Consultants presented a draft City Council presentation for the Library Park reimagining project to the Library Community Center Ad Hoc Committee and committee members signaled support for the mid‑range, co‑located library and senior center option while asking staff and consultants to tighten the presentation and clarify costs and tradeoffs.

The committee was shown three building strategies: Option A, a renovation of the existing 1930s community room (about 27,000 square feet); Option B, a new co‑located library and senior center with renovation of the historic community room (roughly a 24,500‑square‑foot new facility plus the renovated structure); and Option C, a larger new construction of about 38,000–40,000 square feet that would require a second floor. The consultants presented estimated planning ranges: Option A approximately $18–25 million; Option B approximately $33–41.5 million; and Option C approximately $47.5–60 million.

The presentation summarized a community engagement program that reached nearly 3,000 participants, including about 672 survey respondents, and mapped program priorities: library priorities included books for all ages, quiet reading and study, children’s play and learning, and a “library of things;” senior and community priorities included fitness and wellness, a senior lounge, nutrition/meals, and multipurpose spaces for performances, arts and lifelong learning.

Don Marcus, a consultant on the project team, said the draft budget used standard planning contingencies and an assumed escalation rate and described four cost components included in the estimate: the hard cost for building construction, site costs (engineering/fees/permits), escalation, and contingencies. Marcus also noted the team had not engaged detailed engineering or construction management expertise, which contributed to the wide planning ranges.

Committee members pressed for clearer visual comparisons that show what each option would add and what would be lost. Rich Elbaum, an ad hoc committee member, said the presentation spent a lot of time on process and engagement but should front‑load the practical tradeoffs for council, asking, “What do you give up? What do you get?” Julie Wayne, another committee member, urged that the committee’s guiding principles and the reasons behind any recommendation be included in the staff report alongside any option the committee forwards to council.

Members asked the consultants to replace dense program slides with a simple grid or check‑box summary that compares baseline (existing) conditions and Options A, B and C across the same program lines (for example: library browsing seats, children’s story/performance capacity, fitness/multipurpose rooms). The committee requested the presentation explicitly call out qualitative limits of Option A (renovation), such as low ceiling heights and constrained vertical circulation, and show clearly which program functions would be impossible or severely limited in a renovation.

Consultants reported key technical findings included: the site sits within and near historic districts and contains historic resources such as the 1930s community room and the Morton Bay fig tree, which the project team recommends preserving. They confirmed with city planning staff that municipal code exempts new development within one‑quarter mile of an existing transit stop from on‑site parking requirements; the team therefore did not include expensive below‑grade parking in the cost estimates.

On space need, the consultants used a 2045 planning population of 30,000 residents and estimated shared, co‑located facilities reduce net space needs. They recommended a new full‑service library of roughly 20,000–30,000 square feet if standalone, and noted that a combined campus would result in a recommended overall new facility footprint in the range of about 27,000 to 41,000 square feet after accounting for shared spaces. The team estimated Library Park currently contains about 27,000 square feet of existing library and senior facilities, and that the site would still need roughly 12,000–16,000 square feet of indoor recreation space to meet future citywide standards after accounting for existing Orange Grove Recreation Center capacity.

Members also discussed funding and ballot timing. City staff said a property tax measure is being evaluated this fall; staff estimated (as a planning parameter) that the city could support roughly $80–90 million of bonding over a 30‑year repayment period without raising current tax burdens, depending on assumptions. Committee members asked consultants and staff to prepare financing scenarios that make clear what voters would be asked to pay and to present a “B+” or prioritized‑B version if the committee wants a mid‑range option that adds specific program elements (for example, a dedicated fitness/dance studio or additional multipurpose rooms).

Several committee members emphasized the need to preserve the Morton Bay fig tree and to retain the 1930s community room as part of any preferred strategy. The project team reiterated that all three high‑level options were developed to respect historic features and accessibility, and that further design and engineering would be required to test whether the historic facility can meet current accessibility and code requirements when renovated.

Following discussion of program tradeoffs, one committee member indicated a motion to recommend Option B to City Council based on outreach results; the transcript does not record a final, formal recorded vote on a recommendation at this meeting. The committee did, however, approve the minutes of the Sept. 4 meeting earlier in the agenda (motion to approve minutes carried on roll call with committee members voting yes: Kristen Dubay; Leslie Aldean Field; Tom Ashar; Rich Elbaum; Tony Ho; Dion Richards; Dean Sermon; Julie Wayne; Jasmine Wong). That minutes approval is recorded in the meeting minutes.

Next steps: the consultants agreed to return with a streamlined presentation that (1) condenses process slides, (2) emphasizes the program‑by‑program comparison among Options A, B and C in a one‑page grid, (3) summarizes qualitative limits of renovation (Option A) versus new construction, and (4) provides a clearer funding/bond‑scenario summary. Consultants said a revised draft could be available in about two weeks to support inclusion in the City Council packet targeted for the Nov. 5 meeting; the committee’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Nov. 6.

Votes at a glance: the only formal recorded action at this meeting was approval of the Sept. 4 minutes (motion carried; roll call recorded unanimous yes votes from the committee members listed above). No final committee vote on a preferred building option was recorded in the transcript.