By Jack Churchill

For The Beachcomber

In weighing cost considerations of alternative library locations, it is necessary to include all the costs — not just the estimated construction costs. The Beachcomber editorial two weeks ago stated the King County Library System (KCLS) board of trustees must be guided by the available capital budget plus possible grants in awarding building contracts.

But the total costs, which include measuring social costs and benefits to actual library users, must be seriously considered in the library relocation decision.

What has been missing in the discussion by the central library staff so far is consideration of these social costs. That is why I have requested the KCLS board to reopen its Vashon Library Community Study to survey cost to users of a location change.

This 2007 original survey of actual library users formed the basis for architectural design. What was not surveyed were the users’ locational needs and preferences. The recent mail survey will give a good view of those responding, but library decision-makers need a detailed survey of actual library users.

Welfare economics provides a benefit and cost approach to estimate the true cost of a specific decision. The KCLS board uses this analysis when it justifies cost and benefits of its services to the taxpayer.

It must also consider the social costs and benefits in the Vashon Library location decision.

Like other economic forecasts, including architects’ costs estimates, you have to make certain assumptions. Moving the library would cost each town center user $75 a year to travel by bus or automobile to a K2 location.

I assume there are 500 library users out of the 12,000 registered users like myself who live in the village and use the library an average of three times a week.

This would cost users $37,500 each year. Capitalized over 30 years at a 3 percent inflation rate, the cost impact would be $2,191,000. If capitalized at a more realistic figure of 5 percent, it would cost $3.13 million.

In addition, a one-mile increase in distance traveled would greatly reduce the frequency of use by village residents. One very conservative cost indication would be if we assume that each of our 500 users walked to a village bookstore twice a month and bought one secondhand book for $5. The annual cost would be $12,000, or more than $1 million if capitalized over 30 years.

I do not see a large social benefit to non-resident village library users in a K2 location. There is, of course, a very substantial direct private benefit to the developer in providing him with an anchor tenant for his development.

These rough estimates need to be refined by actual data similar to that collected in the 2007 library user survey.

Since the library board justifies its delivery of services with the total social costs and benefits approach, it behooves them to require the same method in costing the relocation decision.

— Jack Churchill is a retired political economist and a 10-year resident of Vashon.