As previously posted, Mayor Woodford recently issued a press release indicating that although the current cost of the library project was estimated to be $39 million, the taxpayer funded portion of it remains set at $26.4 million.
Prior to that press release, prompted by the allocation of an additional $2 million in ARPA funding for the library project, I contacted the members of the Common Council and asked them how much beyond the original $26.4 million budgeted for the project would the cost of the library have to increase before they, as individual alderperson, would be unwilling to vote to approve further funding increases for the library project.
Below are the responses that I received.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1):
“What would be extremely important for me in answering this question is the input I would get from my constituency when the numbers of what it will end up costing the taxpayers comes out. Please keep in mind that Mayor Woodford has stated that he is holding fast to the 26.4 line. Also, keep in mind that I assume there will be an aggressive donation campaign by the Friends of the Library and I suspect there will be grants available. I recall the Performing Arts Center and how in my opinion this project was floundering (my opinion) until Thrivent – then A.A.L. – made a sizable donation. My hope is that this is what will happen with this project – that someone will come forward and make a very sizable donation. The answer to your question cannot be answered until I have answers to my questions – the important one being input from my constituents.”
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2): Did not response
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3):
“I’m sure you’ve seen the city’s press release about the increase to the estimated costs for the library project by now. Seeing the estimate jump up by that much is a bit disheartening to be honest. But this is a preliminary design estimate and this estimate also does not make any attempt to reduce costs. It assumes that we will build something that has the best of everything to put it bluntly. Hopefully grants and donations will close a sizeable chunk of this gap, but undoubtedly we will need to make cuts if it doesn’t close the whole gap.
“If it gets to making cuts, I would prioritize holding the line on things that will impact the long-term costs of operating the building, such as insulation, windows, and investments that can save us in energy costs. Where I would look first for cuts if it comes to it would be fixtures and furnishings. The things that can be easily replaced later if we initially buy cheaper alternatives do have a drawback in that they likely won’t last as long and have to be replaced sooner which can drive up costs over the life of the building. But if we do realize cost savings from things like energy efficiency, then those savings can help finance their eventual replacements, possibly with higher-quality, more durable alternatives. Trying to cuts costs on fixtures, finishings, and furniture won’t offer the biggest up-front cost reduction compared to going with cheaper insulation or lower-rated less energy efficient glass, and things like that, but it would be the most prudent use of resources when looking at the costs to the taxpayer over the entire life of the building.
“As of this time there is no plan to ask for more borrowing than the $26.4 million that was authorized by the council last March. Before increasing borrowing would be considered, we would have to exhaust other options. I’m optimistic we will close most if not all of the gap through grants, donations, and reductions. At this point, I don’t have a line in the sand on how much more borrowing would be acceptable. If we are presented with a request to authorize more borrowing, I will look at that request based on what other things have been done and what the trade-offs are for approving or not approving the request. What aspect or feature of the project would or wouldn’t be preserved by increasing or not increasing borrowing will matter as will the dollar amount for the request.”
Alderperson Joe Martin (District 4): He is not seeking reelection, so I did not ask him.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5):
“Thank you for offering me the opportunity to clarify. I disagree with you that council is expecting to go over what we have budgeted for the library.
“The funds that were being discussed were for the yet unknown 2023 budget, specifically ARPA funds which have categories for funding but are not yet fully defined. These funds can’t be used for just anything, and I think it’s smart to look for a way to use these for an expense we already know is coming.
“We do not yet have a detailed list of what specifically qualifies for ARPA broadband investment. Our hope is to use the $2 million for the library, but that may not be possible.
“We may end up needing to use those all or a portion of the ARPA dollars outside of the library project. Reducing the proposed budget for the library by $2 million is not smart if we aren’t certain that we can use that whole amount for the library. This is especially concerning to me when inflation and demand for broadband investment is on the rise.
“For example, Mayor Woodford said the idea is using the library as the hub for broadband investment. Maybe there is a way to provide better and cheaper broadband to all of the city’s buildings surrounding the library? An investment like that wouldn’t solely fund the library as some expenditures may fall under the transit center and city hall.
“We need flexibility with those dollars to make sure we are spending them in a way that the taxpayer sees the most benefit within the restrictions of the ARPA program.
