Month: July 2012

The Renton Reporter posted an editorial today in favor of the Piazza library location. There are four specific reasons for disregarding this editorial:

Reason number 1– The editor opens the editorial by showing he is out of step with the Council, the Mayor, and the citizens on this topic

The editor begins his editorial by saying that he personally would not have let the library location go to a vote. In this regard, he disagrees with all seven Renton council members and the Mayor of Renton, who felt that the public should be heard on this issue when we placed the issue on the ballot two months ago. The Renton Reporter editor also disagrees with the 15 % of registered Renton voters who signed a petition asking for a vote. This seems quite out of step with the desires of the community.

Reason number 2– The editor’s track record for accurate library information is not good

The editor claims voters knew, or should have known, they were voting for two new libraries when they voted to annex to KCLS. His statements include “From the beginning it’s been clear that in all formal documents Renton’s elected leaders agreed to build two new libraries.” and “.. it was clearly spelled out that the city would build two replacement libraries for KCLS if annexation should occur.” and “It was also clear (in the 2010 voters’ pamphlet and elsewhere) at the time of the vote that annexation would mean the city would have to build two new libraries for KCLS. “

But two years ago before the KCLS election, the Renton Reporter never informed voters that a vote for KCLS was a vote for closing Cedar River library. In the Renton Reporter editorial of January 27, 2010 a week prior to the KCLS annexation, Dean Radford wrote: “Renton residents will have some local control over whether the city builds a new library, perhaps in the Highlands, if and when a levy to do so is placed on the ballot. That’s a glimmer of local control, although the building would belong to KCLS.” Beyond this editorial, there were four special reports on the KCLS annexation issue; in these reports, the Renton Reporter never once mentioned that the Cedar River Library would be subject to closure with annexation to KCLS. Yet this possibility of closure is obviously an issue of paramount importance to thousands of trusting citizens. (See more on this issue by clicking here) One must conclude that either the editor did not know all the facts when he wrote his editorial of January 27, 2010, or else he was trying to mislead the public. I like Mr. Radford, so I want to believe it was a misunderstanding on his part, but voters need to keep that in mind as they review today’s library editorial.

Reason number 3– The editor cites the lack of clarity in this election, but goes on to support the people who brought us the lack of clarity

In today’s editorial Mr. Radford says, “Unfortunately, what’s really missing today is clarity, especially about the cost to renovate the library over the Cedar.” Of course we lack clarity because (A) there was a deliberate push by the Piazza library supporter to force this library choice too fast, when the plans including re-purposing were far from complete; and (B)the Renton Reporter has swallowed a rushed, secret KCLS study with blatant errors, including double-dipping on contingencies, incorrect mitigation fees, wrong assumptions, and other problems. I agree that this is “Unfortunate,” but throwing support to the people that created this lack of clarity is foolish, especially when they have been found responsible for similar misinformation before.

Reason number 4– The editor uses a circular argument to try to dismiss re-purposing costs, a dis-service to taxpayers

The editor’s words speak for themselves here. Read them carefully. He says; “Don’t be misled by assertions that it will cost the city $10 million (or more) to upgrade it for another use. That’s only true for a state-of-the-art library. The city could continue using the building right away, with no renovation. When the time is right, it could seek the dollars needed to upgrade for a specific use, just like any other city-owned building.” Okay. So Mr. Radford is saying we can continue to use the building as is (as a library?), and we won’t have to pay the millions more until we want to upgrade if for another specific use (like an environmental center). He is agreeing with the exact assertion he is trying to dismiss. It would be laughable except that taxpayers will be on the hook for this future re-purposing expense and they may not know it. They will also be on the hook for annual operating costs for another facility, and there is no budget for this.

(This article is part of a series I am writing to help ensure voters have as much information as possible before the August 7 library election. Like all my other entries, these are my personal views. I am never speaking for the Renton Council or the City of Renton as a whole in this privately-funded website. Please scroll down for other library entries. Thanks for reading)

This photo was taken last Thursday, about 100 feet from the site proposed for the Piazza library. Highland resident Jennifer came out of a downtown Renton restaurant after a one-hour lunch to find her car hooked up to a tow truck. She had to give the towing company $137 to get her car unhooked, even though she was in a marked parking spot and the lot does not appear to be correctly posted for immediate towing. Jennifer is now involved in a dispute to get her money back, and there are two Renton businesses (the lot owner and the towing company) she will never do business with in the future. If the library is moved to this location, library patrons would be encountering a worse situation daily as they jockey to find spots where they can dash in and pick up or drop off books, while customers of downtown business, apartment visitors, and parents dropping kids for daycare will face new competition for existing spots.

The parking plan for the proposed new Piazza library is not clear. Proponents of the move say that there will be sites on the street dedicated to the library, and that the parking garage will easily handle all the rest of the need. But there are numerous problems with this.

