110 West C Street, Suite 714, San Diego, CA 92101 • P: (619) 234-6423 • F: (619) 234-7403 • www.sdcta.

org

October 23, 2009

The Honorable Ben Hueso

Council President, San Diego City Council
City Administration Building
202 “C” Street, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101

RE: NEW MAIN LIBRARY (Item 332: Contract Amendments and Project Costs)

Dear Council President Hueso:

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA) urges the City Council to reject the
$500,000 proposal to update project costs for the San Diego New Main Library.

Councilmember DeMaio‟s office recently released a thoughtful analysis of main library project cost
estimates using conservative assumptions. Under that scenario, the project was estimated to exceed
$200 million. Assuming for a moment that the library costs come in at the original $185 million cost
estimate which is what Mel Katz predicts, and the $33 million in private donation pledges
materializes, the capital project is still $30 million short.

To take it a step further, let‟s assume that the project bids will come in at $170 million. Bottom line:
the project is still short $15 million.

In addition to the gap in funding for capital costs, the project is anticipated to negatively impact the
General Fund at least six years after the library is built. This would likely coincide with the same
period that General Fund pension costs are expected to nearly double from the current payment
amount of $125 million to $240 million.

Library boosters claim that the redevelopment dollars can‟t be used for anything else. This is false.
If the main library project is halted indefinitely, $63 million of redevelopment funds could be used
for downtown public infrastructure and neighborhood improvements including sidewalks, street
lights, medians, ADA projects; the C Street Corridor Master Plan; and the North Embarcadero
Visionary Plan. These alternative capital projects could be funded with no negative impact to the
General Fund.

Furthermore, let‟s not forget that the San Diego Unified School District made a commitment to the
community to pursue a downtown elementary school with Proposition S funds. While a joint-use
high school within the main library may sound great in concept, the reality is a disingenuous „bait
and switch‟, which breaks faith with voters.
As I recently shared with the San Diego Downtown Partnership, SDCTA has been a strong
advocate for the local library system. In the past decade, we endorsed state legislation SB 2026 to
increase funding to the State Public Library Foundation via a $500 million bond. We also supported
the City‟s 1999 capital plan for libraries, and in that same year endorsed Proposition L, a ¼ cent 5-
year sales tax for local libraries. Unfortunately, Prop L was rejected by voters.

It was because of Prop L‟s failure in 1999 that the Association urged the City to reexamine the main
library proposal. Since 2002, we have firmly opposed the main library for several reasons but
primarily due to the City‟s financial problems. We have also expressed concerns about the
location/accessibility of the proposed project. Since 2005, we have recommended that the City
consider an alternative plan for a new downtown library in joint use with a new Civic Center/City
Hall.

Four years later we would add that technological advancements should be taken into consideration.
Truth be told, we have been advocating for a regional library master plan since 1998. Let‟s be clear,
technology has not yet replaced the demand or value of books. However, technological
advancements should prompt discussion about the objectives and purposes of a new main library.

Proponents say a library is not merely books. They describe the central library as a cultural,
community meeting place with rotating art exhibits, educational events and hundreds of computers.
This civic meeting/resource site could be incorporated into the redevelopment of Civic Center.

Supporters of the project say the main library is the heart of the library system because it houses and
distributes more than 424,000 books, reference materials, DVDs, CDS and other materials annually
which can be delivered free-of-charge to any branch. This is without a doubt an important function.
But this function does not require a $185 million expenditure.

What we know with certainty is that spending another half million dollars doesn‟t address the likely
$30 million+ capital cost funding gap. We also know that it‟s false that redevelopment dollars
couldn‟t be used for other valuable projects which would improve our community. Finally, we know
that the upcoming budget deficit of nearly $200 million will be a daunting challenge to address and
undoubtedly result in significant service impacts which may include branch library closures or
reduction of hours.

Please keep these important facts in mind on Tuesday and reject item 332.

Sincerely,

Lani Lutar
President & CEO

cc:
Mayor Jerry Sanders
Members of the City Council
Elizabeth Maland, City Clerk
Andrea Tevlin, Independent Budget Analyst