The words “clarification” and “clarify” flew around Memorial Hall during Manitou Springs City Council’s session on Tuesday, April 19.
After more than an hour of back and forth regarding specifications for the Carnegie Library at 701 Manitou Ave., council voted 4-3 to rescind the motion Councilor Michelle Whetherhult made on April 5 and will continue the process moving toward the Historic Preservation Commission.
Councilors Julie Wolfe, Judith Chandler and Mayor Pro Tem John Shada dissented.
The city also will not undertake an additional $19,000 that would have been used for designing additional options, materials for additional City Council and HPC meetings, and RATIO reimbursement.
Mayor John Graham compared the confusion and additional requirements from fellow councilmembers to Baskin-Robbins.
“We need 31 flavors of library it seems like,” Graham said. “… I see us bouncing around in deciding that now we want to come up with other designs. This is pretty frustrating and it has to be tremendously frustrating for the library people. … We really need to decide, can we take the momentum we have going and make a design we can take to the HPC?
“If we’re going to monkey around with this and decide we’re going to change elevations and re-grate the side of the mountain and do this and that, I think maybe we should give up on the library. And I don’t like saying that. If we can’t build a library then we’re a civilization where people do not read and take care of our children, and we don’t have conversations with the great thinkers of the past. We will not have a vision and we can’t go forward.”
The April 19 meeting occurred two weeks after council agreed to postpone a decision regarding funding for the Carnegie Library project to at least May 5.
During the recent meeting, council hoped to get a broader understanding of the timeframe needed to expand and update the city-owned building.
City Administrator Denise Howell said Manitou resident David Ball would work with RATIO Architects to develop a physical model of the library design.
Howell also provided a proposed schedule illustrating the timeline RATIO would require for the design and eventually present RATIO’s design to City Council.
“I’m amazed and astounded with the amount of work you’ve done given that apparently there was a lack of clarification,” Chandler said. “You’ve done an exemplary job in a very short time to bring what you’re bringing to us today. In my opinion, we’re two-thirds of the way there.”
Mary Pulvermacher of the Preserve and Renew Our Carnegie Library Task Force said she was happy for the discussion regarding the project because, “It points out that there is confusion.”
“How do you direct somebody to do something when there’s multiple definitions of what are to be done?” Pulvermacher said.
Wolfe responded: “It doesn’t sound so much like there’s confusion (but that) you don’t like the motion.”
Pulvermacher reiterated that she felt the motion was “confusing” and she believed it was “unexecutable.”
“I find it very confusing and I don’t see consistency among the council members, much less consistency with the council and other people,” Pulvermacher said. “I asked four or five people at the end of (the April 5) meeting what did (the motion) mean and nobody agreed.”
Graham also felt the previous motion was nebulous. Whetherhult said she decided to make the motion “without being fully informed.”
“I have since listened to people on both sides of the issues of the library,” Whetherhult said. “I believe that delaying the library funding is not in the best interest of the city or the residents. I apologize for the mix-up and I’ve learned a lot in the last two weeks.”
Whetherhult asked City Attorney Jeff Parker if council could revisit her motion from April 5 and Parker explained that council could reconsider.
“Basically, you have two options: motion to reconsider, if you actually pass it, by a simple majority, then you’d reconsider what the motion was two weeks ago,” Parker said. “You could readopt it entirely … or you could make some changes to it. Or you could propose a new motion that would affect the old motion and provide guidance.”
Before the amended motion, Shada voiced concerns about the project costs and said he wanted to find methods to reduce the price tag.
“A $3.4 million building when we have nearly $9 million in other kinds of needs is really scary just for a library addition,” Shada said. “That’s why I want us to do everything we can from an architectural standpoint to really sharpen our pencil.”
Chandler added that council wants to make the correct decision with the library and understands the severity of their decision.
“We only get one shot at this,” Chandler said. “Once we do what we’re going to do to that original Carnegie building, we can’t go back and change our mind and go, ‘Oh, you know what? Now we can’t do City Hall because we voted for this.’”