Cedar River Library

I know it is out there but no one seems to be talking about it yet. It is time to clear away the mists and get the issue on the table.

The missing conversation is the currently city owned Big Five property. Several ideas surfaced during the campaign to save the current library but none seem to have stuck and at least one, a new Chamber of Commerce facility, has moved on to the old dinner train station.

It is not too soon to begin looking at what we might do with the site. I would think that all the downtown merchants who spent so much energy trying to get a library there should be stepping up with some plans that would really help with the revitalization of the downtown core. I think we would all support something that could transform a current eyesore into a valuable community resource that makes sense in terms of attracting business users and shoppers.

I know there is a South Renton Community Garden plan out there looking for a home. This would fit extremely well with the adjacent Piazza and could become a really interesting center for many activities that cannot be matched by The Landing or Southcenter.

Renton, ahead of the curve again.

What is your idea?

Anyone out there interested in a community forum about the site? Contact us and let’s see what we can generate that will truly help revitalize downtown Renton. We do not need to wait for city government to act. It is our city and we should be leading the parade.

During the recent unpleasantness some ideas were floated to convert the Cedar River Library into a salmon education facility.

On the face of it that was pretty silly. However, the idea has some merit given the unique location of our library. If you have been into the library in the last week or so you may have noticed people leaning over the rail of the outside walkway. They were not contemplating a group suicide attempt.

They are looking at the salmon currently in the river  making their way upstream to spawn.  The Nature Channel up close and personal. If you haven’t tried it yet please do so soon.

It seems to us that some support could be found for ways to enhance this experience. We might consider a better viewing platform suspended from the existing structure. Perhaps we could have some salmon cams with a screen in the children’s section. It could include a data screen with information on the type and numbers of fish in the stream, the state of the river flow and other things that affect the journey of the fish and the reproduction of their species.

I have started asking for support from some possibly interested groups and I got my first positive reply today from a student group connected with the UW fisheries program. Anyone else who would be interested in exploring this idea please contact me. When I have some idea of who is interested I will schedule a meeting to discuss ideas and funding sources.

And before you just dismiss this as a good idea but who is going to put a lot of effort into it please note that is kind of appeal is exactly how the whole initiative petition that saved the Cedar River Library got started. From tiny acorns mighty oaks really do grow.

Having just returned from our annual cruise to Desolation Sound and the Discovery Islands I am trying to absorb the events that occurred since the vote in August. Where we go there is generally little opportunity for news, cell service or internet connection so we tend not to even try to keep up with anything but immediate needs and family when the opportunity is there.

I am reflecting on how far this movement has progressed from the initial tiny beginnings when most people didn’t like the idea of the new location but thought it was all over and there was nothing to be done. Wow. Now city council people are standing up for a renovation instead of a relocation, KCLS has finally rolled over and conceded to a renovation. This is all due to the hard work of a few people in getting the ball rolling and the  continuous efforts of a mass of volunteers supporting the effort.

It has to be noted that almost all initiative petition drives in this day and age are done with paid staff. It is a major accomplishment for a purely volunteer effort to succeed in getting a place on the ballot.

A very big thank you is in order to Stuart Avery for continuing to believe it could be done.

It should also be noted that the now enthusiastic council and mayor could have saved everyone a lot of time and money. Their refusal to hear any criticism of their plan in April of 2011 has resulted in unnecessary expenditure and a waste of time. I hope they have learned some kind of lesson about hearing what the citizens are saying.

It appears that a rational process with real citizen involvement has been established at long last. It is our chance to be involved and I want to urge everyone to get involved. Come to the meetings every third Tuesday, listen to what is going on and speak up loudly if you are concerned. We are proving that it is possible to control our own government but it takes a lot of effort and your help to make it happen.

Thank you citizens of Renton and thank you City Council and Mayor. Keep up the good work all three of you.

This is written based a a quick pass through the document.

The first thing I noted is that besides presuming the current load capacity in the center section would have to be substantially increased there are many areas where the most expensive possible method is proposed to achieve some goals.

It needs to be noted that the structural evaluation and recommendations from Swensen Say Faget while following the general outline in the previous document provided for the City of Renton have been expanded to include things that KCLS would like but could live without. There is also suddenly a substantial increase in work they claim needs done on the interior columns which was not mentioned in the earlier report which found them adequate once the restraining masonry walls were dealt with.

The consultant for the roof and envelope is a firm noted for recommending the most gold plated possible systems to clients.

There is no section provided in the estimate for Division One which are the line items for the general contractors costs of providing staff, office space and equipment, temporary security, safety and cleanup etc. Instead they add 40 percent to each line item as a markup by the General Contractor presumably intended to cover those costs and the O&P of the GC.

In private work this would be a deal killer. The total of Division One and O&P would be more in the range of 15 to 20 percent. Public work is notoriously more expensive because of the onerous reporting requirements but nowhere near double.

In spite of all the featherbedding the total price of the building alone comes to just over $8 million. There is a disclaimer that “soft” costs, i.e. architects fees, permitting and feasibility studies, are not included. To get to the claimed $13.1 million requires the addition of $5 million dollars in “soft” costs. This is about 62 percent of the building costs and is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

I think that with intelligent value engineering the price tag for the building could come down at least 25 percent maybe more. Allowing for a reasonable soft cost add of 30 percent gets us in around $8 million total.

