plan will also be accepted because it doesn’t change the size or shape of the existing building. It doesn’t create a real second floor. It doesn’t build over the patio.

And  it is cheap – the cheapest renovation it could possibly be and still save the building from completely falling apart. In fact, we’ve already spent about $1 million on repairs over the last decade, and will spend $1 million more in the next few years if the referendum doesn’t pass.

But the dollar figure, $10.4 million, did not come from the plan – that is, from a design that incorporated the needs of a building to serve the community for 40 or more years. Just the opposite. The architect, KG&D (the fifth so far who has worked on Main but this brings us full circle since KG&D is a scion of the original architect from the 1960s) was instructed to build within the footprint (not an inch more) and not a penny more than $10.4 million.

Not $10.6 million. Not $10.5 million.

Where did the figure come from? 

Great Neck Library President Marietta DiCamillo, during the library’s only presentation to the Great Neck Village Officials Association, said the figure represented “consensus” of the Building Advisory Committee (the aforementioned group which was made up largely by the same people who defeated the previous plans).

But actually it came from a former trustee, our own Ted Cruz, who came to the board vowing a plan so small it could be accomplished in phases, without closing the library, who was voted off the board. Even though he is no longer on the board, he threatened to do what he did the last go around, 2 ½ years ago: guarantee the defeat of the referendum if the bond went over $10.4 million 

Then the BAC realized that a phased-in construction process would  wind up adding $2 million to the cost as well as more time to construction. So that ultimatum was sensibly abandoned.

So you have the A and the B of the equation (the footprint not increasing by an inch and the dollar amount), and that basically leads to a design.

And wonder of wonders! the cost estimator says that this plan will cost $10.4 million! Right on the button!

Now most people in the community will cheer the bargain-basement price tag, and will be satisfied with the resulting design, which calls for 38,505 sq. ft., which they claim is actually an increase of 1,100 square feet from the existing space 37,344 sq. ft. (I don’t know where that figure comes from since the figure that was always used for Main was 45,000 sq. ft. The BAC actually first told the architect to reduce the square footage by almost 1,000 sq. ft., but over the course of seven prior “options”, somehow the project grew a few.)

The chief changes in the design are the move the Community Room from the lower level to where the Children’s Room is now on the main level (with its own access from the outside; they assure me that they will be able to raise the ceiling), and turn half of the lower level (the community room, gallery/lobby and the administrative offices) into a new Children’s section with its own access from the lower level parking lot. 

There will also be a 1,200-square foot meeting room there that is subdivided into two (800 and 400, but the back room is only accessible from the first room, as well as from its own doors to the outside). In another major change, the mezzanine is being cut back to open up the view from a new entrance way (the only new construction), and the mezzanine will be turned into the administrative offices and a new reading area that overlooks the main level. And the audio/visual room will be smaller, but will be on the main level near the Community Room. 

Levels will stay where it is now and will also have access to the new meeting room next door.

There will be a lot more windows and seating areas all around the periphery; the back terrace will be retained. There will be two small study rooms and a small meeting room off the community room. The flow of the lower level, where there is now this ridiculous warren of corridors, is definitely improved.

In all, the design corrects the most egregious problems of the existing building and the modern systems should improve efficiency and reduce operating cost. So what’s not to like?

I remain skeptical that this plan can be accomplished for $10.4 million – which means it will have to be scaled back and back because the library can’t spend more.

And I remain skeptical that the building, which may be “big enough” for the library community five years ago, will offer enough space to meet future needs of the library. 

And here’s why I’m skeptical:

It is important to realize, as the architect explained, only 5 percent of the design work has been done. 

Once the referendum passes, then the actual work begins of developing more detailed schematics (and presumably, taking into account comments from the library community though I don’t know where they could make any significant changes in configuration) which could take six months, getting whatever town approvals are needed (not likely to be a problem since a larger plan was already approved), then design development, then construction documents all before the project even goes out to bid.

All during these processes, they re-check their cost estimates. “There are multiple times during the course of the project that we have to make sure we are still within the $10.4 million – not $10.5 million,” Kaeyer said during the presentation this week at Temple Beth-el to about two dozen people. “That’s why it is so critical to make sure we balance infrastructure, functional and aesthetic goals with the cost.” That is because contrary to what most taxpayers fear and expect, once the bond amount is set, you can’t run over.

