New library building committee chair Martin Sokol convened a meeting with all members, Linda Cohen, Andrew Greene and David Kahn, in attendance. By the time this article appears, the committee will have had a meeting with top officials of the Town of North Hempstead to determine if either or both plans under consideration would be acceptable to the town.

Plan A, also referred to as A and a half, is the more minimal of two as it would keep the mezzanine arrangement and extend the building somewhat.

Plan B would create a real second floor, raising the height of the building by 5 feet. The plan calls for the second floor to be set back from the front of the building with the idea that a tiered arrangement would be more visually acceptable to the surrounding homeowners.

The committee members are feeling the pressure from the staff and the community to move ahead expeditiously as a visually deteriorating building is literally falling down, in pieces. Andrew Greene said, "We want to move steadily and judiciously...let's be sure of our facts. How much more would we be getting in Plan B and at what cost?"

Board members, Marietta DiCamillo and Norman Rutta, although not on the committee, were in attendance. Both have concerns about "raising the roof." Ms. DiCamillo fears that backing such a plan will create dissention in the community as neighbors have vowed that they would "raise the roof" if their views and sightlines are disturbed by a 5 foot taller building.

Mr. Rutta's concerns centered on the extra time, expense and difficulty in the plan as the underlying footings, which support the current building, would not be sufficient for a second floor. Those footings would need to be widened according to him and he fears that they might run into unpleasant surprises if they were to hit the water table.

A builder we consulted said that those concerns could be "engineered around" saying that the second floor could be supported on columns outside the current building's footprint without re-digging the foundation.

Former library board director Arlene Nevens had told the Record that she had been informed that the original plans for the existing building included footings of a dimension that would have supported a second floor in the future. No one is positive as to whether that aspect of the plan was carried out. Certainly, more research into the matter is indicated.

One advantage in a real second floor would be that the main floor would have greater flexibility in design if the constraints of the mezzanine, which is supported by the shelving systems, did not exist.

During the meeting, references were made to that amorphous body, the community and "what the community wants..."

Back in 2005, the Town of North Hempstead spent considerable money and time in bringing the community together for a visioning session regarding the future of the library's Main building. But did everyone read it? We did. The participants praised the staff, the programming, the collection and the "beautiful setting." They were also supportive of the availability of computers, the Internet and access to search the collection from home computers. They liked the fact that we have a library system with branches and the inter-loan system with other libraries.

While the summary does not give the actual number of people who felt one way or another, it does give an overview of what was discussed by the participants.

People were worried about the length of time the library would be closed for modernization. They were concerned about the possible cost and wanted it to be kept "within reason."

They were concerned about the state of the building and were especially adamant that the building be fully accessible to the handicapped, upgraded for energy efficiency and made environmentally safe.

Transportation to the Main library was also felt to be inadequate by some. Many people, according to the report, felt that the library board has been less than transparent in their communications with the public about the issue. Someone even recommended that the board meetings be recorded and televised on the library channel. Some participants felt that the collection has languished in the area of quality research books and is not current for professionals.

Flexibility and multi-functional use of space were major themes of this section. Some were in favor of redesigning and relocating the children's space, the audio-visual department and in more fully utilizing the lower level space. Most were very supportive of enhancing the children's area. There was a strong recommendation for a space designed for group study, a no-shhh zone. People supported a redesign of the parking lot to create more spaces. While everyone was in favor of beefing up the community room, there did not appear to be consensus on the idea of a theatre-like space with a graduated floor.

It was clear to the consultants that community members are in favor of a modernization of the library. Much of this section of the report addressed and advised board members to fully utilize the concerns and wishes of the community and to make the process for decision-making open. They advised that the board take a good hard look at existing space with an eye to how efficiently it is being used. The consultants urge that once these assessments are made, the board will be able to more fully articulate what unmet needs are to be addressed with more space.

They also stated that in order to mitigate community concerns about closure, the board needs to develop a clear plan for the main library location during renovation.

The situation of the falling pieces of concrete from the facia of the Main building as reported on March 8, was not discussed at the building committee meeting; however, we learned that a structural engineer and a contractor have examined the building and have two different recommendations for repair which will be presented to the full board at its next meeting on March 27.

(Editor's note: The Visioning Summary, August 2005, is available at the Main library.)