Repeated Rejections of Library Funding From State Historic Commission Were Hidden From Town Council and the Public
Historic Jones Library (1932) Source: joneslibrary.org
The Jones Library Director, other library officials, and top town government officials delayed public acknowledgement of repeated failures of efforts to obtain $2 million in state historic tax credits (HTC) for the Jones Library demolition/expansion project. Details of these efforts were obtained via public record requests by the Indy. Repeated requests for comment to library director Sharon Sharry have gone unanswered.
The withheld information would have been relevant at several decision points in the project’s long history including the Town Council vote to authorize an additional $10 million in borrowing in December 2023 and the Council’s narrow defeat in June 2024 of a motion to deny an extension for project rebidding. The Massachusetts HIstorical Commission’s (MHC) finding that the project violated 5 of 10 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties would also have been relevant to decisions of the Amherst Historic Commission (AHC) about the library’s historic preservation restriction agreement in September and October 2023.
Communications among members of the project team demonstrate Jones Library Trustee President Austin Sarat and Amherst Town Manager Manager Paul Bockelman were aware of the failed state applications prior to Town Council and AHC actions on the project. Nate Malloy, Senior Planner and staff liaison to the AHC, was also aware of the letters from the MHC.
The library project team has applied for historic tax credits four times: in April 2023, August 2023, February 2024, and April 2024. Each time, the MHC has rejected those applications because of the violations of federal standards for historic rehabilitation. Nonetheless, the $2 million in historic tax credits have been repeatedly included in reports of funds raised.
First Application/Rejection
Each application for HTC must be accompanied by a letter of support from the local historic commission. Because of problems achieving quorum, the AHC did not meet to discuss the letter for the April 2023 application. Instead, on April 4 Sharry told Sarat, the HTC consultants (Epsilon), members of the capital campaign, and the project designers from Finegold Alexander Architects (FAA) that “Nate [Malloy] would LOVE a rough draft of a letter of support” which was then circulated among that group and then passed along to Malloy and Bockelman. The letter was sent from AHC Chair Robin Fordham to the MHC on April 28 “to express support on behalf of the Amherst Historical Commission” despite the fact that the AHC had not discussed or deliberated on the historic tax credits yet. In May, Sharry excitedly reported to Epsilon that “The chair of the AHC signed the letter!!!!!!!!!!!” earning the response, “This is great news! So they ended up signing a letter based on the presentation from several years ago?” Sharry confirmed, “Yes! [smiley face emoji]”
In June of that year, library Capital Campaign Manager Ginny Hamilton informed state elected officials Mindy Domb and Jo Comerford and Amherst Town Council President Lynn Griesemer that they “anticipate that we will be rejected in this first round” but expected to succeed in subsequent applications.
On August 18, 2023, the MHC rejected the first application stating, “Because the application is incomplete, the MHC is unable to determine whether the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, which is a requirement of the historic rehabilitation tax credit law and regulations.” Project consultants hired to prepare and submit these applications (Epsilon) emailed Capital Campaign member Matt Blumenfeld and Sharry on August 21 implying that approval in the next application was likely after additional documentation related to proof of revenue was delivered. No explanation was offered or requested as to why the required documentation had not been included in the original submission. Trustee President Sarat was notified by Sharry in an August 21, 2023 email with the subject “April 1, 2023 MA Historic Tax Credits Rejection Letter” and the message “What’s next? [smiley face emoji]”.
Second Application/Rejection
A second application was submitted in August 2023. On August 4, Sharry asked Malloy, “Can we get an updated letter of support? Same words, just a new date.” Fordham again sent a letter of support on behalf of the AHC on August 28 without the AHC having discussed it at a public meeting. The AHC held public hearings regarding demolition approval for the 1993 addition to the Jones and historic preservation in September and October. No mention was made at that time of the failed first application or recently submitted second application; the AHC approved the demolition and found no problems with the project with respect to historic preservation.
On November 22, 2023, the MHC notified Sharry, and the Amherst Historic Commission of their concerns about planned loss of historic fabric, visibility of the new addition from the south, replacement of real slate with synthetic slate, and demolition of parts of the 1928 building. The letter also noted that a Section 106 process would be required for the project. Sharry attached this letter to a December 1 email to Sarat letting him know about the second application submittal. She also told him that they expected to receive formal responses from the MHC regarding the first two applications by late December, less than two weeks from the scheduled Town Council vote. This email was forwarded to Capital Project Manager Bob Peirent on December 5.
