Will a landmark lakefront library actually be built in Columbia?

When Howard County Executive Calvin Ball, joined by newly-sworn-in Gov. Wes Moore, unveiled grand and visually dramatic plans for a new Lakefront Library in Columbia in March 2023, the project was hailed as a “renaissance” for Howard County.

Eighteen months later, the fate of the concept is uncertain. Ball has elevated a more modest and affordable alternative at a different location that his office says is a result of a listening process and community survey.

But library system leaders are pushing back, continuing to rally support for the lakefront plan. For now, it appears that no single concept has the support of a majority of the Howard County Council, which approves spending through its annual budget process.

Ball’s office says that “no final decisions have been made” on where to build a new Downtown Columbia library, but confirmed that the lakefront is not the sole choice.

“Following community engagement earlier this year, we are currently evaluating two options of either (1) renovating and expanding the Central Branch Library at the existing library site or (2) locating the library at the lakefront location,” wrote Safa Hira, Director of Communications for Howard County Government. “We remain focused on reaching consensus with the Library System, the Howard County Council, and the parties to the Downtown (development rights agreement) before determining a path forward.”

That consensus has not been easy to come by. Members of the Library Board of Trustees, who are appointed by the Howard County Executive, continue to strongly advocate for the lakefront site. They say that the county executive’s office has moved forward with planning studies for rebuilding at the site of the existing central branch library – less than a half-mile away – without fully including them, and indicated that Ball had been ready recently to announce that the rebuild alternative was the best path forward.

“As we continue to have many questions, we respectfully request that no public announcement is made until we have met to work through the remaining issues,” board chair Liz Banach wrote to Ball in late September. “A rush to announce the site would be premature and unnecessarily throw the community into turmoil.”

How and why did a signature project announced with such fanfare come close to unraveling? The answer lies in part in its proposed costs and a lack of full support among elected leaders in Howard County.

While land for the project at the edge of Lake Kittamaqundi would be donated by the Howard Hughes Corp., Columbia’s master developer and an originator of the lakefront library proposal, the $144 million price tag would be paid by taxpayers. Under the original proposal, Howard Hughes would also manage the construction of a design by Heatherwick Studio. [Baltimore Fishbowl co-owner Ken Ulman runs a consulting firm, Margrave Strategies, that has advised Howard Hughes on the project.]

“The county doesn’t have $144 million to build a library on the lakefront,” County Councilwoman Deb Jung, whose district includes the library site, said in an interview. Jung did not participate in the March 2023 announcment.

That concern was apparent just weeks after the unveiling, when the council reviewed the county executive’s budget and balked at giving it full approval.

Competing surveys

The project did not make it in full into the next year’s budget. The council and executive agreed to a pause to gather community input, and to use $10 million in state grants for planning and design over the next year.

“This funding will allow the county to continue work on the design for the lakefront library project, and engage in discussions with the Howard County Library System, the county council, county residents and all external stakeholders to determine the potential changes that may be made to the project,” Mark Miller, then a spokesman for the County Executive’s Office, told Fishbowl at the time.

Since then, there have been competing studies and surveys – coming from both the county executive’s office and the library system. And they don’t point in the same direction.

Last year, the library board retained Due East Parnters to run engagement sessions and a survey for the lakefront process as well as the current strategic plan, supplementing earlier work by Group 4 Architecture (G4) to update a facilities master plan. Due East Partners and local ganizations gathered opinions from more than 3,000 people.

The county executive enlisted a design consultant, Arcadis, to hold community engagement sessions and survey residents on their thoughts regarding where the new Central Branch should be located.

Results of Ball’s survey ran three pages long, with 1,740 respondents: 1,500 who completed the online survey and 240 who attended in-person and virtual community engagement sessions. Respondents were asked to rank in order of preference five choices for location of a new central library location. Nearly twice as many respondents ranked the existing central library location as their first choice (683) than the Lakefront location (355).

The Library Board of Trustees’ survey results ran 43 pages and cited 3,167 participants in their 2023 survey, and later said that between 2019 and 2023, they and their survey partners have engaged more than 7,000 people. The library board didn’t ask about locations – instead they sought opinions on services provided by a “dream library” and how the library system can “address educational, economic, health and other inequities that limit or harm people’s lives.”

Documents show that only $75 million is now earmarked for a new Downtown Columbia Central Branch library, and it is unclear how and where a housing component would be included as part of the project.