 Now the architect and the professional construction manager give assurances that the $10.4 million is realistic and takes into account the likely increase in materials and labor costs that will likely happen over the course of a year (DiCamillo has proposed pre-purchasing materials to lock in rates).

 I’m trying to put the $10.4 million into some perspective. At the GNVOA meeting, Mayor Ron Cooper of Lake Success, reported that his village of 1,000 people will be spending $3 million to renovate its village hall/recreation center, expanding the fitness center. 

That’s $3 million for a facility that serves 1,000 people. But it wasn’t supposed to cost that much. 

Lake Success had a professional cost estimator who put the renovation at $2.5 million. But the lowest bid was $3 million. That’s a $500,000 difference. If you extrapolate to a $10 million project, that would be $2 million difference, and since you can’t increase the amount of the bond, you would have to shave $2 million off the construction. What exactly would you shave?

The library’s construction manager, Dominic Calgi of Calgi Construction Management, simply scoffed at this example, saying that Lake Success must have had a lousy cost estimator because he has never been off.

But if the bids do come in higher? Well then, he explained, you just buy cheaper materials. No worry, he says, cheaper materials are just as good quality as the more expensive materials.

My other concern is that this Library fixes forever the space. This is the building that we will be our Library  – the only building the community actually owns – for the next 40 or 50 years.  I am told that the design allows for “flexibility” – for example, that it will be able to accommodate the technology that will likely come on the scene in five or 10 years that can’t be imagined today.

This will be “a library for the 21st century by placing less emphasis on materials storage and more emphasis on programs and services” is how it is presented in the hand-outs provided at the presentation.

But when they use the term “flexibility” they mean exchanging use of one space for another use – books for people, or children for adults, for example. Every square inch of space in this building is accounted for. There is no room for anything new.

Does the space accommodate the number of people and the use of this decade or the next? Who knows. 

We are already seeing the changing purpose of a library as less a storehouse for information and more as a gathering place for people to share and exchange ideas, knowledge, experiences, culture and heritage in an increasingly isolated society which offers few opportunities for “community.”

I have actually asked during these presentations whether there has been a space calculation based on library use, and how this compares to Station or Parkville, but apparently this was never done. Because they decided that the footprint would be kept no matter what. That’s the “mandate” they claim from the defeated referendum.

And that’s the way this community apparently wants it. We want a minimal project. An institutional project. There will not be any “room” – literal as well as budgetary – for anything that celebrates the knowledge, the culture, the heritage that the Library serves as the custodian for and the facilitator for.  This won’t be a sustainable or green building. It will likely not be in the running for “most beautiful” in the county.

But public buildings are supposed to reflect the community’s pride in itself. They are supposed to be worthy of admiration and speak to future generations saying, “We cared. We gave this to you.” There is a sense of responsibility and participation in something that is greater.

That’s what this library will say. It will say: “This is who we are. We kept a library from falling apart and it only cost us $1 a week, less than the New York Times! What a bargain. How clever are we!”

For the home assessed at $1 million, library tax for 2012-13 was $517 and the bond would add $48 (at 4% interest) or $52 (at 5%).

For the sake of perspective, this compares to $80 for a home assessed at $1 million for the $20.8 million bond that was defeated in 2011, which would have added 8,645 square feet of new space, basically building over the existing cement footprint, and not encroaching an inch into the wetlands.  (I guess that’s where the $10.4 million came from – half the cost).

It will be a year before a shovel is in the ground and the construction is expected to take 8-12 months, so we are looking at two years, minimum, before we have a new library building.

Unlike other communities which only have a single library building, this should not pose significant hardship on us because of our three branches. The library is arranging for Levels to be continued, probably at school district sites, and for programs to be continued, and popular books to be available and the three other branches to have expanded hours, and even after all of that, they are looking to rent some storefront space.

Because there has been little controversy and opposition, I’m going to bet that the referendum passes with 500 votes Out of a community of 43,000. (4,000 votes were cast in the last referendum, in 2011).

The bond referendum is Tuesday, Nov. 19, 7 am to 10 p.m. All registered voters are eligible to vote. The polling places are Great Neck South High School for those who live south of the LIRR; and Baker School for those who live north of the railroad.

Find out more at www.greatnecklibrary.org; send questions, comments or suggestions to renovation@greatnecklibrary.org, or call the Interim Library Director Laura Weir at 516-466-8055, ext. 200.

Share this Article