These email communications show that both Sharry and Sarat were aware that $2 million in historic tax credits were tenuous BEFORE the Town Council took its vote to authorize up to $46.1 million in debt for the project. This information was not shared with the public nor included in the council’s December 18 packet.
These email communications show that both Sharry and Sarat were aware that $2 million in historic tax credits were tenuous BEFORE the Town Council took its vote to authorize up to $46.1 million in debt for the project. This information was not shared with the public nor included in the council’s December 18 packet.
On December 29, 2023 the MHC rejected the second application citing violations of multiple standards of the Secretary of Interior for Historic Preservation. Meanwhile, the project was sent out to bid on January 10, 2024 with an original due date of March 6. However, the bidding process stretched out with multiple revisions to the bid documents and extensions of due dates until the general contractor bids were finally set to be due on April 26, 2024.
Third Application/Rejection
Sharry began asking for the requisite AHC letter of support for a third application on December 15, 2023, before the Town Council vote on borrowing. On the day after the Town Council vote, Malloy shared the November letter from MHC (noting their concerns about how the project would have negative historic impacts) with Chair Fordham and Vice Chair Madeline Helmer.
The AHC met on January 8 to discuss the planned changes to the interior of the 1928 building but neither the November or December letters from the MHC or the two rejections were shared with the commission or public at that time. On January 9, Vice Chair Helmer sent the third letter of support to the MHC with the same language as the first two letters.
On January 22, Sarat and Bockelman were notified by Sharry via email that the second HTC application had been rejected and that plans were being made to support a third application by recruiting others to lobby in its favor. She reported that the following actions were planned: Library Trustee Lee Edwards, via contact with UMass leadership, was to pursue Secretary of State Galvin’s support; State Representative Mindy Domb was to lobby MHC Executive Director Brona Simon to change her mind about the adverse effects noted in their assessment; Hamilton was to contact the NEH because if this agency were to “determine there are no adverse effects, [it] would help secure our federal funding; not sure how this would help or hurt the MHTC [tax credit] effort. Once we submit our 2 responses, we will ask NEH to call MHC to advocate for us.”
The third application was sent to the MHC on February 8, 2024 including library team comments on the concerns noted by the MHC in previous applications. On April 26, the MHC rejected the third application. Sharry emailed Sarat on April 29 to tell him and said that a fourth application had been sent (see below).
Sole Bid Exceeds Debt Authorization
On April 26, a lone general contractor bid was received for the project which was almost $7 million higher than the authorized borrowing amount. In response, the library team sought an extension from the MBLC (Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners) in order to pursue rebidding in the hopes of achieving a lower bid through “value engineering” and increasing contractor interest in the project. On June 3, District 1 Town Councilor Cathy Schoen brought a motion to advise Town Manager Bockelman to not authorize this action. It was narrowly defeated 6-7.
At no point during the deliberations did Sharry, Sarat, Bockelman, Malloy, Edwards, or any member of the Capital Campaign or design team make the Town Council or public aware of the three failed HTC applications. Despite the diminishing odds of obtaining the state tax credits, these funds were still included without caveats in public documents regarding the status of the project.
Fourth Application
The fourth application was sent on April 30. On July 15, Sharry told Bockelman and Sarat that the first three applications had been rejected and that they were awaiting a response on the fourth. Then, in an August 23 email to Helmer, Bockelman, and Sarat, Sharry reported that the fourth application had been rejected on August 14 stating “That’s when we finally completely understood that the MHC was done with our project.”
Further Revelations Possible
Communications received by the Indy so far have revealed that Library Director Sharry, Jones Trustee President Sarat, and Town Manager Bockelman have withheld critical information about the status of historic tax credits from the public, the Town Council, and other town boards and committees as they deliberated and took action based on incomplete information. Record requests have only been partially fulfilled to date. This story will be updated as more information becomes available.
The proverb, “a fish rots from the head down” comes to mind.
At least now I have a better understanding of the apparent support from the principals above to the egregious public behavior towards fellow citizens from zealous library supporters.
Dear Detractors: No one ever counted on the historic tax credits to go ahead with this project. In addition, the amount of money that is being asked from the town hasn’t changed since the $15.8 dollars was awarded in 2021. With schools receiving a 6% budget increase this year and building a $97 million dollar elementary school, the library project is an excellent value.
It seems like that the group authoring this misleading article is against providing an updated library for the 23%* of the Amherst residents who have incomes below the poverty line and have no where else to go for the technology and resources that will be available for free. Further, it seems like this group is taking punitive action against the 20.8% of Amherst residents who speak a language other than English in their homes by denying them an up to date space for ESL classes. in Fact, this project will help every underserved group in this town. It will help elderly people living on fixed incomes to continue to read more books. It will provide spaces for meetings and lectures. It will have a well-lit space for teens. And the list goes on.
