Got a spare $32.5 million?

Councilmembers Marti Emerald and Todd Gloria support the new library.
- photo by Dave Rolland

In concept, we support construction of a new library Downtown to serve as the main hub of the city of San Diego’s library system. It would be a grand edifice for the city’s collection of books and a sweet new location for public events, and—maybe just as important—it would serve as the next phase of the revitalization of East Village.

The problem, of course, is the city doesn’t have enough money. And, despite the assurances of library advocates that we’re ever so close to getting there, we’re really not that close.

The guaranteed maximum price of construction is $184.9 million, which includes an arbitrary contingency-cost line item of $3.7 million specifically engineered to bring the total in under $185 million. The city has $20 million in state grant funding that it will lose—unless the deadline is extended again—if construction doesn’t begin in August, $20 million from the city’s school district in pre-paid rent for a charter high school that would occupy two upper floors of the building, $80 million in Downtown redevelopment money (essentially the city’s contribution) and nearly $30.8 million in binding pledges from private donors.

That leaves a balance of $32.5 million on the wrong side of the ledger. In addition, private donors have pledged enough money to fund operating costs up until 2018—after that, the city has to come up with $2.8 million every year over and above what it costs to operate the current Downtown library.

Construction is scheduled for two phases. The city has the money for the first phase, under which the outer shell of the library would be complete and the school district would be able to start running the charter school. The second phase, which remains unfunded, would include the interior of the rest of the library. Increasing the pressure, if private donors don’t kick down with the additional $32.5 million, the city would have to give back the $20-million state grant—because the state is not in the business of giving away money for non-operational libraries. Since the city would probably not opt for a scenario that includes a brand-new charter school sitting atop five floors of empty space plus a $20-million debt, it would be stuck paying the remaining $32.5 million to complete the building—or whatever donors don’t come up with.

Could we just call the library an “other activity” and be done with it?

The city is in the process of closing a gaping budget hole for the fiscal year that starts next month. However, a new budget deficit for the fiscal year starting in July 2011 is already projected to be $72 million. If library advocates don’t show up with $32.5 million in new pledges next Monday—when the City Council is scheduled to vote on the construction funding—the city would have to add that debt to the projected deficit. The city could borrow the money, but then it would have to add debt service to the overall bill, increasing the future taxpayer burden by about $3 million per year for 30 years.

We can take that option off the table because if a City Council majority is desperate to build a new library, a better option is to increase the redevelopment contribution from $80 million to as much as $112.5 million. This is not general-purpose money that could otherwise pay for cops, firefighters or librarians elsewhere. This is money that can be spent only on making Downtown a better place to live, work and play. The Redevelopment Agency has $386 million left in the piggy bank for Downtown improvements.

That $386 million has already been allocated—for parks and open spaces ($75.4 million), fire stations ($78.7 million), the North Embarcadero ($60.8 million), C Street improvements ($34.2 million), neighborhood public improvements ($84.1 million), land acquisition and remediation ($16.4 million) social services ($3 million) and “other activities” ($33.9 million). Could we just call the library an “other activity” and be done with it? OK, that’s kind of a joke, but the Redevelopment Agency does reevaluate its spending priorities annually. Still, such a consideration would require serious public debate.

It’s not easy for us to suggest that the City Council ditch the library project, particularly with so much grant funding and private pledges twisting in the wind, not to mention the $17 million that’s already been spent on designs and planning. But the most irresponsible thing the council can do— and this is what Mayor Jerry Sanders seems to be urging—is vote yes and hope that another $32.5 million magically appears.

What do you think? Write to editor@sdcitybeat.com.