Doug Karlburg has been inserting this issue over at the Herald blogs from time to time, trying to get the Herald folks to bite on it, and he hasn't had a lot of success yet. Occasionally, one or two of the Herald Blog readers will respond to Doug's comments, and then the topic faithfully dies off until he brings it up again.

When I ran for City Council last year, I really expected this issue to come up, and to my surprise, not once did it come up; not in questionnaires, forums or on anyone's doorstep.

But, it is going to hit us very soon, and we would be wise to be vigilant in watching this take shape.

I'm not an expert on the new library, and not a frequent user of the existing library, yet it is my understanding that our library sees a much higher than average volume of traffic when compared to other public libraries. I understand the value of having a good library system, understand some of the shortcomings of the current downtown facility, and am interested in seeing this project be handled appropriately and brought to an efficient and successful conclusion.

The issues, as I understand them include:

LOCATION:
If we are going to replace the current downtown library with a new one, the issue of where to locate such a library must be dealt with, and there is no shortage of opinions on this one. Some, such as John Servais at NWCitizen are calling for one or more libraries at remote locations, which would seem to favor the "urban village" motif the city planners embrace. Other proposals include using the old REStore/Sash and Door site in Old Town. At one time, the Lettered Streets Neighborhood Association formally endorsed such a proposal and urged the Library Board to strongly consider this location for the new library. Some favor an extensive remodel of the existing structure, others have proposed building on the lawn next to the existing structure, and still others favor razing the current structure and replacing it with something new from the ground up.

An interesting note on that last proposal is that it was initially rejected as an acceptable alternative, after a $60,000 study by a consultant detailed a multiplicity of reasons the existing site was inappropriate, but has now become enthusiastically embraced by the very people who originally rejected it. Something must have changed! A parking garage underneath perhaps?


INTERIM SITE:
If the current site is used for the new facility, as appears will be the case, what happens to the library in the interim? What was once dismissed by the library board as a trivial "short-term" issue, is now staring us in the face as a real problem. Transitional housing is never easy or trivial, and this especially true for an entity like a public library. To come at this in a haphazard fashion is sure to reap substantial headaches.


PARKING:
As is the case with just about anything in the downtown area, parking must be considered. This is likely why the combination library/parking garage generated so much interest, but in my mind, they need to be treated as distinct projects rather than sold to voters as a single package.

If the parking garage/library plan moves forward, several questions need to be addressed. Who benefits? Is the garage for city and county staffers? Local attorneys? Downtown shoppers? Museum patrons? Or is the garage for library patrons? If the parking is for library patrons, how many parking stalls are needed? If it is for more than just the library patrons, then how many are needed? Will the garage be one level or two? How is this to be paid for,and by whom? Should the Bellingham Parking Commission be involved?

The parking issue is seen by some as a valid argument in favor of branch libraries.

VIEW:
Believe it or not, the view from, and toward, City Hall has been raised as an issue. This one strikes me as absurd.

WHY:
Some are still asking why the library needs to be built at all. The main arguments I hear in this regard are:

1) Size. It's just too small. If the numbers on usage are accurate, then this is likely a valid argument.
2) Age. I don't know when it was built, but judging by the architecture, I'm guessing the 1950s. I do know that the last remodel/addition was done in 1983. The point is, the building is old. It may be that an extensive gutting, remodel and addition would help with this, but it may be cheaper to just move to a new site and build from scratch. I just don't know.
3) Layout. Related to age, this argument holds that the structure was designed at a time when libraries were used much differently than they are today. I believe this argument can be made with some validity.

OTHER POSSIBILITIES?
I have not landed on any of this, but am leaning toward the satellite library approach; one which makes maximum use of modern technology. There does not even need to be a "super branch" or "main branch" to this library. All the materials could be housed in a warehouse, and delivered to the satellite branches as they are called for. In this scenario, the current facility could be gutted and turned into additional office space for the city, or could even be leased out to interested parties. I can imagine any number of excellent uses for the current facility.

Any resolution on this matter will require a vote of the public for bond approval, and that will require a vote of the City Council. I would not be surprised to see something on the ballot this coming November.

---

I may not be a big fan of the Communist group free bookstore, especially since tha advent of the internet where most periodicals and journals are available for free or low cost.

However, I think that if the Library system is to remain a viable source of literature and research, perhaps renovating or building a new Downtown Library may not be the most cost effective solution.
A new branch built in the developing section of Bellingham to the North may actually make the most sense. This may be more logical for the Main Branch, and the old downtown library become a secondary branch.
The county system seems to be a cost effective system and should be examined to see if these systems could efficiently be designed.

On a slightly tied-in topic, the new library and museum that are proposed should not be using Public Facility District monies, as the intent and main priority for these PFD's are to be used for Sports complexes and facilities, as mandated by State Legislature. Amateur and Youth Athletics was the intent and top priority of this money, yet Bellingham's elite Downtown society thinks that the intent does not apply to them as they want to build themselves a monument rather than use the money for the intended youth of our State, County and Cities. The PFD should be centered around the Sports complex at Joe Martin, Civic Field and the Ice Rink and Skateboard Park, with Branches at Northwest and even out in Blaine and Lynden. That is the Public Facility that this money was orinally intended for when the State Laegislature created these districts in order to assist more homegrown athletes for our Collegiate and professional sports franchises.

But I guess that is what happens when our local Public Facilities District is run by folks that would be benchwarmers at best, and were probably the last ones picked for pick-up games at recess...

---

You better laugh at yourself,
Everyone else is.

www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com

This subject should dominate the discussion tomorrow night at the City Council meeting. If I can work it out to be there, I will be. The price tag that was dropped late last week was a jaw-dropper. The estimate (which is always low) has come in at $56,400,000. I wanted to write that out to get the full effect of the zeros. At $56.4 million, we are roughly $20 to 25 million above earlier estimates, so the price has doubled to slightly more than doubled. Renovations to the Fairhaven library will take $2.3 million with the new underground parking claiming $4.8 million of it.

The price tag is shocking enough, and is going to push the City's debt load well over $100 million. But even more disconcerting than the price is the fact that when we are all done with this, we will have no additional library facilities/branches. We have the Fairhaven branch, and we have the downtown branch. They will be newer and nicer to be sure, but we still have the same two locations.

One proposal put forward by Jack Weiss is to keep about two thirds of the existing facility to be used for meeting rooms. I don't know much beyond that, but on its face, that sounds reasonable, and could represent some cost savings.

The more I read and hear about this project, the more it smells like something I don't want.

---

Included in the materials handed out at the meeting last evening, was this graph. I think it illustrates pretty dramatically the problems with heavy usage of the library, so I thought I'd share it here.

---

I should be asleep right now. Four AM comes quite early... well, actually, it comes at 4AM, but you know what I mean. I'm laying there trying to get to sleep and I'm pondering this library issue, and it occurs to me I need to give props to Stan Snapp as well. What a GREAT question he asked at the working session a couple of weeks ago. Here, let me quote from earlier in this thread:



Snapp was even more on target with that question than was apparent at the original meeting. A little additional staffing? Whoa! Back the wagon up Charlie. Let's try 3/4 of a million per year. Your instincts were dead on with that one Stan.

Folks, we need to give props where props are due, and the City Council and Mayor are getting this one right this week.

Another round of applause.

---