First, if we dedicate existing public parking in the downtown to a new library, we take it away from nearby businesses including restaurants, shops, and even a daycare. And by posting it specifically for library patrons, we take away the number one reason that some downtown business owners have given for wanting us to move the library downtown– that library patrons will visit other businesses on their library outings. In other words, if a patron drives up to the library, and sees a spot marked “For library patrons only– others will be ticketed”, there is virtually no chance of seeing that patron stop into a restaurant for lunch before getting back into his or her car. And once in their car, they will head to their favorite lunch spot, whether that is three blocks or two miles away.

On the other hand, if anyone expects library visitors to readily use the downtown Renton garage, they are in for a disappointment. This garage, which Diamond Parking has overseen for Renton since 2008, is a distance from the library and requires that users register their vehicles even when parking for only a few minutes. Anyone who fails to register their vehicle even for the first two hours of free parking is subject to a $30 fee, which goes to $60 if not paid within 15 days. For parents already juggling kids and books, this step will be an additional frustration on top of the two to three block walk — not to mention the stairs in the garage. And patrons and business owners won’t be happy about another detail. If a library patron decides to walk a few blocks for cupcakes or coffee after their library visit, they will have to anticipate this BEFORE they leave the parking lot. This is because the parking fee for stays longer than two hours must be paid in advance– overstays are subject to a 30 dollar fee, rising to 60 dollars if not paid in 15 days. This will certainly discourage lingering in downtown Renton after a library visit.
Diamond Parking rules posted within the City Center Parking garage. Hourly users must pay in advance, and not overstay, or face a $30-$60 fee. (The parking garage works better for monthly users and transit riders, who bypass the hourly meter and park at higher levels with window permits)

Note that this is in stark contrast to the existing Cedar River Library, which has generous free parking of unlimited duration. Patrons with only a few minutes can make a quick dash in for a convenient pick-up or drop-off. Visitors with more time available can browse the library, play at the playground, and then walk down the street for coffee, cupcakes, or lunch if they feel so inclined. No tow-truck drivers will be stiffing them $137 for a one-hour overstay, nor will Diamond Parking be billing them $60 for failing to respond to the first notice that they forgot to register their car when the parked for 15 minutes to drop a book off. In addition, downtown restaurant owners won’t have to post awkward signs asking library patrons not to park on their property, or even worse having patrons’ cars towed. (Each time a business has a car towed or confronts a library patron, they should plan on losing about 20 customers for life thanks to the tell-a-friend effect)

When we built the city center parking garage in 2003, it cost Renton taxpayers about $18,000 per parking spot. We did this to get transit users and employees cars out of the way, so that businesses had ample parking for their customers. At 18,000 dollars per parking spot, Renton is providing an additional gift worth 1.2 million dollars to KCLS if we turn over sixty-five parking spots for free in this high-density area (in either the garage or the street). This should be booked against the cost of the Piazza library, driving its cost up from 9.3 million to 10.5 million dollars, exceeding the 10.1 million dollar cost to remodel the Cedar River Library.
With Cedar River library parking north and south of the river, and generous overflow at the City’s 200 Mill Building (pictured above) and the east side of liberty park, library patrons never have any issues with parking at the present site.

In this photo I shot on Sunday, library patrons can be seen entering the library from the center of the bridge, while others stop and watch the river for salmon. Flotillas of rafts and geese can be seen cruising down the river. KCLS wants to close this library entrance and put the library entrance on the south parking lot– adding to the costs and making the north parking lot less convenient. This brand-new and unrequested change is one of several bad assumptions and errors that form the basis of a letter KCLS sent to Renton citizens, wrongly stating that Renton’s previous estimates for the library were incorrect.

Some readers have asked about the letter that KCLS recently sent to Renton residents challenging the city’s official cost estimates for the Cedar River Library remodel. In this letter, Library Director Bill Ptacek asserts that Renton officials underestimated the costs of the remodel, and he claims that a study by the Miller Hull architecture firm shows the actual costs will be 13.1 million instead of the city-estimated 10.1 million dollars. (I have attached the letter here)

There are several critical flaws in Mr. Ptacek’s letter and analysis, and readers should continue to respect and use the City of Renton’s official published cost figures for the comparison of the library options. The City’s numbers were prepared by an excellent estimating firm that has accurately predicted costs for five thousand public buildings, including King County Libraries. In addition these city estimates were prepared in a deliberate, careful, unbiased, public process with well-vetted assumptions, and provide a direct apples-to-apples comparison between the two sites. The cost of the Cedar River Library remodel is 10.1 million for a 22,000 square foot building, vs the cost of a new library at the Piazza for 9.3 million for a 15,000 square foot building.

