Voting no is NOT a solution.

This is a guest post by Susan Mickelson, GFPL Board President.

The three-year Library Revitalization process that was spearheaded by local volunteers was effective in its fact-finding, research, comparative studies and planning. The proposed solution has been thoughtfully developed, carefully documented and professionally reviewed. The $20.8 million project proposal was prepared and approved by the Library Board, based on the current situations existing in Grand Forks at this time. It is the proposal that is being offered to voters on May 3 in the form of a special election.

The Grand Forks Public library is well used and highly valued. Based on documented usage, we need a facility nearly twice the size to accommodate existing patron traffic. The proposed $20.8 million library project would be funded by a temporary 1-cent sales tax.

Although we’ve been encouraged by the amount of public interaction that has been generated by the upcoming Library Vote, we are also frustrated by deceptive messaging and blatant untruths that have been distributed by the opposition, Citizens for Responsible Government.

I would like to address five of the most deceitful statements at this time. These bullet points come directly from the flyer that is being distributed by Councilman Terry Bjerke and his supporters.

• The proposed library project is not a Taj Mahal. It’s a functional 21^st Century library.  A library to provide our citizens today and in the future with the necessary space and resources to compete in the classroom, the workforce and everyday life. Additional amenities such as a fireplace or aquarium could be included, but only if private contributions are made available to fund them.

• This project will not exceed the proposed $20.8 million budget. It cannot exceed that budget. The language is specifically included on the special election ballot. All necessary funding for the library project will be provided by the temporary 1% sales tax. As soon as the $20.8 million is raised, the sales tax is retired. It’s done.

• A larger, more energy efficient building with new technology will not demand increased staff. Current library staff will definitely be utilized in different ways, with automated checkout systems, book return processing equipment and radio frequency ID tags performing the tasks that will no longer require personal interaction. Most public libraries installed those technological upgrades several years ago.

• Lack of space is the single largest deficiency with our current library. We have no more space to use, so a remodel of the current building will not solve our problems. Although the building was originally constructed to include a full second floor, advances in mechanical and lighting systems now require 15-foot ceiling heights, and we don’t have that space. We have received opinions from multiple experts, and the current library is not structurally capable of supporting an additional floor, so a third story is not possible. We’ve learned that the library’s current mechanical system is one of the most inefficient models ever made, with heating and cooling running simultaneously 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We also have serious issues of accessibility in this building, which prevent some of our residents from fully utilizing their public library.

These are significant problems that require big-budget solutions. We have looked at options and requested proposals, and it would cost approximately $18 million to remodel and add on to the existing building. That is not a cost-effective solution, and it would force us to make the compromising adaptations that are always necessary when joining new construction with an existing building.

• It is the Library Board’s intent that the new library be located where the existing building stands, with acquisition of adjacent property as needed to accommodate the plan. If Councilman Terry Bjerke has a different idea for a location, he will need to pursue that with his fellow Council members. As always, majority will rule.

Voting “no” is not a solution. There are serious deficiencies at our library. Many of these problems need to be corrected immediately. Voting “no” will only prolong the problems, and in some cases the costs for correction will grow higher as each month passes.

What solutions have been provided by Citizens for Responsible Government? What alternatives have they proposed? What professional opinions have they garnered? What comparative facility reports have they prepared? What budgets have they offered?

Where will we carve out the necessary space for our existing library materials, as well as current children’s activities, computers, meetings, study groups, teens, staff and parking? And what about future accessibility for Grand Forks Public Library and our tax-paying citizens?

It’s very easy to say “vote no.” It’s even easier when you don’t bother to put in the time to research the problem, study the possible solutions, support your case with the necessary professional documentation and suggest a solution with a bona fide price tag.

The Library Task Force for Revitalization did their work and they did it thoroughly. The results have been made available to the public since October of 2008. Don’t be misdirected by an easy way out. Be an informed voter. Read the reports, study the research, learn about the advances within the library industry, and review the 35 line items in the proposed budget at www.gflibrary.com.

Most important, be sure to cast your vote on Tuesday, May 3.