Some Councilors Wary of Next Steps for Jones Library Project
Architect's rendering showing modified Jones Library design with exterior value engineering changes (as of 7/22/24) , including removed pedestrian bridges from rear rain garden. Photo: amherstma.gov
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, November 4, 2024, Part 1
This meeting was held in a hybrid format and was recorded.
Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Andy Steinberg, Ellisha Walker (at large), Freke Ette and Cathy Schoen (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Hala Lord and George Ryan (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), and Ana Devlin Gauthier and Bob Hegner (District 5).
Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of the Council).
Near the end of the November 4 Town Council meeting, Town Manager Paul Bockelman announced that one of the two bids for the Jones Library expansion project came in below the target number, so the town was able to increase its contingency fund for that project from $1.86 million to $3.43 million. With the amount being below the appropriation already approved by the council, Bockelman asserted that the council has no further role in the process. However, several town councilors raised questions about the viability of the project, even with the favorable bid from Fontaine Brothers of Springfield.
Bockelman said that the next steps for the project are to conclude the section 106 review and to procure space to relocate the library collections during the course of the construction. The town also needs to hire an owner’s project manager (OPM). With those tasks completed, he hoped that the construction would begin in 2025. He added that he plans to create a spreadsheet that shows the project budget to share with the council. The next meeting of the Jones Library Building Committee is scheduled for November 18, when the project financing will be discussed in detail.
Cathy Schoen (District 1) said she was concerned that the company that submitted the low bid is the same contractor “who is trying to knock out the other two contractors on the [new elementary] school.” She also said that with the school, Fontaine would have a healthy margin, because they could take advantage of some sub bids for companies that wouldn’t work with one of the other contractors. “So, I’m a little worried that they may have lowballed their bid in anticipation that they can do changes later, because their bid is $6 million below what they bid before. So, I want to be really careful that we have a lot of oversight.”
In answer to Schoen’s question about how the general contractor bids were allowed to be submitted without the electrical sub-bids, Bockelman replied that all contractors were instructed to include the same amount ($4 million) for electrical costs. The electrical sub-bids are due on Thursday, November 7. Bockelman continued, “There’s a long way to go. The other piece of this is the financing plan. I can’t sign a contract unless I know we’re going to have enough money to build the project. I need to have confirmation from, or confidence from the trustees that they’re going to come up with their share of money. There’s about a $7 million gap right now, and that’s where we have to have a pretty clear plan about how that’s going to be filled.”
Bob Hegner (District 5) worried about the town’s obligations. He stated, “I just want to make sure that we protect the town against unnecessary risks when we put together any sort of final package. If you’re doing a renovation, you start knocking down walls, you always come up with something unexpected. Is the town on the hook for that money? Is the library? Are the library trustees on the hook for that money? It would be helpful to have that spelled out.”
Pam Rooney (District 4) brought up the still incomplete section 106 historic review that could put the $2 million grants from NEH and HUD at risk or mandate changes in the design that the contingency will not be sufficient to cover. Bockelman answered, “I can’t predict if the contingency is going to be enough. I’m hoping that the trustees will be very successful as they continue to fundraise, now that we’ve got a really solid bid from a very, very reputable company.”
Jennifer Taub (District 4) asked about the possible change orders that Jones Library Trustee President Austin Sarat said might be necessary to modify the project if required by NEH or HUD. Bockelman answered, “We only have the money that we have. I can’t sign a contract that’s more than the amount of money we have, and we can’t borrow more than the council has appropriated.” He said that the town does not have to accept the change orders.
George Ryan (District 3) expressed confidence in the financial viability of the library project. He read from the December 2023 Memorandum of Understanding between the trustees and the town that stated that “the library intends to raise the new library share, which is $13,822,518 by applying for grants, whether government or private and through gifts from individuals or other sources. And further, has agreed that if the new library share is not obtained through such sources, the library shall use either the library’s endowment or other sources of funds available, which may include taking out a bank loan to pay the new library share.”
He continued, “Item 11 says, the library also understands the town will not pay more than its town share committed by this agreement and the previous agreement.” Ryan maintained that the library fully understands that the town share is not going to change. “The risks raised here are actually on the shoulders of the library trustees and the library,” he said. “I think the trustees are fully aware of that and prepared.”