Eariler this year, a group of former members of the Library Board of Trustees penned a letter to the county executive to register their dismay, and to express support for the lakefront plan. Signed by Richard Alexander, Arvell Greenwood, David H. Barrett, and Kenneth M. Jennings, the letter wondered what happened to their “great expectations” after the splashy March 2023 announcement.

“Our library system has a history of excellence and has been regularly recognized nationally for our outstanding initiatives, programs, and early adoption of resource technology and other supports,” they wrote. “The current Central Library does not meet the standards we set. The new Lakefront Library is the answer to our high hopes.”

As Ball inched closer to announcing a rebuild at the existing site this fall, Banach, the chair, wrote to the county executive to also express the board’s concerns.  

The letter expressed skepticism that the $75 million allotted for the project would be enough to “support the relocation of the library during construction, demolition of the existing structure, construction of the new library, and 280 parking spaces.”

Other concerns involved insufficient funding for the increase in staffing required, furnishings, and resources to build a larger library on the current site; lack of space to increase parking; and availability of outdoor space for events and other activities.

A lack of transparency?

Contending that the board’s survey better addressed the needs of the community, and that the board has been “working in good faith with the County to identify an appropriate site for this new building,” Banach wrote that the board “continues to support the Lakefront Library as originally planned.”

Banach also objected to what she called a lack of transparency and communication from the county executive.

“[W]e understand that your office has completed early modeling on the existing site. If site massing, modeling, concepts, or other such information exists, the Board respectfully requests it be shared with Library leadership for the Board’s consideration,” Banach wrote. “As this project moves forward, it is imperative that we convey accurate information to library stakeholders and taxpayers.”

She reiterated the critical role the library board of trustees plays in choosing the location and approving the erection of library buildings, citing their authority while ceding it is “subject to the approval of the county governing body.” Banach again requested the board be included in communications and decisions regarding library building projects.

In a follow up letter dated Sept. 30, 2024, Banach thanked Ball for sending documents and materials, but reiterated the board’s questions about financial and other inconsistencies in Ball’s materials. She again requested “massings, modelings, concepts, and/or renderings to help us understand this new proposal and how the proposed expanded library would fit on the parcel.”

No Council concensus

The Howard County Council still does not have a clear majority of members supporting the Lakefront Library plan as originally proposed, and even those supporting it in the beginning acknowledge the need for further research and the potential need to scale back for budgetary reasons.

Council members Christiana Rigby and Opel Jones are still optimistic about the likelihood it will come to fruition, albeit with potential modifications.

“I’m absolutely supportive of moving it forward, because the facilities plan for the library system has, the need has been demonstrated for a long time, and it’s been part of the downtown plan,” Rigby said in an interview. “So now I think it’s time to move it into reality and create the amenity.”

Rigby agrees that the cost of a proposed garage that is part of the lakefront project is problematic and does not want taxpayers to pay for it. She sees potential for creative solutions, like using other nearby parking, or shared parking agreements. 

“I think most people understand the vision and the economic opportunity that would come from the lakefront library, and there’s the question of, how do you get all your ducks in a row?” Rigby said.

Jones supports the Lakefront Library project moving forward as originally proposed. He acknowledges the possibility it may not come to fruition as originally planned but noted that scenario is very common in projects.

“You have a blueprint,” Jones told Fishbowl. “You have a plan. And then once you get into the nitty gritty of it, and you have your subject matter experts really, really dig down deep on the granular level, maybe you have to scale back on this. So maybe you have to scale back on that.”

Jones said he believes Ball is doing his due diligence to make sure the best tax-payer-funded product is built.

Neither council members Liz Walsh nor David Yungmann responded to Fishbowl’s requests for comment.

Tonya Aikens, Howard County Library System’s president and CEO told Fishbowl in an email that she continues to support the Lakefront Library plans as a worthwhile investment.

“We firmly believe that the best public spaces in our county should be for the community,” Aikens wrote. “The proposed Lakefront Library would not only attract people of all ages but also be an economic driver. As noted in an economic impact report created by the Sage Policy Group, founded and led by highly regarded economist Anirban Basu, ‘…libraries typically generate a return on investment between 400-500 percent on each dollar of taxpayer money invested.’ We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a library of the future that will draw people from across Howard County, the region, and our state.”

Banach expressed optimism in a statement to Fishbowl, pledging to work towards a solution that serves all.

“Libraries are places for people to learn, connect, and grow,” Banach wrote. “The Howard County Library System Board of Trustees remains committed to working with the County Executive and County Council to build the best library for our community that focuses not only on the needs and aspirations of today’s residents but also the next generation.”