Library Trustees Keep Expansion Project on Life Support

Report on the Meetings of the Jones Library Trustees, May 20, 2024 

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.  The recording can be viewed here.

Present
Tamson Ely, Austin Sarat (Chair), Farah Ameen, Lee Edwards, Eugene Goffredo, and Bob Pam

Staff
Sharon Sharry, Library Director

Also
Ellen Anselone and Josephine Penta, Finegold Alexander Architects

Eurene Goffredo recused himself for most of the meeting because his spouse, Ginny Hamilton, is on the payroll of the Jones capital campaign.

25 members of the public were present, nine of whom asked to speak during public comment.

Jones Library Trustees Meeting, May 20, 2024
The main item on the agenda was consideration of a motion to send a letter to the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC), asking them to extend their funding deadline. The MBLC grant of $15.3 million to the town stipulates that construction for the library demolition/expansion project begin by June 30, 2024.  The Trustees voted 4-1 with Bob Pam dissenting to approve sending the letter requesting the extension though the contents of the letter were not discussed nor available in the meeting packet. 

Public Comment preceded the vote.  Supporters of the library project endorsed the effort to seek more attractive bids in the fall and praised the trustees for efforts to keep the demolition/expansion project alive in the face of escalating costs. Critics of the project asked what keeping the project alive for another six months would cost (estimates have been over $100,000/month) and how would those costs be covered?  Those questions were not addressed by the committee.

Discussion of the Motion to Seek an Extension
Trustee Chair Austin Sarat said that receiving this extension would allow the board to move forward with their renovation and expansion plan. He anticipates sending the project out for rebidding in September 2024. Town Manager Paul Bockelman rejected the lone bid received by the town fulfilling a request for that action from the Jones Trustees.  Sarat said that between now and the September call for new bids, the Trustees would work with Jones Library Building Committee to change the design to reduce costs, acknowledging that it is unlikely that any design changes could reduce the costs significantly. The hope, he said, is that “changes to the design might bring in more competitive bids which could close the gap between what is budgeted and what the project actually will cost.” However, there was no discussion of what those changes to the design might entail or how they might contribute to enticing lower bids. 

Sarat noted that the lone bid came in at about 18% (or $7.2 million) over the projected cost.  Library Director Sharon Sharry added that the subcontracting bids came in $64,000 lower than anticipated, but Bob Pam noted that the total for subcontractor bids did not include the costs of elevators for which no sub-bids were received.

Pam continued, “We want the costs of the project to go down but we also need to raise more money to make this work.  How is this playing out in the capital campaign?” he asked.

Lee Edwards responded, “If this motion passes and if negotiations with the MBLC go forward then the capital campaign will vigorously seek more pledges before new bids come in.”

Pam responded, “In the past, one of the explanations we’ve been offered for the slow rate of contributions is the uncertainty shadowing the project.  The uncertainty will continue to shadow the project as we don’t know how the new bids will sort out.  Is there any reason to believe that the uncertainty won’t impact fundraising efforts?” he asked.

Edwards responded that the trustees will urge the capital campaign “to pull all the stops out to collect statements of intention, because the more commitments we have, the more likely it is that the project will go forward.”

Will Getting More Bids Lower Project Costs?
The ensuing discussion focused on the theory that bringing in more bids would lower project costs. Why only one bid was received in the previous solicitation was not discussed, other than a suggestion that it might have been the result of seeking bids during the busy “summer slam season.” 

Sarat repeated the assertion from the trustees that a single bid tends to drive the cost up 20% and claimed that “if we can get more bids it is likely that the project cost will go down.” This assertion was challenged by Maria Kopicki during public comment (see below).

Anselone said that cost estimators for the project based their estimate on anticipating receiving five bids. When fewer bids are received the costs tend to go up and this happens industry-wide, she said. Absent competition, the project is going to cost more, she said. Notably, at the May 7 building committee meeting, Tim Alix from Colliers, the Owner’s Project Manager said “we pre-qualified six General Contractors. Sometimes people pre-qualify to keep their options open and don’t necessarily intend a bid. So we would not have expected, and I would be shocked and amazed, if we pre-qualified six General Contractors and actually received six bids. That would be very, very unusual. If we were to get three to four bids I would say we were doing great; two to three would be typical. We only got one which is unfortunate and unusual.” 

Sarat said that the Building Committee was going to make a purposeful effort to encourage more contractors to bid on the project but no one asked what that might entail. He added that the MBLC does not allow the square footage to decrease or the programming to change, implying that changes would have to come from elsewhere. He later hinted that perhaps just changing the timing of requests for bids might bring in more bidders which then might result in lower project costs. 