If you are unhappy with the way KCLS funds were used in an attempt to influence the vote you may want to attend a KCLS Board meeting and voice your opinion.

Interestingly while looking up the details of the next meeting I saw that there is a Special Meeting called for July 19. The agenda is an Executive Session with no other information. It is open to the public. That would be this coming Thursday. It is at the KCLS Service Center in Issaquah and the start is currently scheduled for 6 pm. I am looking for a ride if you are going.

The next regular meeting is on July 31. No agenda is posted at this time.

See KCLS Board minutes and agendas for information on times and places. Do be alert for sudden changes if you plan to attend.

You probably noted that there was a contact number included in the last sentence. This was for the KCLS Facilities Director, Greg Smith at 425-369-3237.

Mr. Smith is the one to talk to if you want further information on the Miller-Hull study.

I spoke to Mr. Smith yesterday. I got directions to find the study on the KCLS website when I asked for a copy. My most important question was about what motivated the request for this study. I was told that in case the vote was in favor of that building they needed to know what they were going to have to do. I asked if this meant they had stopped design work on the proposed new building and was told no, they had not.

I pretty much left it at that. It is somewhat of a mystery why KCLS spent the money on an exercise that is irrelevant. We already had an estimate we paid for from Mithun a year ago. It really doesn’t matter if we prefer the old building it is going to be what it will be. I am pretty certain it will be nowhere near $13 million.

View the study at Miller Hull study

In any case KCLS seems to be somewhat confused about which what they are supposed to be doing. Or they are not but want us to be confused.

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 The Seattle Times published an article on the problems the City of Burien has experienced in it’s attempts to revitalize it’s downtown.

I hope all our city council members read this article. I hope they may have given it some serious thought.

It is a cautionary tale of the perils of trying to impose wishful thinking. It involves a couple of things we are wrestling with in Renton. One is the use of private / public partnerships to develop the cities economic desires. Oddly enough it includes the construction of a major KCLS library in partnership with the City of Burien. KCLS seems to have a habit of leading partners down the garden path.

If you think this is a stretch you need to be looking at the proposal for the Highlands Branch Library. It is part of a proposed partnership between the City of Renton, a Portland based developer and KCLS. KCLS started design work with Renton dollars before there was even a design or permit for the building the new branch is supposed to be a part of.

The last time the city was promoting a private project we ended up with The Landing. Now we are trying to figure out how to revitalize downtown Renton? The city seems to think that a shiny new library is going to pull large crowds away from Target, Ross, a bunch of popular restaurants and a 13 movie cinema complex. Is this a sign of thinking things through? Of the wise use of taxpayer taxes? Of sanity?

And some ideas of what we can do about the situation…

I have been giving a lot of thought to the imminent vote and the KCLS letter. I am possibly being paranoid but several things occur to me.

It is obvious KCLS has no qualms about spending our money. It appears they are still going all out on the design work for their preferred site despite the fact that there is a vote scheduled to possibly alter the plan.

I fear that even if the citizens express a clear choice for the Cedar River site the city council will ignore it and carry on with the Third and Logan site. They will probably use the claims expressed in the letter regarding the costs and difficulties of changing now as the excuse.

From the very beginning of this issue the city has pushed the Third and Logan site. In spite of clear public opinion and in the face of common sense about their goals  they have persisted in this endeavor. KCLS keeps claiming they are only doing what they were asked to do. They city keeps claiming it is all in KCLS hands now so out of their control. Except of course to pay all the bills. Whatever those might come to.

It may be too late to stop this particular train wreck. So what can we do that might help in the future. Given the propensity of the City to run down it’s Citizens I am confidant more occasions will arise.

One major issue here has always been the KCLS board which is appointed by the county executive but not controlled by the county. A petition for a ballot initiative to make this board an elected position should be started. It is ridiculous that an entity authorized to collect  and spend property taxes should be so distanced from any kind of voter control.

As recent events have shown it could be done. I think there are a number of people in White Center and Algona – Pacific who would be joining in the effort.

At the very beginning of the campaign to preserve the Cedar River Library I did not support the idea of trying to rescind the KCLS takeover of the Renton libraries. It is now obvious this is wrong. I think the time has come to consider a proposal to divorce ourselves from KCLS and take back our libraries.

The city that claimed to have no money to upgrade and manage the libraries managed to issue $18,000,000 in bonds to have someone else build new ones. We are now paying more in property taxes to KCLS than we were to the city for managing our libraries.. It never made sense to take the KCLS route then and even less sense now to continue.

We should cut out the middle man. We can’t afford him. We don’t need him. Think about it.

This post will be a mix of fact and opinions about those facts.

If you are not aware of the letter issued by KCLS, signed by Bill Ptacek and mailed to residents of Renton then see the Renton Patch KCLS letter update to read story,the letter and the commentary.