“(Also, remember that all of the proposals for this funding to be distributed will still go through the Finance committee and Council for approval.)
“I characterize the vote as saying that ARPA funding should be used for expenses we know we have, library being the priority, before undertaking any other investment.
“I hope that clears things up. Feel free to reach out with any other questions.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6):
“Thank you for your interest in the budget process and the allocation of the ARPA funds. As I assume you are aware, there are restrictions on the usage of those funds. From the United States Treasury Quick Reference Guide https://www.gfoa.org/american-rescue-plan-spending-guiding-principles the allowable uses include:
“Our Finance Director and City Attorney have been working to make sure that we follow the guidelines for the use of these funds, but it seems clear that we cannot use the funds for anything in the library project other than broadband infrastructure. Because the library project is still in the design stage, we cannot know what the cost of that infrastructure will be (comments from my colleague about routers from Best Buy notwithstanding). My understanding is that we would fund the library infrastructure hub, possibly including other facilities in the area, with the ARPA funds, and if the cost is less than that amount, the remainder would go toward making up lost revenue. I don’t see the $2 million as a direct reduction in the cost of the library since we don’t know the cost of the allowable expenditures. As was noted in the discussion of the ARPA funds and the overall budget, the Finance Committee and Common Council will still have to vote on the actual contracts/expenditures.
“To your direct question, I would also point to the fact that the library project is still in the design phase. The 2022 budget has $10 million for the library, with an additional $13,542,500 included in the 2023 capital improvement plan. I also understand that there will be a strong campaign to secure private funding for part of the project as well.
“Future year capital improvement plans are estimates and are quite often changed as the city’s priorities and finances change. We have postponed planned capital projects recently because the bids came in above our budgeted amount. In a more positive example, we are hopeful that the new water line will not be needed if the Department of Natural Resources approves a mitigation proposed by the Water Utility. The CIP is never written in stone. I believe it would be irresponsible of me or any of my colleagues to be unwilling to evaluate justifiable changes in the project budget, especially given that there is substantial public involvement in the design of the library renovation.
“Thank you for your interest in the project and in local government in general. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can provide additional information.
Alderperson Maiyoua Thao (District 7): Did not respond
Alderperson Matt Reed (District 8 ) [note: Alderperson Reed asked me to correct some minor grammar and spelling errors caused by having dictated his answer on his phone. I corrected the spelling errors and inserted paragraphs without note and put brackets around the one grammatical error I corrected.]
“Thank you for your insightful question regarding library funding. When we were having discussions regarding how to divvy up the ARPA funding, the $2 million library broadband category was suggested by Mayor Woodford. If you watched any of the ensuing meetings, you would see that I was trying to see if there would be a better use for the funds in order to reduce taxpayer burden brought on by borrowing money. After much discussion, I was satisfied that although there were things on the list that I wasn’t thrilled about, overall, what was proposed was well thought out and a proper use of the funding.
“Although it’s impossible at this point to exactly pinpoint the final cost of the library due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is the current inflation problem, Mayor Woodford expressed a commitment to do everything possible to keep the spending in line with the $26.4 million that was allocated. I believe that this counsel is committed to limiting the spending as well. The idea is that the $2 million for broadband should be part of the overall $26.4 million.
“I personally believe that the people who came to the meeting and spoke on behalf of the library but were concerned about cutting spending were not necessarily seeing the whole picture. If the $2 million is part of the original $26.4, there is no reduction in spending.
“The reason I voted against cutting the $2 million out of the 2023 budget was because that would essentially be a non-binding vote. Any budget decisions, including removing funding for a library project out of the 2023 budget, [will be taken up by] next year’s council at next year’s budget time.
“Alderperson Doran‘s comment that he expected the price tag to grow will be on the $26.4 million was, from my perspective, simply a statement of expectation based on past history of other projects. We understand that there may be some forthcoming grant money for the library and there likely will be a sizable chunk of money from private donations, as well.