Andy Steinberg (at large) asked for an updated repair-only option estimate of costs and timeframe, in case the expansion could not go forward. However, Bockelman stated that developing an alternative plan would not be time well spent, and that there are not enough staff to do it now. He said, “There are no decisions for the council to make. We’ve got the appropriation. We’ve got the bid. We move forward. Every elected body that has voted on this has voted generally by two-thirds or more. The general populace has voted on this by two-thirds vote. The project is moving forward. I do know there are a lot of people or a small group of people out there who are agitating to make this project fail. I think that’s unfortunate, because it’s been clear. I take my direction from the council.”
Details on the library expansion project bid and its budget are expected to be discussed at the Jones Library Building Committee meeting on November 18. That meeting has yet to be posted.
Asked of perplexity.ai: Is there a word or phrase that means a project that continues to go forward, despite numerous warning signs, because nobody had the courage to stop it?
Answer
Based on the search results, this type of failing project is commonly known as a “watermelon project” – one that appears green (healthy) on the outside but is red (failing) on the inside1. This occurs when project updates seem suspiciously positive despite ongoing issues, often because team members are covering up or not sharing the true state of things.
Some key characteristics of such projects include:
Regular requests for more time or funds to “pull the project back from the brink”
Issues being ignored or improperly logged
Team members not sharing the true state of things
Stakeholders stopping to participate or give timely feedback
Progress becoming haphazard with no one taking ownership
Project updates that don’t correspond with reality
The phenomenon occurs because:
People hope they can somehow turn things around without admitting problems
There’s fear of delivering bad news to stakeholders
Team members lack the courage to be direct about issues
Poor accountability and unclear ownership allow problems to persist
To prevent this situation, experts recommend:
Conducting regular independent project health checks
Being direct about roles and fostering ownership through active conversation
Maintaining transparent communication about project status
Having clear accountability for decisions and outcomes
The term “watermelon project” effectively captures how such projects maintain a facade of health while concealing serious internal problems until they become impossible to ignore.
I am, proudly, one of the “lots of people or small group of people out there” whom Town Manager Bockelman says above “are agitating to make this project fail.”
On the contrary, as a past President of the Jones Library Board of Trustees, I want Amherst’s unique, beloved, Jones Library to get the updated systems it needs, as well as the historic preservation that both Massachusetts and federal law say Amherst is obligated to ensure in light of their state and federal grants for this demolition/expansion project.
Nearly a decade into this project, however, the Town and present Library Trustees have so far failed to comply with the applicable law. Please see Mickey Rathbun’s article, ” Jones Library’s Section 106 Review Hits a Speed Bump,” and, for good measure, Maura Keene’s article, “Some Councilors Wary of Next Steps for Jones Library Project,” in this November 8th edition of The INDY.
What the Jones does NOT need is this expensive, expansive, overbearing addition to accommodate a public library “service population” of 51,000, assuming no branch libraries.
But Amherst has two branch libraries. One of them, the North Amherst Library, was recently enlarged. And Amherst’s current population is NOT “51,000.” It is about 40,000. Of these, perhaps only 15,000 will ever set foot in the Jones. The remaining 25,000 use their academic research libraries exclusively.
If Amherst’s Home Rule Charter had separation of its legislative and executive branches, as the Constitution of Massachusetts requires (Part 1, Article 30, and Amendment 89), the Executive Branch head would be answerable to all of the Town’s thousands of registered voters. As he himself admits above, however, “I take my direction from the Council.” That is, the Town Manager is answerable to a mere majority of those 13 Town Councilors.
Is the Charter’s unconstitutionality one reason why this Jones Library demolition/expansion project is such a — to use Ira Bryck’s vivid image — watermelon? And perhaps why its rind cannot now conceal a certain rot?
Has the town received $900,000 due in January?
Thanks, Ira! I agree with AI on this one, the Jones demolition-expansion is a “watermelon project.” How could it be said (with a straight face) that the single bid on the Jones Library project came in “below the appropriation approved by the council” when: 1) the design has not even been finalized; 2) there’s a $7 million gap in fundraising; and 3) Library Trustees have already failed to make a payment to the town of $900,000 due last January. Given these facts, why shouldn’t town residents question the legitimacy of expanding one of our 3 town libraries? The town manager calls residents “agitators” for questioning the reasonableness of the Jones project. We need more agitators and fewer sheep. It’s time to toss out this watermelon!