While you examine the letter and the read the comments please recall that KCLS is a non-profit entity mostly supported by property taxes. That would be your money. Election laws place strict limits on what actions non-profits may engage in regarding election campaigning. This is especially true in the case of publicly funded entities.

First paragraph, next to last sentence: “would cost 38 percent more than the original budget”: There never was any budget. The interlocal agreement with KCLS does not mention any dollar amounts or limitations on what KCLS is allowed to spend. There was an $18,000,000 bond issue passed in the same proposal for construction of two new libraries. At the time city staff was not sure if the amount would be adequate but decided to recommend the amount as a starting point to be added to later if needed.

First paragraph, last sentence: “The City of Renton would be responsible for the additional costs and for managing the additional complexities.” We are already on the hook for all the costs whatever they may be. KCLS is supposed to be responsible for all the management whatever that may entail and for spending the cities money with no constraints.

Second paragraph in the Background section, “The City of Renton has already invested nearly $1 million dollars on property acquisition and design….”. Of this alleged amount $525,000 was the price of the property at Third and Logan proposed as the site of a new building. Since there is no actual number we don’t know what has been spent on design. If the property is such a demand site it would seem reasonable that the city could sell it at a profit now or in the near future when all the plans to revitalize downtown bear the expected fruits. (Can’t resist: How long have you been hearing about projects that will revitalize downtown? How much has been spent? How is that going?) The design fees may be lost but they should have stopped the moment this was issue was approved for the ballot. If they did not then those costs should be considered part of the money KCLS has spent on the letter they issued.

Please note that they used the word “build” in referring to the Cedar River site. It is already built. It could use some renovation but to imply that it needs to be built is out of line.

The claim that is is “more expensive and more complicated to build the library at the site over the Cedar River: They tell us they informed the City Council of these possible issues. Would KCLS mind informintg the rest of us?

Near the end of this paragraph KCLS tells us they hired Miller-Hull to conduct an in-depth investigation of the potential construction scheduling and cost considerations. Why? What possible bearing does this have on Miller-Hulls work on the proposed new building? Why would we trust a study done by the firm that stands to lose a large contract for the new building?

More to the point of the possible costs for renovation. During the original site selection process Mithun Architects was instructed to prepare a budget for the renovation. It was then estimated to be $10.2 million. The question is why KCLS felt compelled to request a new estimate in the first place. Next question is how it increased by almost $3 million dollars. This is close to 30 percent more. Is KCLS implying that Mithun is incompetent and their estimate is that wrong?

Further along in this section we find more mention of “the existing project budget.” If you tell the same lies often enough the theory is that people will believe it.

The next paragraph claims that this would all be more complex and costly than the “interpretive center” plan. How do they know that? As far as I am aware no one has even proposed a budget let alone authorized an estimate on some plan. I do know that the original instruction to the committee formed to look at the options was not to worry about a budget or possible funding.

In the Summary it is admitted that site selection is the responsibility of the city. That means us, the citizens of Renton. KCLS cannot tell us where we want the library. They are obligated to provide it where we decide we want it.

And one more time with the “in excess of the Cities budgeted amount”. There is no such animal.

It appears on the surface that KCLS is using your tax dollars to fund the preparation and mailing of a blatant attempt to influence an election. In addition they have spent your money on a redundant study of the impact of a change of focus to the Cedar River renovation in order to support this attempt. The study has no other purpose than influencing the election. This is all so wrong on so many levels.

I would urge the citizens of Renton to carefully examine all these issues. It is my opinion that Bill Ptacek is trying to bully everyone into doing it his way and using our money to push us around.

This commentary is based on the Renton Patch report of April 17.

It was revised on May 16 after review of the video of the April 16 council meeting.

Interesting story. The part that most caught my eye: The waffling on the cost of renovating the existing building.

However that story is somewhat misleading. There is no substitute for doing your own review and thinking. I apologize for the errors on my part.

Mr. Renner did finally present the assumptions used in pricing the potential costs of rehabilitation of the Cedar River building. While it did clarify the issue, there are still some questions about actual inclusions of what was necessary and what was added on by the city that was peripheral.

Two large issues are what the real cost of the proposed new building will be and why the change to a new purpose would not cost just as much. Most of the systems, seismic upgrades, and other services should still be done to make the building safe for any use whether as a library or a fish observatory. It was noted during the meeting that just the mechanical, electrical and seismic refits would trigger all the costs implied. I am still going to take issue with the total amount as being overstated.

Another major questions is sheer size of the facility. We still get a lot more library for not much more money. Do not forget that part. The estimators comment that maybe we don’t need that much space is uncalled for and not in his purview. That is our decision to make, not the cities, not KCLSs and not someone hired to do a schematic estimate. I continue to be very irritated by the constant attempts on the part of the consultants to support the city and KCLS points of view. Try to remember the people who are actually footing the bill. We have a right to your unbiased opinions.

You might want to review Comments on the proposed design for information on how the existing and proposed buildings compare for space.

Please note that the comment by Renner that his estimate did not include fixtures and landscaping applies equally to both buildings.

Do not let the city spin the data again. They want confusion. They want what they want and they don’t care what library users want. If the want an economic miracle they should be lighting votive candles and not burning your money.