Randall Smathers
By Polly Mikula
Plans to move Rutland Free Library out of downtown, and relocate it to the former College of St. Joseph (CSJ) campus, have fallen through — at least for now.
Library trustees had hoped to buy the former college library building from Heartland Development, which plans to acquire much of the former campus from Heritage Family Credit Union and build a senior living facility. It is projected to cost $50 million.
Months after announcing the potential arrangement, Heartland representatives informed library leaders on Wednesday, March 10, that the deal was off.
“Yesterday, Heartland Developments informed Rutland Free Library that we were no longer welcome as part of their planned development on the former CSJ campus, citing concerns that we would be used as a lever to slow down their Act 250 process,” library leaders wrote in a statement, Thursday.
Stuart Mills, managing partner for Heartland Development, spoke to the Chamber and Economic Development of the Rutland Region (CEDRR) board and committees on Thursday evening, presenting detailed plans for the senior living campus. After the presentation, Mills opened the forum up to questions and the conversation quickly turned to the library and why the developers had rescinded its welcome.
“It’s a very tough question,” Mills answered. “We have been working with the library for some time, but we have not completed an arrangement with them. If you’re familiar with the opposition to the library move, it’s very vocal and now organized and it’s threatening the senior care project, which is really what we do. We were trying to help out by working with the library because it would be a great amenity for seniors there but it’s not to be at this point because of the possible opposition that could scuttle the senior care project,” he said.
Rutland City Alderman Tom Depoy reacted to the news vocally and directly, calling the opposition’s threats “extortion, plain and simple.”
“I’m having a lot of problems here because I’ve been very involved in the St. Joe’s library facility coming to the city and I’ve been looking forward very much to yourself and your organization being a neighbor of the city library’s, like at the gymnasium there in the athletic center,” Depoy said to Mills. “Now I’m having some really serious doubts about backing Heartland at this point because I just heard you say that you can be extorted by people who don’t want the library… As the committee chair for recreation I’ve been through that budget for the library for 14 years now and then eight years in the state legislature before, and I am disgusted to hear you say that [the library is no longer welcomed on the campus] because somebody has threatened you.”
Depoy implored Mills to reconsider and to seek help from the city and its aldermen, in similar ways as the developer has done when it has come to “safety permits and stuff,” Depoy noted.
“It’s absolutely disheartening from my perspective, as the second most leading alderman on the board in this city to hear you say something like that — that you are going to back away from the library project. I’ve stayed very quiet about the library project moving over there because I want the people of the city and the board — especially the library — to figure this out and do what’s best for the library and funding… you know when I look at it from a physical standpoint, from the financial dollars and cents, it makes a lot of sense to put that library over there with the city’s athletic facility. People weren’t crying about that athletic facility going in over there and it’s in the same spot we were talking about! … For the library to no longer be going over there because somebody has whispered that they’re going to … you know … it doesn’t sound right to me,” Depoy concluded passionately.
Lyle Jepson, director of CEDRR and the moderator of the meeting, rephrased Depoy’s frustration, posing it as a question to Mills: “The question, as I heard it, was: would you reconsider the library’s relocation to the campus in the future, perhaps? And would you like the city’s assistance?”
Mills answered: “I’d love, absolutely love, for the library to be in the college library. I agree it’s the best place for it. We want it there… I’m not going to speak too much about it. We’ve been advised that if we continue with the library, the senior care project could be delayed for two years, so we’ve been advised that we needed to hold on the library.
“If the opposition to the library can be satisfied in some way and let it go, we may reconsider because we want it there,” Mills continued. “We’ve spent months planning it and connecting our building to it, remodeling it, etc… The library board has been working incredibly hard to put it all together, too,” he said, acknowledging the extensive planning that has gone into the arrangement.
“I don’t understand how this opposition gets generated and what its purpose is,” Mills continued. “I had even talked to the mayor about the library building and it seemed we had come up with a creative reuse for a win-win, but because the opposition noise got so great, we made this decision. I wish I could just finish by saying: we were 100% behind having the library move to the campus.”
Depoy responded: “I’m sorry I came off so strong there but it just sounded to me like you’re backing off this because somebody is threatening you and that’s extortion plain and simple. So if somebody’s going to extort you, you need to come to the city, which is very much in favor of this project. We can help find a solution. No one should come in and screw your Act 250 permits. That’s not going to fly… It’s extortion,” he said.
In addition to the mayor, the vast majority of the city aldermen — conservative and progressive — have expressed support for the relocation, understanding the cost savings to city taxpayers and improved library services.
The library is a private organization, but the library building is owned by the city.