It is sad, if not dangerous, that the town manager sees those who disagree with him as agitators, or worse. That they have, voluntarily, spent countless hours of research producing volumes of supporting documentation for their positions, asked questions, and, as all good citizens should, kept watch on the comings and goings of a project their tax dollars will pay for should be a practice exercised by more citizens and appreciated by all.
Late last evening, when Ira Bryck’s interesting (AI-generated?) first comment appeared, I attempted to quickly post a terse response
The late Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Frankfurt
had a philosophical answer to this problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
followed with his other book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Truth
of which we could use a bit more, both here in the city known as “The Town of Amherst” and abroad.
aiming to simultaneously address not only Ira’s comment but alsowhat I believe is a fundamental problem with the way the Jones Library demolition/expansion project has unfolded over the past decade or more.
The editor and publisher of The Indy sought more specificity. This fundamental problem, however, is not about particular people or offices or institutions, and the purpose of last evening’s comment was not to point fingers at anyone or anything.
Rather, the problem is that many official communications promoting the Jones Library demolition/expansion project appear to not even care about the truth — essentially Frankfurt’s definition of his earlier book’s title. And since [Frankfurt, page 7] suggests such communications are often driven by ulterior motives, the job of the media — and an informed pubic — is to suss out those motives.
The Town Manager told a group assembled at The Works for “A Cuppa Joe with Paul” on Friday that all votes on the Library Project question have passed by “60% or more.” He was reminded that a Town Council recommendation to halt the severely over-budget project this past June failed by a single vote, 7-6.
Given recent national events, I am proud to have been in the minority.
Debra,
There has been no indication at any public meeting that any more of the still outstanding $900,000 due to the Town from the Library has been paid. The cash flow analysis, upon which the Town Councilors based their decision last year to authorize $46 million, indicates that an additional $4M is due by January 2025.
None of the finances of the proposed project have been discussed or analyzed since November 2023: no new cash flow analysis, debt service analysis, accounting for the rejection of $2M historic tax credits, reassessment of soft costs, etc. etc.
Numbers — as long as you can count correctly — tend to be pretty objective. However, the contexts in which they are presented can be manipulated to achieve specific ends. The original townwide referendum on the library project in November 2021 is an unfortunate example of such manipulation. Supporters have consistently claimed that 65% of voters approved the project, implying overwhelming public support. But a broader context says otherwise. What is missing from the above claim is “[voters] who went to the polls.” That vaunted 65% actually translates to 3231 individuals who voted YES on the Jones project. That was indeed 65% of the 5043 voters who went to the polls that day. But when put in the context of the TOTAL number of registered voters in the town of Amherst — 16,187 — that percentage drops precipitously to only 20% support.
I have always felt that expensive municipal projects should have widespread support from a significant majority of all town residents. This number does not represent such support. Instead, it appears to represent the wishes — come hell, high water, or higher taxes — of a very aggressive and very vocal minority.
I think we should have a library like the one that the University has. I’m sorry, sarcasm is the only tool I have left.
Great idea, Tom!
Or maybe the librarians can just stack the books up in a three, adjacent, thousand-foot-high piles; place a single, triple-tab, asphalt shingle over the very top to protect against he elements; and let the fire department ladder truck provide access to books within the first fifty feet of each pile (librarians are also being trained to use drones to retrieve books higher than 50 feet — the drones are a gift from Space X, Tesla and X ….
Here is a piece of fair-minded reporting from the Amherst College Student paper.
https://amherststudent.com/article/jones-library-receives-first-under-budget-bid-for-renovation-project/
I noticed several of the people signing the petition to NOT go forward with the proposed addition last week were students, either at UMass, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College or Amherst College. Some mentioned their love of historic buildings, their love of their public libraries back home and the fact that they use their college libraries more than the Jones for their work.
As a member of the Amherst Historical Commission, two of us are deputized as a part of the 106 review process and I am relieved that the Massachusetts Historical Commission has held their ground. I welcome the next round of the review process.