MINUTES OF BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
The meeting was held in the Community Room at 4 p.m.
Attending from BHA:
Attending from JMOA:
- Stuart Schiller
- Gail Perogine
Attending from Board:
- Joyce Lannert
- Maxine Lawrence
- Walter Ludlum
Attending from staff:
- Ed Falcone
- Joyce Koyner
- Sally Dow
- Chris Surovich
Attending from public:
Mr. Harvey & Mr. Coco displayed the latest floor plans. Mr. Coco
reported that he had decreased the size of the lobby and increased
the Junior Room. The building was now at 40,125 S.F. Two options
to consider were a mezzanine on the second floor (to increase shelving
capacity) and the conversion of the unexcavated space in the front
of the building to an elevated slab (for expansion space in the basement).
Mr. Harvey discussed the mezzanine concept and the two ways to add
it: as an actual floor, or as a self-supporting shelving system.
The mezzanine would add ~4,500 S.F. to the upper level. He estimated
that the cost per square foot for a mezzanine would be around $40,
but Mr. Schiller said it would be closer to $180/S.F.
Mr. Schiller then offered estimates for all options:
- Plans as shown, no elevated slab or mezzanine: $14,567,000
- Adding the elevated slab 14,975,000
- Adding the mezzanine level 15,829,000
- Adding both options 16,330,000
The Committee was inclined to only explore the basement option at
this time.
Without the mezzanine, Mr. Falcone was concerned that there would
not be enough shelving for the adult collection. Mr. Harvey was asked
to explore ways to relocate some functions to the main floor to free
up space upstairs. Mr. Falcone would ask Agnes Case to estimate the
tax impact for the various options.
The Committee and Mr. Harvey discussed preparations for the March
29th public meeting. Harvey would supply both boards and computer
images of the new building. He would also be prepared to answer questions
on the pluses & minuses of new construction vs. renovation. Harvey
said that the only way to avoid a total gut renovation of the current
building would be to leave it untouched and to bridge over to a new
wing, which would be unworkable for several reasons.
Gail Perogine distributed suggestions for committees, and discussed
the need for a planning newsletter and frequently-asked questions.
The Committee will meet again at the next regular Board meeting,
March 10th.
Edward Falcone
MINUTES OF BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2003
The meeting was held in the Community Room at 4 p.m.
Attending from BHA:
Attending from JMOA:
- Steven Spangler
- Stuart Schiller
- Gail Perogine
Attending from Board:
- Joyce Lannert
- Maxine Lawrence
- Walter Ludlum
Attending from staff:
- Ed Falcone
- Joyce Koyner
- Judy Sagat
- Chris Surovich
Mr. Schiller distributed conceptual cost estimates for a renovation
and for a new building. Total cost (hard + soft, contingency, and
4% escalator) for a new building was nearly $19 million, and over
$17 million for renovating the present building.
Mr. Harvey noted that the current program was for approx. 48,000
sq. ft., not the 50,000+ shown on the estimates. The contingency
estimates also seemed high. Nevertheless, the Board felt that the
cost was much too high and the plans needed to be scaled back. Mr.
Falcone & staff would work with Harvey to re-examine the program.
Harvey estimated that every 1,000 sq. ft. eliminated would save $300,000.
Mr. Harvey also felt that the estimate for renovation was understating
costs of phasing, and that renovation would require a higher contingency
budget.
The NYSERTA energy grant program was discussed, and Harvey noted
that any savings would be recouped only after the building was finished – the
money is not advanced to us.
The Wicks Law was discussed, and JMOA said that there was virtually
no chance of getting an exemption and, in fact, the cost savings
are being exaggerated in the press.
Mr. Spangler distributed a flow chart explaining the SEQRA process
and answered questions. We will most likely need to hire a consultant
to handle this, we will have to do a traffic study at least. The
library cannot legally advertise for a referendum until the EIS is
completed, which can take from 3 to 6 months.
Referring back to the cost estimates, JMOA was pressed for a ‘bottom
line’ on soft costs. On new construction, reducing the 4% escalator
to 2%, and reducing the 20% contingency budget to 18% could substantially
lower the budget, perhaps up to $1 million.
Based on our current progress, even with the revisions that need
to be made on the program, Mr. Schiller said that the fall of 2003
was still a viable target for a referendum. He also said we would
have to start thinking about the increased costs of operating a new
building, since the public will want to know.
Ms. Perogine distributed an outline for staging a PR campaign for
a referendum, recommending both a 6-month process and an intensive
45-day process. She also showed literature from her scrapbook that
she had developed for other clients.
Finally, Mr. Harvey displayed his latest floor plans for the new
building for comment. The meeting ended at 6:15.
Edward Falcone
| 