Pam expressed doubts.  He said “When someone is trying to sell a house, the wisdom is that you do it in the spring – because that’s when most people are looking to move. We put our project out in the spring because that’s when work is lined up by construction firms. If we put this out in the fall, will all of our prequalified bidders already have a full slate of jobs?

Sarat thought that asking for bids in September might be even better timing.

Anselone added “Our independent estimators suggested that there is less of a crunch for contractors in the fall. Summer months are crazy with all of the college campus and school contracts.”

Edwards wanted to know how the plans might be modified and whether those modifications will be fully in the plans going out to bid so there won’t be a lot of addenda this time around.

Anselone responded that there are always questions from potential bidders and those will be responded to in addenda but there will be no new specs going out as there were the last time, implying that no design changes would, in fact, be incorporated into the new bid package.

Pam wanted to know how substantial the anticipated redesigns would be and what they will cost.

Sarat said, “we don’t know but we hope that the changes will be sufficiently significant to save a substantial amount of money.”

Edwards wanted to know if the MBLC would likely be amenable to an extension and Sharry assured her that she had already broached this with the MBLC and that they want the project to move forward.

Public Comment
Clare Bertrand thanked the Trustees for keeping the project alive.  She said that the increasing expense “is just a bump in the road” and that she believes that the people of Amherst want this project to move forward.  “The town voted for this”, she said “and costs have gone up across the board.”

Jeff Lee asked how much the new design work will cost and who will be paying for it?  “The town has already incurred a significant cost for moving the project forward.” he said.  He also asked to see the proposed letter to the MBLC and wanted to know why it was not in the packet.  

Pam Rooney shared Lee’s concern about the costs of redesign. She also questioned whether the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the town and trustees needs to be restructured,

Letitia LaFollette said she was speaking for her entire family, including District 3 Town Councilor George Ryan. She repeated that  “there was a town-wide vote in favor of this” and that the added expense was “just a bump in the road,”  so the town should not give up.

Kelly Erwin thanked the trustees for keeping the project going.

Arlie Gould said that she recognized possible benefits of moving forward but also benefits to shifting to a more modest project of repair and restoration.  She said she believes that by moving forward with the project, the town would be taking on too much risk.

Maria Kopicki told the board that they should not be voting on a recommendation to seek an extension when they don’t know the cost or who will pay for it. She added that “we don’t even know who is responsible for the money that has already been spent on keeping the project going. How can you direct folks to move forward when you don’t have a plan?“  She pointed out that in believing that bringing in more bids would drive down the costs, the trustees were confusing correlation for causation. “The cost was not $7.2 million over estimates because you only had one bid;  You only got one bid because the project is so expensive,” she stated.

Kent Faerber, Chair of the Friends of the Jones Library, strongly supported the request for extension and proposed rebid process.  He said, “More bids and changes in the plan and more fundraising offer us an opportunity. If the project is abandoned right now, the town will be wondering 10 years up the road why we left them with unresolved problems. The Police Station and High School were considered extravagant at the time and proved to be worth it. We ought to pull out all of the stops to make this happen.”

Prior to the vote, Pam asked to make a statement.  He then read a prepared statement in which he argued that the expansion project was no longer viable. He said that he hoped that the capital campaign would have come forward with a lot more money by now and that he saw no possibility of the project becoming affordable.  He urged the committee to not seek the extension and to dedicate their efforts to a more modest and affordable repair and restoration. He noted that redesign expenses for the rebid would cost $250,000 or more.  (Design expenses of the last several months have average over $100,000/month). New contributions from December to May totaled $425,000,  of which $250,000 came from Amherst College.  Local, non-institutional gifts are averaging $25,000 per month but, he said, the project needs four times that to meet its goals, and with the anticipated increased costs, the monthly requirement has at least doubled.  “What will change for the capital campaign in the next six months?” he asked.  “Relying on bidders to reduce the cost of the project is just unrealistic. The risk to the library’s endowment and to the town is considerable.”  

Pam then condemned a letter that had been widely circulated by a consultant to the library that disparaged critics of the project as liars and bullies. He said, “We can’t ignore or silence those voices that have concerns, or disparage those who don’t want the project to move forward.”  He asked the Trustees to make an explicit statement disavowing  the letter and such tactics, but the Trustees did not respond to this suggestion.

Sarat did say, “I believe that we have listened respectfully and have not been dismissive in any way.” He added, “If we abandon the project we abandon the needs of teens, children, English language learners, and diversity in the community. So we will seek a less costly way to make this happen. We need to determine the best way to make this project work.”

Pam reported that the current value of the Jones Library endowment is 8.9 million.