Flaws with the KCLS estimates:

With regard to the recently released KCLS letter, the first thing to note is that KCLS’s Miller-Hull study (linked here) actually predicts only 8.1 million dollars in hard costs of the library, including labor, materials, 15% contingencies and 5 % cost escalations. The other 5.0 million dollars is a summation of additional costs that was created by KCLS and never shared with the public– I only have it because of a freedom of information request that was served on KCLS (click here to see it). I’ll discuss each of these two estimate components separately.

The 8.1 million in hard costs:

Miller-Hull estimated 8.1 million dollars in hard costs, about 1.4 million more than the City’s estimate of around 6.7 million. If one wades through the details of both studies, the difference can be largely traced to two major contributors, both of which appear to be more appropriately handled in the City of Renton (Robinson Company ) estimate. These differences are that the City’s estimate assumed that the front entry of the library would remain on the bridge in the current location. In my opinion, this is an excellent assumption, since it was the designer’s original plan for library patrons to walk out over the water to enter the library, it makes excellent use of parking lots on both the north and south sides of the library, and it keeps the library entrance well-connected to the playground. Furthermore, we have never publicly discussed moving this entrance, and voters would reasonably assume it is in the same place. The KCLS estimate, on the other hand, makes a brand-new assumption that the entrance of the library will be moved to the south end of the building to directly face the south parking lot. They recommend this because they feel patrons won’t want to walk the 75-foot distance of half of the bridge to enter the library. This recommendation is ironic, as it is contrary to the KCLS position that users of a new library at the Piazza would have no objections to walking two or three blocks and up stairs in a parking garage. Without the assumption of relocating the entrance, much of the interior reconfiguration costs of the library drop in line with the city estimate.

The other big contributor to the difference between Renton’s and KCLS’s estimates is the floor reinforcement. The City estimates assume that we double the capacity of the floors across the span of the library, from their current 60-65 pounds per square foot, to 125 pounds per square foot, as was first agreed to with KCLS (and is the current load-bearing capability under our book stacks above land.) This would be more than ample to give KCLS flexibility with book stacks, and would in fact be strong enough to accommodate most any non-industrial use (see seismic report here) But for some reason, in the recent KCLS estimate, they have included the costs of reinforcing the floors even further, up to 150 lb per square foot– 250 % higher than today’s floor strength. This exceeds code, and it exceeds their needs. Without these two big cost contributors, which are both faulty assumptions from KCLS and not desired by Renton taxpayers, the Miller-Hull and Robinson estimates are not much different.

The 5.0 million in additional KCLS estimated costs:

When Miller-Hull completed their 8.1 million dollar estimate, they specifically included construction contingencies of 15%, and escalations of 5% right in their estimates. However, KCLS added these numbers AGAIN to their estimate, clearly “double-dipping” on this expensive line-item. This adds 1.3 million to their estimate which is completely unjustified or fabricated.

Above: Miller Hull comments remind report-users that 15 % contingency and 5 % additional escalation IS already included in grand total construction cost of 8.08 million

Above: KCLS adds 15 % construction contingency into the estimate a second time, breaking it into 10% unanticipated “work orders” plus a 5 % contingency– the same 15% that Miller Hull Architects already included. (except the dollars are EVEN HIGHER because it is compounded as a contingency on a contingency on a contingency)

In addition, KCLS added hundreds of thousands in utility and traffic mitigation costs that would be required with a new building, but not a remodel with the same use.

KCLS also appears to have added the $60,000 they paid for the Miller-Hull study, and perhaps even the $8000 they spent sending the pre-election letter to Renton residents– these appear to add up the the $68,000 “feasibility study” shown in the spreadsheet. Renton citizens appear to be getting charged for KCLS pre-election study/literature in this line item from page 2 of the KCLS spreadsheet.

Most of the other line-items in KCLS estimates are generally okay, but all get scaled from the difference in the building cost of 6.7 million and 8.1 million, which was based on faulty KCLS assumptions.

In Summary, the three million dollar difference between Renton’s and KCLS’s estimates is:

1.3 M- Moving library entrance away from river and making floors stronger than 2012 code
1.3 M- KCLS double-dipping (charging the architect-recommended contingency 15 % TWICE)
0.2 M- Applying non-applicable traffic/utility mitigation fees (not for remodel)
0.13 M- Percent-based cost numbers that are scaled up, due to all of the errors above
0.07 M- KCLS charging Renton taxpayers for feasibility study and letter (not our costs)

Sadly, KCLS has been found guilty of misleading the public before. Click here for the PDC report. They have also had trouble staying within the law in managing their projects (click here for the state auditor’s report). The city of Renton has not had such difficulties with the PDC or State Auditors office. So the bottom line is, trust the numbers from the City of Renton (in the official voters pamphlet), not those sent out in the KCLS letter.