In June 2016, county voters passed Measure S, taxing themselves in part “to modernize, upgrade and repair local libraries; to replace failing roofs, outdated bathrooms, electrical systems/structurally damaged facilities” and “to construct/expand facilities where necessary.” Last time we checked, necessary meant required, compulsory, obligatory.

Six months after Measure S passed, the Public Works Director and Library Director presented a plan at a City Council meeting to build a new $23 million downtown library in a new parking garage. No questions were asked about whether a new library was “necessary.” Instead, the council voted to form a Downtown Library Advisory Committee to “help with the design of a new library.” The City Council added a directive to the City Manager “to request an independent study to verify savings of renovation versus a new build.”

The Downtown Library Advisory Committee began meeting in June 2017, its members hand picked by the Library Director. The first renovation option seen by the DLAC on Oct. 11 involved completely stripping the existing building down to its skeleton to build a new library around those bones. It was estimated to cost $37 million, $14 million over budget. Members of the public, shocked at such an absurd idea, requested a real renovation option of the existing seismically sound library that would stay within the $23 million budget. One was thrown together in two weeks, now called Option A. It was quickly dismissed by the DLAC, without serious consideration. So much for the “independent study” the City Council requested.

What misrepresentations were used to dismiss Option A? One whopper was that a renovated library “will be 8,000 square feet smaller than Option B.” Not true. Both options are for a 44,000-square-foot library. Another whopper was that there was no money in the renovation option for temporary relocation, even though the architect had indeed included $720,000 in the cost estimate for Option A. A third was that only the new library in a new parking garage can provide for all the programs residents want. Definitely not true. All whoppers were based on no serious consideration of a real renovation that stayed within budget.

What happened to the public engagement process specified in the city’s official RFQ for the project? The DLAC waited until Dec. 3, six months after it began its work and just 10 days before it voted on its final recommendation, to have the only meeting “to engage citizens and stakeholders in meaningful dialogues,” instead of the “minimum of three” specified in the March 15 RFQ Addendum. Even then, the public had no opportunity for dialogue with the DLAC or the architects. Of equal concern, none of the overwhelming support for renovation and opposition to abandoning the existing library is included in the DLAC’s final report.

Making matters worse, the DLAC survey about the public’s desires regarding the library omitted an essential question: How do people feel about the downtown library being moved to the ground floor of a new parking garage? That question was never asked. Maybe they didn’t want to know.

To demonstrate a critical lack of transparency of the process, 26 modifications of the DLAC final report — several substantive — were made behind the scenes weeks after the DLAC had reviewed its contents and unanimously voted to approve it.

Residents voted for Measure S to tax themselves for 30 years, believing what the ballot language promised, which most certainly was not to abandon the current downtown library. Given what appears to many to be a bait and switch, will city residents think twice before voting to pass another tax? As one member of the public recently stated “Frankly, I don’t support the sales tax measure on the upcoming June ballot, because I was lied to by the city several times about raising taxes to save the library and now I’m told it can’t be saved.”

Jean Brocklebank, Judi Grunstra and Michael Lewis are members of Don’t Bury The Library.