Town Meeting Presentation October 29, 2012

1. Town Meeting Presentation October 29, 2012 Randall Library Building Committee

2. Randall Library Building Committee • Committee Members: • Steve Dungan • Steve Jelinek • Tom Lam • Peter McManus • Administrative Assistant: • Susan McLaughin • Consultants: • Johnson and Roberts Associates • Stewart Roberts • Phil O’Brien • Tim Reed, Chairman • Jim Salvie • Barbara Wolfenden

3. Why Change? • Water leaks into building during heavy rains. • Water damage to the structure requires repairing corroded metal braces holding up the patio and rotted 2x4’s holding up the brick walls. • Handicap access is dangerous. • Very crowded conditions on the first floor. • Only one small workroom for storage and materials preparation.

4. Why Not A New Library? • Cost would be in the 7 to 12 million dollar range. • No available site near the center of town. • Feedback from residents indicates a very strong desire to keep library in its current location. • Would leave vacant existing library building.

5. Why Not Move to Pompo • Move to Pompo was extensively explored. • Space requirements to receive state library construction grant would take too much space. • Time to acquire construction grant would leave a large section of Pompo vacant for 5 to 10 years. • Residents want library to stay where it is.

6. Randall Library Needs • Water leak remediation • Better handicap access • Additional storage and work spaces • Separate adult section with area for reading and working • Separate young adult section with areas for studying and tutoring • Separate children's section • Restoration of original building • Additional parking

8. Design Study Results • Structural analysis of the building found the original 1892 building in pretty good shape but in need of some restoration and repair. • Structural analysis of the 1975 addition found that that it was the kind of construction that had a useful life of about 20 to 30 years. • The 1975 addition is in need of structural repairs. • No second floor area of the current library is structurally capable of supporting full library book stacks.

9. Why Not Renovate the 1975 Addition? • Even with a renovation, the building will eventually start leaking again. • The quality of the construction being as it is, there will be ongoing maintenance costs. • The 1975 addition will have to be replaced eventually. • All library book stacks will have to remain on the first floor. • Patrons with access issues will still have to use the street to go from the handicap parking space to the handicap entrance.

10. Proposed Renovation/Addition Designs

11. 1975 addition Proposed Addition

16. First Floor Scheme Young Adult Section Librarian’s Desk Elevator Children’s Desk Work Room Main Entrance Children’s Section Director’s Office

17. Second Floor Scheme Adult Book Stacks Elevator Meeting Room Computer Stations Periodicals Librarian Station

18. Parking Scheme

21. How Does Stow Compare with Other Communities? Boxborough 12,000 sq ft Harvard Maynard 24,300 sq ft Bolton 16,945 sq ft (up from 3,100 sq ft)

22. Stow Comparisons with Other Towns FY11 Annual municipal appropriation: Carlisle $511,586 Harvard $511,238 Sherborn $384,844 Bolton $373,094 Boxborough $298,377 Stow $200,601 FTEs: Harvard 9 Carlisle 7.7 Bolton 6.2 Sherborn 4.8 Boxborough 4.5 Stow 3.3

23. Stow Population Projections Population Projection by Age Group – Prepared by MAPC

24. Renovation and Addition Proposal • Project Cost is 3.7 million dollars. • Project cost does not cover new furniture or computers. • Over $700,000 qualifies for possible CPA funds. • Estimated annual cost for the average household is $75. • Tonight you are voting on just the construction design phase of the project. The cost for this phase is $300,000.

25. Why Support Proposal Now? • The 1975 addition will have to be replaced. It is just a matter of time. If it isn’t replaced there will be yearly maintenance costs which will depend on what part of the addition fails in a give year. • The $75 per average household per year will only increase if the project is delayed. Interest rates will not get lower and construction costs will get higher. • A four year delay will push the project costs to 4.3 million dollars.

26. Project Summary • Allows for safe handicap access. • Eliminates water leaks. • Increases the number of computer stations. • Creates a separate adult section. • Reduces annual maintenance costs. Restores and renovates a town icon.

27. Please Vote to Support Your Library