“I hope this clarifies my position and my personal opinion on the matter. Please feel free to reach out in the future if you have other questions.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9): Did not respond
Alderperson Michael Smith (District 10):
“I can’t respond to your question with a dollar amount. Until that happens and the reasons for the potential increase is explained only then will I be able to determine if the increase is worth the taxpayers investment. I’m also sure that when that happens the taxpayers will want to be heard.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11):
“The 26.4 million discussed is not the cost of the library project. 26.4 is the capital the city is willing to contribute to the project. Grants and donors will make up the difference in ultimate project costs.
The AARPA funds were assigned to the library to offset COVID related inflation, which allowed the city to keeps its promise of a 26.4 million cap on our portion.
“Hope that makes sense.”
She followed up with a second email in which she said:
“Sorry, I don’t think I answered the question.
“I am resolute in my position that the city’s capital obligation to the library project will not exceed 26.4”
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12): Did not respond
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) responded with a message that she posted on her website:
“The big news with the library project is that, based on initial cost estimates, the current design will cost an estimated $39M… and the city has only budgeted $26.4M. I wrote last week about
the additional $2M in ARPA funds for the project as well.
“While I understand and fully appreciate that the costs of construction are on the rise, I am quite concerned by this estimated $39M price tag. The city is not the only entity feeling the economic crunch. Your pocketbooks are seeing increases everywhere right now as well! So is this the right time to proceed with such a large investment by the city… when everyone is seeing prices rising everywhere?
“I know this statement will evoke feelings of consternation in those who are and have been fervently advocating for this library project… but unless private donations and grants are received to make up the difference, this project should either be held until a better economy allows it to proceed within the promised $26.4M budget -or- this project should be revamped/re-envisioned to remain under the promised $26.4M budget. It was my campaign promise and remains my goal and promise to you, District 13 neighbors, to make sure that the city sticks to its budgeted promise of investing only $26.4M of taxpayer dollars (city budget dollars) into this project (as is affirmed below in a memo from the city’s Facilities Manager, Dean Gazza).
“So long as that promise is kept every step of the way, I will not work to put a stop to this library upgrade project; that has never been my goal. However, my goal has always been that I will work to make sure that no more than that budgeted amount of your hard-earned dollars that you provide this city in the form of property taxes goes towards this project. We can build and upgrade our library to something quite remarkable within our budget parameters. And if more is wanted by proponents of this project, I am open to the city allowing that… but only if the city budget’s portion does not exceed $26.4M.
“The fact that the common council did not amend the 2023 budgeted amount for this project to reflect the $2M ARPA funds allocated to the project does not sit well with me. The lack of concern about making a promised $26.4M into $28.4M in the blink of an eye is disturbing to me. If that was so easy for the majority of this common council to do and for the mayor to not speak out against, then what’s to stop the freight train of pressure from strong library proponents from convincing that same majority to allow for further budget increases for this project?
“These are my concerns as far as the library project. I know some of you hold these same concerns as well. I hope that they are taken seriously by all involved and I encourage you, neighbors, to make your opinions on this known. Please contact me with your questions and concerns on this. It’s important for me to hear all of your feedback so that I can take that to the council chambers when future votes regarding this project are being taken.
Alderperson Joe Prohaska (District 14): Did not respond
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15):
“Thanks for your email and your questions about the library project.
“If you recall from watching the meeting, I noted that if my colleagues were willing to go above the $26.4 million figure before a shovel even goes in the ground, I would have serious concerns about the council being able to put any type of ceiling on the cost of the project.
“To back up just a bit, I first want to say I 100% support providing this community with an outstanding facility that will serve so many different facets of our community. I have stated that from the beginning and I am excited for this project to happen.
“I was obviously not on the council when this project was initially approved. But Mayor Woodford has publicly stated on numerous occasions that the city’s “all-in cost” to build this new library is $26.4 million. In making those statements he also assured the community that from day one when the new library opens, it will be fully functioning and able to meet the needs of the community now and for many years to come, at that $26.4 million price tag. That figure does not include any private donations that may come in or any grants the city may receive for the project.
“We can reasonably assume some level of support from private donations. I believe private funding will need to supplement any cost overruns above $26.4 million that the city is committing. It can also fund additional upgrades or purchases for the project that the city does not supply in the building.
