As anyone who has ever done a remodel of a house or building knows, construction comes with its own unique set of challenges. After struggling to come to terms with their current architect, the Ad-hoc Library Expansion Building Committee is now considering and looking to sign with another architect to keep the E.C. Scranton Memorial Library renovation on track.

The current renovation plan for the E.C. Scranton Memorial Library is a scaled-down version of the plan that Madison voters narrowly defeated in a 2008 referendum vote. Current designs for the building work to preserve the historical architecture while improving the streetscape and expanding the floor plan. The square footage of the building will jump from 17,000 to 37,000 and a 45-space parking lot will be added.

The project to renovate the library is estimated to cost $15 million, but due to substantial grants and fundraising efforts, the library asked the town to bond for $9.1 million. At referendum on Feb. 7, voters approved the bonding total with 1,897 “Yes” votes to 550 “No” votes

Since the referendum, the building committee has been making strides to prepare for a late spring/early summer 2018 anticipated construction start and hired an owners project manager (OPM) Colliers International. The library had been working with LLB Architects prior to the referendum, but once the bond was passed and the committee entered into contract negotiations, the two parties struggled to come to terms.

Library Director Beth Crowley said LLB was under contract with the library prior to the vote to develop things like the initial cost estimate, the schematics, and the models, but settling terms for the final design, construction, and fees proved too difficult.

“When we passed referendum and the building committee was convened, then Colliers was hired and at that point we looked at the contract to hire LLB for the design document stage and construction document stage and essentially the rest of the project,” she said. “Unfortunately during those negotiations, based on fees and a few other stipulations that are in the contract, we couldn’t come to terms so that necessitated looking at another firm.”

Crowley said the committee then turned to another firm the library considered when initially hiring LLB: Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc. (DRA), a firm that went through the library’s initial vetting process and has designed libraries in Chester, Woodbridge, Westbrook, as well as in other towns in Connecticut and New England.

“Originally when we hired LLB it was a six-month process of architect selection, so we had a short list of other firms to chose from and DRA was our next in line and fortunately they were available and Colliers has worked with them and are familiar with them,” she said. “We contacted them to see if they were interested and if they had the capacity, and it appears they do, so right now we are in contract negotiations with them.”

Crowley said it will set the library board back a bit since it’s not going with the firm that did the original design, but she said DRA will not be starting from scratch and a fresh pair of eyes could be helpful in determining what items in the project are “nice to haves” vs. necessary items.

“There was some scope of work missing [in the LLB schematic], which affects the cost estimate, so there are some things that have to be factored in to this design...We are going to have to do some value engineering to get the cost to our budget,” she said. “When we did an independent cost estimate, we were over budget [by about $2.5 million] based on the original cost estimate, so now we have to come down…I don’t want to panic people, but that is part of it and we have to go in now and look at what we can scale back to get to our budget.”

Members of the building committee met with DRA on Oct. 6 to discuss the current design, where things can but cut back, and review considerations like the location and size of program rooms for the numerous groups and events that use the library, accommodating the Friends of the Library and the Madison Art Society, the design of the teen area, and building security, etc., according to Crowley.

“We want to stay as true to what the voters voted on in February—certainly the use of the building, how it flows, how it functions, is very important,” she said. “There are certain things we absolutely have to have, and then looking at what can be scaled back or what can just be done differently or more effectively. We have to see what DRA comes up with as far as their thoughts and ideas and they will be looking at it with fresh eyes so they will hopefully be able to point out some things that we can’t see, so that is what I am hoping for.”

After discussions that have progressed smoothly, the building committee is optimistic that the contract with DRA will be signed shortly. As plans for the build continue, the library is continuing to fundraise. Before the referendum, library officials established a capital campaign known as “Futures” to cover the $6 million library portion of the project. With a little more than $1 million left to go, library trustees have been reaching out to residents and Crowley said the fundraising effort is going well.

“What I am hearing is people are asking, ‘Why is the library still fundraising if we passed the bond in February?’” she said. “We are committed to raising [$6 million] and we have raised [$5 million] so we still have one million to raise. The reason we did it that way is because we are not a town department, so our typical operating budget is 85 percent from the town and 15 percent that we raise...We wanted to use a similar model, but we decided that we would ask the town for 60 percent and we would raise 40 percent.”