Plans to Complete Jones Library Historic Preservation Review Remain Murky. Capital Campaign Again Fails to Submit Report
Historic Jones Library (1932) Source: joneslibrary.org
Report on the Meetings of the Amherst Historical Commission, November 4, 2024, and Jones Library Trustees, November 8, 2024
These meetings were held over Zoom and were recorded. See here for the Amherst Historical Commission and here for the Jones Library Trustees.
Two different impressions of the October 9 Section 106 Consulting Parties Public Meeting regarding the proposed Jones Library renovation and expansion were expressed at the Amherst Historical Commission (AHC) and Jones Library Trustees meetings last week. Madeleine Helmer, one of two representatives of the AHC to the consulting parties meeting, said she was pleased that the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), which is serving as the State Historic Preservation Officer for the project, found that the library’s proposed mitigation plan for adverse effects on the historic building are “not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the introduction of a new addition will diminish the setting of the historic library and the Amherst Central Business Historic District.”
The sponsors of the project must now provide multiple alternatives for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating those adverse effects in order to remain eligible to receive over $2 million in federal grants that have been provisionally awarded to the project.
Meanwhile, the Jones Trustees, at their meeting, expressed gratitude that a general contractor bid came in under the peviously authorized borrowing ceiling, and minimized the issue of the yet-to-be-completed Section 106 review. Library Director Sharon Sharry admitted that the Section 106 review and a pending archaeological survey of the site are the two main tasks remaining to be completed before a construction contract can be signed, but no one at the trustee’s meeting mentioned the design changes that might be mandated in order for the project receive the federal money.
Neither meeting offered a clear indication of next steps for completing the required historic review or a timetable for completion. Also not mentioned at either meeting is the required environmental impact report mandated as part of a Section 106 review and which has apparently not begun.
In her summary to the AHC at the November 4 meeting, Helmer reported to fellow commissioners, “There was a hearing for the Jones Library section 106 proceedings. They just had a listening session for consulting parties and present were the library, the town, and Bob Peirent, who is the representative from the town. The town is the lead agency and they are orchestrating the section 106 process and they make the decisions. Also present was the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation – that’s a national group who attends meetings if there’s a finding of adverse impacts to historic property. They attend if there’s an issue and they were very surprised to see that the MHC was not present. They were surprised that MHC did not attend as the State Historic Preservation Officer, so it was a little concerning to me that the MHC wasn’t there to represent the interest of and to explain why they had written these letters and to come up with a solution that would result in no impacts to the historic property rather than just jumping into the mitigation process which seems to be how the meeting kind of was going.”[Editor’s note: The library did not notify the MHC of the time and location of the meeting, so could not attend.]
Helmer continued, “I do this professionally. In my experience, a State Historic Preservation Office is central to this process. They require redesigns if there’s an adverse impact. It’s a whole process of considering a new design rather than just jumping to this next stage. Because it’s HUD, that means the lead agency can be the town, which is unusual. Usually, a lead agency is a federal agency, but HUD is one of the only federal agencies that can delegate that lead agency role to the local town. Sometimes things might get kind of lost along the way because the local town doesn’t know the process as well.”
Neither Helmer nor Senior Planner Nate Malloy said they knew where the Section 106 process stood. Helmer was not aware of another meeting being scheduled. Malloy said, ”I would have thought that you would have had a series of meetings tentatively scheduled, not just have one and have that be the end of the process. Usually, the 106 process happens earlier in a project so you can figure out: do you have a change in design, a different plan, to not have impacts. And then, if not, you can figure out how to mitigate or how you go through that process.”
Jones Fundraising Report
Lee Edwards, Jones Library Trustee Treasurer, reported that the library’s annual fund has raised over $35,000 so far this year from 188 gifts, which was slightly more than the $30,000 from 148 gifts raised last year. Last month’s pickleball tournament fundraiser netted about $17,000.
She said the capital campaign for the building project has raised about $4 million in the community campaign. This figure has remained unchanged for many months. There has been no reporting on expenses by the fundraisers since August 2024. Edwards also mentioned the possibility of two potential anonymous pledges of $500,000 and $200,000.
For the second month in a row, the trustees did not release the monthly capital campaign report detailing the gifts and pledges received and the personnel expenses paid to its fundraisers. This information would seem critical for the town to assess whether the library can fund its agreed upon share of the building project. The monthly report is also required by the Memorandum of Understanding between the library and the capital campaign, which states, “The Friends will receive, acknowledge, and track all donations for the Capital Campaign, including any conditions set by donors. The Friends will submit Capital Campaign Income and Expenditure reports to the Trustees at least monthly. Mechanisms for confirmation of funds received and expenditures shall be established.”