Are the purported good intentions of those responsible for this article hurting the people in this town who need the library the most? Why does this group think their needs are more important than any other people’s in this town. Instead of complaining and making an issue of irrelevant facts, you should join the trustees, friends, and those committed to support the library through donations to make this a great resource for generations to come. Thank you for your consideration.
*Statistics courtesy of data on mass.gov.
I will happily donate generously to a right-sized library project that will preserve and repair the beautiful historic building, but not to this oversized barn-like addition.
Amherst’s people unwittingly compelled to pay lobbyists who persuade those in positions of power to ignore facts?
In some contexts such reality denial can be entertaining, as when one imagines a universe where massive bodies occasionally repel instead of attract each other (so jumping from the Earth to the Moon sometimes works late on a Monday evening).
But that kind of behavior is beyond absurd when it comes to the people’s business: blithely ignoring the law here will change more than just the force of gravity from attractive to repulsive….
I don’t think this is bad actually. Many grants get rejected and never reported. Here’s the thing I don’t understand—why are we spending money to preserve the library part that doesn’t matter—the facade/woodwork? Who cares? Let’s get an affordable library that works for staff and clients. I’m happy to reject historical $ if it means we get a functional library.
Also, I wish the library supporters could find a way to better embrace the rest of the town. I wish there was less anger here and more leadership to bring people in.
Thanks for reading, Ms Perlbinder. To be clear, this article was not authored by a group but by an individual – me. It was based on findings from a records request initiated because no answers had been given by elected and appointed officials or town employees to repeated questions from the public at numerous meetings as to who was aware of communications about historic tax credits prior to deliberations and votes by several municipal bodies that affected the course of this project. Knowledge of the repeated rejections of a funding source that would result in an increase of the burden to fundraising and ultimately the town, and the reasons for those rejections, was relevant to those decisions and yet was not provided.
So much name-calling by supporters of the project…running out of arguments I guess.
The soon to be vacant Wildwood School would serve as an excellent “Community Center” to meet the needs of the underserved population mentioned in Lisa’s comment above. Wildwood also has a food preparation infrastructure, walkable access from the middle and high schools, closer access to the two adjacent schools IT resources, outdoor fields to host “community and sports events”and ample parking. Let’s add Amherst Senior’s needs to Lisa’s list. Wildwood is a ground floor building that would be wonderful for Seniors too. Add Wildwood to the bus route and it would be accessible to all.
Credit where credit is due, Lisa, please!
Town Manager Paul Bockelman, Library Trustee President Austin Sarat and the then-Board of Library Trustees, and Library Director Sharon Sharry failed to comply in 2016 (yes, 2016) with their obligations, under Massachusetts law, for the historic preservation of the historic Jones Library. If they’d done their job then, it is fair to say that we would not be having this conversation now, 8 years later, about their failure to comply as well with the analogous federal historic preservation law.
You are concerned about the burden of resulting costs on people who need the Jones Library the most?
This stellar management team has just devoted more than half a million dollars to changing their project’s plans to accommodate so-called “Value Engineering,” while making NO changes to avoid, minimize, or mitigate what it well knew were its plan’s violations of historic preservation law. Yet in just a few days, on September 25, they plan to send these violation-ridden plans out to bid yet again.
The Town’s required Section 106 historic preservation review will doubtless result in even more changes to these plans. Such changes might be major. One violation that the Massachusetts Historical Commission identified is the removal of two original, wooden staircases. Another is the removal of some original interior walls.
At the Jones Library Building Committee meeting this past week, however, Trustee President Austin Sarat said that they will not redesign the plans to accommodate any required changes, but will simply issue “change orders.” Really? A single change in construction plans can easily require a cascade of additional changes. This team should make full disclosure at once to any contractor preparing to bid: it will very likely issue “change orders” even before the start of demolition/construction, whether before or after the Town awards the bid.
Contractors charge more for each “change order,” as they must. How is this going to keep costs in line?
This management team has proven, again and again, that it cannot manage to fulfill one exceedingly clear, mandatory aspect of planning for its project. As Maria Kopicki’s detailed article shows above, this team also evinces a disturbing willingness to conceal its failures from the elected officials who are ultimately responsible, and who must vote to borrow to pay the bills. No one seems to be consulting the Amherst residents stuck with paying them.
Does Town Council really want another three or four years of this team’s failure, concealment, revelation, and cost increase? Or does it make more sense to cancel this project now, and go to Plan B repairs and upgrades?
