Opinion: Stop with the Exaggerated Library Repair Costs!

In an attempt to sell the public on the need for a $46.1 million Jones Library renovation and expansion, project proponents have gotten a lot of mileage out of asserting that “It will cost more to repair the library than to renovate and expand.”  However, closer examination reveals that this argument is based on a number of false claims and misstated requirements and has more value as a political slogan than as a decision-making criterion.

The library trustees and likeminded allies often cite a 2017 repair cost estimate by Western Builders, Inc. (WBI) and a 2020 revision by Kuhn Riddle Architects (KRA) that considers the additional cost of meeting ADA code requirements.  These documents are used as evidence that the cost to repair the Jones Library and catch up on ten years of deferred maintenance may exceed $20 million, while pursuing a state-supported plan that demolishes a 30-year-old addition and adds 15,000 sq. ft. will cost the town at most $15.8 million.

In reality, neither of these numbers stand up to scrutiny.  Here’s why.

1. The WBI/KRA repair cost estimates were commissioned by and heavily influenced by the Jones Library.
   
   It is no surprise that the Jones Library would like to maximize the amount of funding it receives from the town, and so the cost estimate is in no way an independent analysis.  It is based on a range of improvements identified by the library as desirable to address as well as more critical needs such as an aging HVAC system.
   
2. Town staff have identified an alternative repair plan that begins with HVAC repair.
   
   In early 2023 the town and library formed a working group to look at a “Plan B” repair path for the building as described in the Library Buildings & Facilities March 21 minutes:
   
   “The Town has formed an internal working group (Jeremiah Leplante, Rob Morra, George [Hicks-Richards], Sharon [Sharry] and Sean Mangano). The group has met serval times over the winter. The HVAC system is the number one priority, if the project does not move forward. The town would hire an engineer to develop a solution for the HVAC system. They would look to move forward with the least expensive option. Sean and Jeremiah will get a quote over the summer.”
   
   Library proponents would prefer to ignore this option which requires less of a financial commitment from the town and have recently succeeded in squelching this effort.
   
3. ADA requirements are overstated.
   
   The KRA report indicates that if repairs cost more than 30% of the assessed value of the building ($23 million in FY24) then state regulations stated in 521 CMR require the project to comply with  Architectural Access Board (MAAB) codes.  However, there are many mitigating factors that reduce the scope of work described in the KRA report.
   
   a.) KRA advises seeking a variance from MAAB requirements, saying on page 8, “Should this work proceed, a variance should be requested on the basis of historical significance.”  Note that the Emily Dickinson Museum conducted a major renovation in 2021 and received a variance for elevator and entrance work.
   
   b.) KRA explains that Massachusetts regulations do not require that staff and private areas be brought into MAAB compliance, but include staff areas in its cost estimate.
   
   c.) Construction of the library’s 1993 addition, slated to be torn down, added the north elevator which is larger than the elevators in both Town Hall and the Bangs Center. The south elevator is non-compliant, but is rendered unnecessary by the north elevator.
   
4. The assumption that all asbestos-containing plaster needs removal runs counter to published guidelines.
   
   The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission declares on its website, “The best thing to do with asbestos material in good condition is to leave it alone!”
   
5. The WBI/KRA cost estimates include no “value management” design cuts aimed at reducing cost.
   
   By contrast, the renovation-expansion design has had nearly $5 million in value engineered out of it due to cost overruns.  These include use of asphalt shingles in place of slate, elimination of low embodied carbon cross-laminated timber (CLT) construction and demolition of priceless historic woodwork in the original 1928 library.
   
6. The Town of Amherst should require that the Jones Library Capital Campaign (JLCC) contribute to repairs with the same commitment it has shown for the renovation-expansion project.
   
   The JLCC claims to have raised $9.6 million in gifts and pledges for the building project.  The Town should insist that the JLCC work on repurposing these funds for repairs in the event the expansion does not go forward.  Jones Library, Inc. should approach fundraising for repairs with the same commitment it has shown for the renovation-expansion or expect a similar lack of commitment from the town.
   
7. The JLCC remains significantly short of raising the library share of the full project cost, representing a serious risk to the town.
   
   As of June 1, 2024, the JLCC remained roughly $6.9 million short of its promise to raise $13.8 million toward the total project cost.  To date the JLCC, which has signed an agreement to remit funds to the Town as they are raised, has only remitted $1.6 million.  If the JLCC ultimately falls short of its fundraising goal, and other library resources are unable meet the gap, the town will need to make up the difference from taxpayer funds.
   
8. Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds could be sought to defray the cost of repairs.
   
   As an historical property on the state and national registers, the Library qualifies for historic preservation funds that could be put toward repairs.  In fact, CPA money has been used to pay for roof and chimney work in the past.
   
9. The latest design cuts seriously degrade the value of what the town will receive for its multi-million dollar investment.
   
   a.) Cost cutting design changes include using less durable asphalt shingles in place of synthetic slate and replacing brick with fiber cement siding which requires periodic maintenance.
   
   b.) Natural light is being sacrificed by the demolition of the current atrium and the elimination of a roof monitor for cost reasons.
   
   c.) Important sustainability features, such as CLT, extra-insulated replacement window sashes and photo-voltaic panels have been dropped, endangering contributions from donors who value green building features.
   
   d.) Finely crafted interior millwork of irreplaceable Philippine mahogany and akle is being ripped out and discarded despite the building’s entry in the state and national historic registers.