The Jones Library Building Committee is scheduled to meet on November 19. The Trustees will meet again on December 13.
In keeping with their track record of withholding information, the Trustees failed to share the contents of the letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) requiring the development of alternatives to the paltry “mitigation measures” against adverse effects proposed by the Town in the Section 106 process. Nor do they mention that project leaders failed to notify the MHC of the time and place of the meeting where Consulting Parties met in October, a stunning oversight as the MHC is the deciding body in this process.
Nor do they mention that project leaders failed to notify the MHC of the time and place of the meeting where Consulting Parties met in October, a stunning oversight as the MHC is the deciding body in this process.
If, instead, this were a judicial proceeding, what might the consequences of failing to notify one of the principal parties be?
Come to think of it: why isn’t this already a judicial proceeding?
While some think it’s not “ripe” for the courts, for others it’s well past that: it “stinks”!
Rob, I think you can chalk that up to the Town Charter’s lack of separation of powers: the Executive Branch is subservient to the Legislative Branch, instead of independent. Though, as to the Jones Library’s unnecessary, ever more expensive demolition/expansion project, it sometimes looks as if the Town Manager is controlling Town Council.
This lack of separation of powers makes privately-financed litigation the necessary counterweight to an out-of-control Town Council/Town Manager. As a government structure, this is grossly inefficient.
This project is so full of flaws, withholding of information, excessive costs, and quite basically no need of expansion. We have a huge research library at UMass, the Frost Library, Mount Holyoke, Smith and Hampshire at our fingertips. Why should we as a town foot this enormous expense when we have so many other pressing needs. Schools, Roads, infrastructures. —where is that South Amherst fire station that’s been proposed for nearly 50 years!?! Let’s get real here. The trustees have withheld information, not done due diligence and frankly have lied to the public. Enough. Everyone I speak with—especially those who voted for the original plan,—have had enough. They would not vote pro now. End the project. Do some renovations and move on.
I recently came across the following:
“So I was most offended by the assertiveness of those who favored the bigger [project]. Using town resources, they mounted a lobbying effort that smacked of manipulation and threats. They shamelessly put a dressy model of their dream-box in the lobby outside Town Meeting, and used town staff to showcase it (‘like a salesman at a boat show,’ one Town Meeting member commented) and, during the debate, to push their vision and disparage [the other].
This uncharacteristic (for Amherst) hard-sell didn’t work. Why, if their product was so good, did they need to marshall ‘support’ from so many self-appointed committees and bodies, and to use data so slyly? Why not admit that the smaller, less obtrusive {project] had, at least, some advantages? Why not acknowledge that the bigger design had, at least, some problems?”
That excerpt is from a 28 November 1997 Bulletin commentary by Tom Asher on not the Jones Libary, but the Boltwood garage, a considerably less expensive project that still generated a huge amount of controversy and debate. But the behavior that he described as “uncharacteristic” for Amherst appears to have now become the norm. What is both sad and sobering is that the normalization of such behavior runs the risk of having much more serious consequences for the residents of Amherst. If the continued push by Town Hall to keep up with the Jones succeeds, residents may find that the “not one cent more” promise of the council president is an empty one, and that promises for capital projects that are truly needed will continue to be made for the next 30 years.
There are many words that could be used to describe this plan but, quite simply, SELFISH seems to say it all.
As an unnecessary expense and disruption by some, at the expense and disruption of all, continues to drive ahead, the Town is left unable to focus on the needs of its everyday citizens and the working class employees who are forced to wade through the muck (aka infrastructure) to provide essential services. A shining star of a public library on a hill while the plebs in the schools, DPW and Fire/EMS services toil below? For what and “whose” purpose?
I am painfully aware that neither the Town Council or Town Manager, let alone the Library Trustees, ever answer questions from the citizenry. However, I would appreciate learning from anyone in favor of the Jones demolition/expansion plan how it, in the works for less than ten years, jumped ahead of the CRITICAL need for a new DPW building or a Fire Station, each having been discussed for over 40 years and when both could be built for less than the cost of the library plan. And how, I wonder, would those individuals offering private donations to the library plan respond if asked to do the same for the a DPW building or Fire Station.
Like I said, SELFISH, if not classist.