When asked if he’d be interested in having a meeting with the city and/or its aldermen to talk about reconsidering the library move, Mills answered: “Absolutely.”
In addition to city leaders, Randal Smathers, the director of the Rutland Public Library, said public support for the library move far outweighs those against it, especially among those actually holding library cards. But the opposition has been loud, he said. Most of the people who didn’t want to see the library move from 10 Court St. had a sentimental attachment to the current building and cited concerns about moving the library out of downtown, both valid concerns that Smathers and the library board considered deeply while weighing the pros and cons of their choice.
Library leaders ultimately decided that the more modern library building at CSJ (just 1.8 miles away from the current site) was preferable because it had many of the modern facilities on the board’s wish list at a much lower cost — just $1.2 million, money the library had saved without needing help from taxpayers.
“As the region attempts to attract young families, it’s worth noting that almost everyone under 35 and those with children are in favor of the new location,” he said. “The process also brought out people who don’t or can’t use the current building, in far larger numbers than we expected. It’s clear the status quo is not working.”
Smathers admitted he was disappointed by the news that the campus might no longer be available to them, but said no formal deal with Heartland had been struck so this was always a possibility.
“We didn’t walk away from the college library option, the option walked away from us,” said Smathers said Monday, March 15. “We’ve been really clear that we do not have a deal, and we never had a deal,” he said. “There were exactly zero papers signed… but we had lawyers helping us to finalize details of an arrangement and we had planned to sign an agreement soon,” he added.
“It was very clear to us that the former CSJ library space could provide a much better library experience now and for the future of our patrons for a much lower cost to city taxpayers than any other alternative at 10 Court Street,” he said.
Heartland’s decision is “out of our control, at this point,” he continued, “but the Library remains keenly interested in the property, should the Heartland deal fail to materialize or circumstances change and they invite us back.”
While Heritage Family Credit Union sold the CSJ gym to the city for use as a recreation center, the credit union was not interested in subdividing the property further, so the library was unable to buy the building separately. Instead it planned to purchase 28,000 square feet of the former CSJ library from Heartland directly.
Reconsidering renovation
Smathers has been the primary person in charge of maintaining the present library building structurally for the past eight years, as assistant director then director.
“It’s been an ongoing challenge,” he said of the building constructed in 1858 to be a post office and a courthouse. “What we’re going to do about the building has been on my desk literally every day,” he said, from dealing with ongoing maintenance in an historic building — including things like replacing a portion of the ceiling that collapsed in the Fox Room — to revising potential plans for an improved library experience that meets the needs of city patrons for decades to come.
In researching what it would take to renovate the current building, the library trustees and library director had an estimate procured for a wishlist of 21st century offerings. The projected cost was $7-$11 million, which was much too high to consider, Smathers said.
The board then trimmed its wishlist for the renovation down to an estimated $1.5 million, but those cuts eliminated much of what the board thought would make the renovation exciting and worthwhile to patrons.
“We’re sitting here saying, ‘Do we put that kind of money into this building that we don’t even own, and not get even half the list of what we really want to do for the future of the community?” Sharon Courcelle, president of the library board, said before Heartland pulled away from the plan.
Over the past year, Smathers and the board have heard many opinions about what people want from their city library. Through that process, it’s become clear that the $1.5 million renovation plan for 10 Court St. isn’t going to cut it.
Smothers said not many people had complained about the current library until he announced the plans to move on Dec. 7, 2020. “To hear from so many parents that they are not bringing their children to the library because they really dislike the building and the amenities that we are able to offer — I looked at the plans that we had drawn up, and now I’m really glad we did not spend that million and a half dollars,” he said. “Clearly, those plans don’t go far enough.”
Smathers said now everything is back on the table — from the possibility of federal grant money, to a new renovation plan, to the CSJ campus library becoming an option in the future (if either the Heartland deal falls through or if the developer reconsiders welcoming the library back at some point).
For now, the board will continue to maintain the current building and look to update its renovation plans based on the new feedback it’s received from the public.
For Smathers, the options at 10 Court St. present a conundrum. Bringing the current library up to offer 21st Century services must be balanced with what such a project will cost. Smathers reiterated his concern about competing with other nonprofits in the Rutland area. “I know there’s great need and I know there’s only so much money to go around,” he said. “This concern wasn’t made up as a selling point for the new location, these are very real considerations we’re going to have to make for any renovation to 10 Court St.,” he said.
“To be absolutely clear: The campus would be the best place in greater Rutland to reach the most people with the most library services,” the statement put out by the library Thursday concluded.
Emma Cotton/VTDigger contributed to this reporting.
