Now that the Shutesbury Library Trustees have submitted a building program to the MA Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) for a 5,928 square foot library building, it is time to update my recent post estimating costs for the proposed building and its attendant increased costs to taxpayers. Let’s start with the heftiest portion: ongoing operating costs.
Ongoing Operating Costs
Our library’s operations budget will surely increase once the project is completed. As I noted in an earlier post, the Town of Erving’s library budget increased 266% between fiscal years 2017 and 2022. If Shutesbury’s library budget increases by the same percentage, taxpayers could see a permanent, annual increase in their tax bills of $122.84 and a $0.49 rise in the tax rate to accommodate a library budget of $174,628 by fiscal year 2027.
It is notable that the MN Spear Library budget increased 218% between fiscal years 2005 and 2018, from $22,663 to $72,193. If costs have skyrocketed before a new library building is a reality, it seems safe to assume that that upward trajectory will only accelerate after a new library is built.
Exploding library budgets need not be a foregone conclusion, however. Leverett built a new library in 2003 and its library budget (including building maintenance) increased by only 61% between the years 2005 and 2018, from $56,249 to $90,689.
Updated - Total Construction Cost Estimate Based on Increased Square Footage
Using the formulas presented in this blog post, I have refigured the approximate price of a 5,928 square foot library and its cost to Shutesbury taxpayers:
5,928 s.f. * $729 s.f. cost =$4,321,512 * 36% (Shutesbury’s portion of the cost) =$1,555,744 - $520,326 (public and private money saved) = $1,035,418
20-year bond for $1,035,418 at 2.5% interest = $66,419 annual payment
Total interest = $292,964
The $66,419 annual payment would add $0.29 to the tax rate and $73.61 to the average tax bill each year for 20 years.
Outdoor Structures
Not included in the above estimate are two outdoor structures described in the Trustees’ building program: a 700 s.f. pavilion and a 200 s.f. storage shed. According to New England Outdoor, a no-frills pavilion measuring 720 s.f. costs $33,309 and a simple vinyl-sided shed costs $9,729. The pavilion has myriad options that can add to the cost; the shed has a few, as well. The basic cost for both structures: $43,038 (33309+9729).
It makes sense that both the shed and the pavilion would be placed on concrete pads. estimates from Porch.com for concrete work in our area show an average price of $1,689 for an installed 200 square foot shed pad and $5,561 for the 700 square foot pavilion pad.
Remodeling expense gives a similar price tag: a range of $1,582 - $2,189 for the 200 square foot pad with installation and $5,538 - $7,661 for the larger 700 square foot pavilion pad. These estimates reflect the website’s “Better”, or mid-priced, option.
Adding the least expensive concrete pad estimates ($1,582 +$5,538) to $43,038 gives us a new estimated total construction cost of $50,158 for both outdoor structures. This number is likely on the low side, considering the current inflationary environment and escalating building costs.
Shutesbury will pay the full amount for each since the Pilot grant money will not cover the cost of an outdoor pavilion and shed. Still, the Trustees and Friends could fundraise the amount necessary to build these structures if the town decides to move forward with the project—and possibly give some local contractors the option to bid on the jobs, as well.
Correction: The Library Trustees have informed me that, because the pavilion will be attached to the proposed library building and the MBLC supports the kayak lending program, these structures are considered eligible costs under the Small Library Pilot program meaning that 75% of these costs would be covered by the grant.
Construction Costs are Rising
Recently, the price tag on Deerfield’s Tilton Library renovation and expansion project was revised due to higher building costs. In 2017, the project cost was set at $8 million. A recent meeting between Deerfield residents and town officials produced a new estimate of between $10 and $12 million since inflation over the past year has raised the price of building materials considerably. Since the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners’ grant award of $4 million is static, the town of Deerfield is forced to cover the higher costs or leave the project incomplete.
If Shutesbury approves the Small Library Pilot project, construction will likely begin sometime in 2023. Though there is no way to predict what construction costs might be like in a year and a half, it would be prudent to factor in inflationary pressures when considering what a new library building might cost Shutesbury residents.
Shutesbury’s Population is Declining
In 2009, the Shutesbury Library Trustees proposed a 5,800 s.f. library based on population forecasts of 2392 people in 2020 and 2490 in 2027. In 2020 the population was actually 1717 people, well below the forecast. The newest library plan describes a population decrease from the present 1717 to 1554 people in 2030 and 1335 by 2040. As you can see, the proposed library keeps getting bigger while the population keeps getting smaller. People are moving out of town because of the high property taxes. That means we will have significantly fewer people to share the tax burden of this bigger, new library—a scary proposition and one for which I cannot offer an estimated long-term cost.
Can the library project be downsized to fit a dwindling population? If you think it can, let the Shutesbury Library Trustees know! They are taking comments until November 15 on this subject. Contact them via email: librarytrustees@shutesbury.org
The “How Affordable is Your Housing” poll on NextDoor is still open if you want to participate.
Weekly Factoid:
Between 2010 and 2020, Cape Cod and the Islands experienced the greatest population increases while the four Western Massachusetts counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, Hampden, and Franklin sustained the greatest losses.
Source: The Boston Globe
No comments:
Post a Comment