The Williamsburg Library Evaluation Committee recommended the City Council proceed to the construction phase for a new downtown library, presenting background studies, community survey results and preliminary conceptual designs from the contracted design‑build team. Committee chair Sandy Towers and representatives from Horrigan and the project team said the existing downtown building no longer meets Virginia state square‑footage standards for public libraries, constrains programming and accessibility, and that a new building could provide flexible space, more parking and modern infrastructure.

Chris Gares, a member of the Williamsburg Regional Library Board of Trustees, said the board supports construction downtown and pointed to an 18‑year history of facilities assessments and community input that, the trustees believe, justify replacement rather than renovation. "In our best judgment, now is the time for Williamsburg to build a new library," Gares said (presentation, SEG 2019–2021). Horrigan's representative presented a preliminary construction estimate of $26,100,000 and described a phasing strategy that could omit auditorium/meeting spaces to reduce near‑term costs but preserve options for future expansion (presentation, SEG 2279–2373).

Proponents at public comment framed the library as a community health and economic asset. Natalie Miller Moore said the library acts as a public‑health and social‑connection site that can reduce isolation and future social‑service costs; other speakers, including university library leadership and the Friends of the Williamsburg Regional Library Foundation, urged the council to fund a replacement to serve the next generation.

Several speakers and one extended public comment from Robert Wilson urged council to provide fuller fiscal disclosure before committing. Wilson stated the city had budgeted $40 million for the project (claiming $20 million to come from other jurisdictions, which he said had pulled back) and warned that financing and operating obligations could create multi‑million‑dollar annual obligations for the city if James City County or York County reduce contributions. He urged the council to re‑engage independent design or budgeting work and warned of historic cost escalations on other regional projects (public comment, SEG 2688–2779). The transcript records that Wilson recommended canceling the existing agreement with Horrigan to pursue alternatives.

Contractor representatives acknowledged cost pressures in the construction market, and John Sanderlin (director of preconstruction for the design‑build team) said material and labor costs continue to rise and that contingencies and value‑management exercises would be used to keep the project near budgeted targets. Horrigan and the design team said a reduced scope (removing auditorium/meeting spaces) could bring the current design closer to the city's initial appropriation, but that removing key elements could hamper long‑term flexibility and programming needs (presentation, SEG 2348–2374).

Council discussion emphasized the tradeoffs between renovating the existing structure and building a new facility. The mayor and others said renovation would likely provide only short‑term relief and leave the community with recurring capital needs; opponents and cost‑conscious commenters urged a smaller or redesigned facility tied to the city's likely fiscal capacity. No formal council vote to proceed was recorded at the work session.

Next steps: the council and staff will continue to discuss financing, the regional operating agreement with James City County and York County, and design‑to‑budget options. The evaluation committee and the design team said they would continue to refine cost and scope in follow‑up sessions.

Attributions: Quotes and figures are attributed to committee members and the design team and to public commenters.