As someone who opposes the present expansion/demolition plan for the Jones Library as oversized, historically disastrous, unaffordable, and environmentally unfriendly, I take offense at being labelled as “against providing an updated library for the 23%* of the Amherst residents who have incomes below the poverty line and have no where else to go for the technology and resources that will be available for free,” and “taking punitive action against the 20.8% of Amherst residents who speak a language other than English in their homes by denying them an up to date space for ESL classes.” And I fail to understand how the proposed plan provides the elderly with the opportunity to “read more books” than the present library. Attempts to paint opponents to the present library plan as elitist, ageist and bigoted are deplorable.
A plan to restore the Jones Library’s interior (which has suffered from years of deferred maintenance), replace the HVAC system, repair the leaky roof, replace old windows with energy-efficient ones, and to make better use of the many underused spaces in the current building, would in no way deprive all members of the public with access to IT, resources, and ESL instruction. Existing IT and ESL resources can be upgraded and expanded without adding 15,000 square feet of space to the library. The present library can be made to serve all these needs at a cost that won’t make other town priorities (repairing existing school buildings, new DPW facility and fire station, for example) out of reach.
Anita Sarro has kindly informed me that change orders happen only AFTER a contract is signed. She adds that a change order is an amendment to a signed contract that alters the scope of the project. It usually happens after work has already begun and unforeseen circumstances occur.
Well, a number of people certainly foresee this circumstance! But: Will the Town let potential bidders in on it on September 25th? That would be full disclosure, and fair. Springing it on them a few months from now would scarcely be — how shall I put this? Ah — best practice.
Please forgive me for bit more reality-checking here:
Aren’t many of the second commenter’s cited “23% of the Amherst residents who have incomes below the poverty line and have no where else to go for the technology and resources that will be available for free” actually college or university students, with “tech” access through their institutions?
And given an average annual Amherst property tax bill now well over $8,000 per year, how exactly will spending many tens of millions of dollars extra on principal and interest* for a project that fails to comply with both Commonwealth and Federal law “help elderly people living on fixed incomes to continue to read more** books”?
*Which works out to many hundreds of dollars higher annual tax bills for each household….
**Besides the North Amherst and Munson Memorial Libraries, the informal system of “little libraries” around town has been a great resource for “light reading” (and the University’s libraries are open to all as well).
Absolutely nobody likes being mislead.
My contractor and engineering friends tell me that change orders are major sources of income for their firms. They usually result from unforeseen circumstances that arise during construction after a contract is signed. Since it is difficult to change contractors for a partially-built project, the costs are controlled by the builder and borne by the owner—here, the Amherst taxpayer. One prays that cost overruns due to unforeseen circumstances have been built into the contracted price!
Is the Jones Library construction project a “public construction project”? Hmmm.
“While there is no statute that establishes a change order dollar threshold for public construction procurements, based on our interpretation of case law in this area, and in upholding the integrity of the bid laws, the Office of the MA Attorney General has established a general rule regarding change orders on public construction projects.
That is, if the value of the contract is increased by change orders totaling more than 20% (cumulatively), then the extra work should be bid out.”
That instructive little gem is from “Public Construction Bidding in Massachusetts – Frequently Asked Questions” https://www.mass.gov/doc/read-the-faqs/download (p. 25).
Lisa Perlbinder says the article is “misleading.” Could Ms. Perlbinder please explain what is misleading about the article? Thank you.
It certainly does not seem as though Mr Bockelman is acting in the best interests of all residents of the town. Transparency is important. For him to appear to be plotting with the head of the library and the head of the library trustees, to keep important information about a multi million dollar project secret not only from residents but also from town councilors does not engender trust. Also, as anyone who has completed a home renovation project knows, change orders can significantly increase the cost of a project. To plan on making change orders because you have not sent out a comprehensive proposal for bid is fiscally irresponsible.
Do Amherst people not realize that much of this is simply WRONG? Where is this town’s moral compass?
Time to STOP and straighten out this mess.
Perhaps this is a good time, while Amherst has a building project that is going less than smoothly, to suggest that Amherst create a standing building committee.
Many Mass. cities and towns have such a building committee. Instead of constantly losing the hard won experience each project brings we would preserve this experience and handle ensuing projects better and better.
Temporary project members can be brought into the committee to bring in the specific needs of the department that will be using the new building. If there might be neighborhood concerns an abutter could added to the committee and so on.
Massachusetts construction law is stupidly complex. Handing our most expensive and complicated purchases to a gang of neophytes every time is just crazy.