EDITOR: The Times article in last Friday
’s edition relative to the library quoted me but did not capture
the essence of my concerns. The first issue is the size of the
proposal which is 28,000 square-foot, not the 40,000 square-foot of
the original design. The 40,000 square-foot was based on a
population of 50,000 people which includes
people in the unincorporated areas.
EDITOR:
The Times article in last Friday’s edition relative to the library quoted me but did not capture the essence of my concerns.
The first issue is the size of the proposal which is 28,000 square-foot, not the 40,000 square-foot of the original design. The 40,000 square-foot was based on a population of 50,000 people which includes people in the unincorporated areas.
Since the General Plan and Measure C both are focused on 48,000 by 2020 it seems reasonable to have a library being built now that can accommodate that population. It is true that the original plan has space devoted to a meeting room, which may not be needed if the library is downtown, because of the community center being nearby. There is also a TV setup and classroom for family literacy and they are needed. Cutting the size will only cause us to have to deal with expansion too soon with a higher total cost and if located on the Sunsweet site in the downtown at Third and Depot streets, limited space which will further increase cost.
The main concern however is lack of integration with other needs. When the reference design was done, the council required a plan that addressed the whole Civic Center. The City Hall is less than adequate and the Council Chambers embarrassing, the public works being off-site is less efficient. Some of the council members have favored moving the Civic Center downtown and that would be a more likely way of increasing business in the downtown area than moving the library will be.
Consideration should be given to having a plan that places the library and civic center together in a downtown location. This will improve business and it can be placed in an area, such as south of Dunne Avenue that needs rejuvenation. This would also free up the entire current site which I believe will cause it to bring in more per square-foot than selling half of it will. There may also be the potential of shared facilities which can reduce cost. The whole project would not have to be done at once, but in phases.
Another alternative that is worthy of careful consideration is the co-location of the proposed indoor recreation center and library. That is probably the most synergistic setup. Remember that this was the site recommended for the library when the city did not own it and was not certain of coming to terms on buying it.
While it is meritorious of the council to have set a goal of having a library plan in place by June, meeting that goal has necessitated limiting the evaluation of all the factors. This is the time to step back and say we need to be more thorough and make sure we make the best choice.
Chuck Dillmann, Morgan Hill