“With the current building market, it is reasonable to assume the costs could exceed $26.4 million. This council will likely be tasked with some difficult choices as to whether to commit more funding or to reduce costs by removing some elements of the project, if private funding does not cover it.
“I introduced the budget amendment to reduce borrowing by $2 million for the project because of the previous vote my colleagues made to include the $2 million in ARPA money for the library broadband project. I was disappointed the amendment gained so little support, and that my colleagues on the council either didn’t understand or didn’t care that using $2 million in ARPA funding without reducing borrowing is, in essence, committing more funding to the project than promised. That $2 million in ARPA funding could have been used in many other ways to offset other future borrowing for infrastructure projects.
“By now committing $28.4 million to the project, I am concerned about how this council will handle potential cost overruns for this project. I am also concerned that this council will view any future grants that come in for this project, to be used in addition to the promised borrowing, rather than to reduce that promised borrowing.
“There will be another round of borrowing needed in 2023 that this council will have to approve. I will ensure that we revisit this discussion then. But I will look to Mayor Woodford to ensure the 2023 borrowing number stays consistent with the $26.4 million commitment he made and I will challenge my colleagues to do the same. The city has a responsibility to provide this facility, but we also have to be cognizant of the fiscal reality we are facing.”
Press Release From Mayor’s Office:
CITY OF APPLETON PREPARES FOR PANDEMIC-INDUCED INFLATION TO AFFECT COST ESTIMATES OF LIBRARY BUILDING PROJECT
Appleton Taxpayer Portion Remains Set At $26.4 Million
APPLETON, Wis., Nov. 19, 2021 – The City of Appleton is actively preparing for inflationary trends and project scope to increase library building project cost estimates. Project Manager and Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Management Director Dean Gazza will present an update to the Finance Committee at their meeting on Monday, November 22.
“While it’s unusual to share cost estimations publicly at this early stage of a project, we want to be sure the community has information at every step of the process,” said Mayor Jake Woodford. “There is still a lot of work to be done to secure outside funding and, if we have to, to reduce the cost of designs.”
The City has budgeted $26.4 million for project costs spread across three years as follows: $2.9 million was approved in the 2021 budget and a 2021 budget amendment for design services; the Common Council recently approved $10 million in 2022 for construction; the remaining $13.5 million will be budgeted to complete construction in 2023. Additionally, the Common Council approved a $2 million allocation of American Rescue Plan Act funds for broadband network infrastructure in the library, which could bring the total funding secured for the project to $28.4 million.
“This is a library for everyone,” said Finance Committee Chair and District 1 Alderperson William Siebers. “This transparency is appreciated and important to demonstrate respect for our taxpayers.”
The total building project cost is currently estimated at $39 million according to a jointly-produced estimate by architect Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) and construction manager The Boldt Co. (Boldt).
This figure considers pandemic-induced cost increases of labor and materials, as well as community input of priorities. This estimate comes prior to any significant cost reduction exercises across various components such as technology, aesthetics and quality of finishes.
“It is important to note that this cost estimate is preliminary and generally considered a target until further design is developed,” said Gazza. “These estimates include features and systems that stakeholders have expressed should be a community priority. While undesirable, if needed, many of these items can be modified or eliminated without changing the core vision and goals of the project.”
The City is also pursuing additional funding to include state and federal grants and philanthropic support.
Appleton has applied for Wisconsin’s Neighborhood Investment Fund Grant and could receive up to $11 million for this “shovel-ready” project that would support underserved individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
“While timing for this project has resulted in additional inflationary challenges, timing is also ideal to pursue external funding that is usually never available to library capital projects,” said Library Director Colleen Rortvedt.
Friends of Appleton Public Library is planning a fundraising campaign to support the project.
“Friends of Appleton Public Library stands ready to coordinate private support for the project,” said Don Hietpas, President of Friends of Appleton Public Library. “The current concept will enhance the library’s service to the citizens, make an awesome statement about the community, and create a catalyst for revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood. We are looking forward to working with the City to ensure the success of this project.”
Ultimately, the library design will be scaled to fit available resources without increasing the existing commitment from Appleton taxpayers.
For the latest updates on the library building project, visit apl.org/planning.
###
Be the first to reply