Jones Library Project Proposes No Further Changes to Design in Response to Historic Preservation Review

Report on the Meeting of the Jones Library Building Committee, November 19, 2024

Editor’s note: After we went to press on Friday, November 22, we received a copy of the town’s report to the Massachusetts Historic Commission entitled “Section 106 Alternatives Analysis for the Jones Library Project”. The report can be read here. This report confirms the reporting below that states that the town proposes to make no changes in the library design that might help avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects of the demolition and construction and instead offers a detailed explanation of why the sponsors have made the decisions that they have regarding the design and why this should be sufficient to address historic preservation concerns.

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present 
Sharon Sharry (Library Director), Farah Ameen (Library Trustee), Alex Lefebvre (Amherst resident, former Library Trustee), Christine Gray-Mullen (Amherst resident), George Hicks-Richards (Library Facilities Director), Melissa Zawadzki (Town Finance Director), Austin Sarat (President, Library Trustees), Pam Rooney (Town Councilor, District 4), and Paul Bockelman (Town Manager)

Staff: Bob Peirent (Owner’s Project Manager)

After receiving a request from the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) for alternatives analyses in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the historic structure of the Jones Library that will result from the proposed demolition/expansion project, Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) Bob Peirent seemed to suggest that no further changes to the design will be proposed, and that the town will respond to the request with a description  of what has been done so far and an explanation of design decisions.  This approach would seem to conflict with the most recent letter (letter of November 1, 2024 ) from MHC Executive Director Brona Simon. Simon wrote that “at a minimum there should be an alternative analysis of roof materials, staircases, and circulation, woodwork, and the size, scale, and massing of the proposed addition.” Simon wrote that she looked forward to consulting with the town to “explore alternatives that would eliminate or minimize the adverse effect of the proposed project.” 

The town’s original proposal for mitigating adverse effects was simply to create a photo archive and a public photographic display of any aspects of the building that were damaged or destroyed in the course of the demolition and renovation.  

At stake is $2.1 million in federal funding that has been provisionally awarded to the project. Those funds apparently cannot be released to the town until a Section 106 review is completed. Completion requires that the town and the State Historic Preservation Officer to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing an agreement on how the adverse effects will be addressed. 

Section 106 Review
Peirent said that he had reached out to the MHC for further input, and  is preparing a response that explains the library’s decision-making process to date. He said that the town would inform the consulting parties to the process about their alternatives analyses “when it is appropriate.” In a discussion among Pam Rooney, Austin Sarat and Bob Peirent, Peirent said that the alternatives analyses the town is preparing are a review of what has already been done, that is, the decisions that have already been made, and why.

Peirent stated: “The evaluations have already happened. We expect that by doing that [explaining what we have done and why] and being able to do it in a systematic, detailed fashion, we will be able to provide a presentation and that Mass. Historic will accept that reasonable decisions have been made that brought us to the point that we’re at today. If they don’t agree, then we’ll see where we go from there. But that’s really what we’re focusing on right now. So in terms of the speculation of, do we need to change something more than what we’ve already changed, I can’t really say that, or speak to that at the moment.”

Town Manager Update
Town Manager Paul Bockelman said that the low bid (of the two that the town received) was being reviewed, that the Section 106 Review is in process and will take time, and that the town has requested a 90-day extension from the deadline set by the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners’ (MBLC) to sign a construction contract because it needs more time to complete the Section 106 process. He added that they are looking for space to relocate the Jones Library services during construction. He also said they have to hire a new OPM, as Peirent will not be able to supervise the project’s construction.

Finance Director Update
Finance Director Melissa Zawadzki presented several invoices associated with the value engineering and rebidding process (see also here, here, here, and here) for approval. The town is supposed to pay these invoices and be reimbursed later.

The invoices include:

Berkshire Design: $610.00

Finegold Alexander Architects (FAA): $161,148.00

FAA $61,238.50 

FAA $1,410.00

Collaborative Resolution Group $900.00

FAA $30,248.72

Public Archeology Labs (PAL) $9,995.00

BidDocs $750.00

These invoices all involve expenses associated with the rebidding process but Zawadzki did not offer a precise accounting of the expenses and this information was not in the meeting packet. The FAA invoices were related to Value Engineering work done over the summer. Collaborative Resolutions Group facilitated the Section 106 Consulting Parties meeting. PAL is the historic preservation consultant to the Section 106 process.

OPM Update
Peirent, who is currently functioning as the project’s OPM, announced that he cannot serve as OPM during the construction phase of the project. He noted that the town is in discussion with the previous OPM, Colliers, about returning. With respect to contracting for moving expenses and a temporary space for the library, he said they are “in discussions with a couple of different parties at this point, and I don’t really want to interrupt those discussions by sharing any information publicly.” An RFP issued earlier this fall was unsuccessful in generating any bids but no mention was made of a second bidding process. Peirent only indicated that the amount required for this would be included in the total project cost. Peirent also expressed that if the bids for construction hold, it would leave 10% of construction costs for contingencies which he suggested was adequate. He said, “There are a lot of uncertainties during construction, and particularly in a project like this, and we need a contingency of that level to be able to successfully make it through construction.”

Public Comment

Cathy Schoen – Town Councilor Cathy Schoen (District 1) asked that the fees owed to Finegold Alexander Architects be re-checked because the firm has suggested that their fees have been too low and they are working a lot more than they had originally expected. She also questioned whether the town should rehire Colliers as OPM when some were unhappy with their previous performance.  She said, “My impression from periodically watching your meetings and my early encounter with Colliers is, they did not perform well for you compared to what we’ve experienced in the School Building Committee. Part of it was turnover. You didn’t always have the same person. So I’m questioning whether you really want to go back to them, whether there is someone there that you highly trust, knows the project well, and you feel will just hit the ground running.” 

Schoen also questioned whether owner’s project insurance was included in the Colliers OPM contract. She said insurance was embedded in the contract with the elementary school building’s OPM and that she believed it was “to guard against what the library hit in 1993, when the addition was put on, and the contractor didn’t do everything. And then we needed to go back and potentially needed to get it redone.  …So It’s a question on Colliers competence. I’m new to the building project world. But what I’ve watched our [elementary school building] OPM do is they’re out every day on the project, literally kicking the ground to make sure that things are done properly, and to answer questions. And our architect team has someone who comes out regularly, too. So it’s to keep things moving so that the builders don’t run into problems. It’s not clear what you wanted here, and to avoid change orders wherever possible. So I think this role is pretty critical.”

Schoen further observed that  in the new overall budget, the FFE ( fees and furniture expenses] seemed lower than they were last November. She asked whether the FFE had been decreased and whether it included the audio visual and WiFi necessary to make the new community rooms usable.  “So that’s a question of what’s the FFE total, and what’s in it,” she said.

“The final piece is what you were just asking about 106. My questions are what in addition you think you’ll be able to do. I did read the Epsilon document on historic tax credits. They went through an extensive explanation of why the building and designers had made decisions that they had made [and there are] some big things that can’t easily be changed, Austin. You were talking about the building itself. I mean, small things could be changed at a price. Real slate on the roof versus synthetic, no book deposit hole in the wall. But big things — on the massing of the building, the location of the building — you won’t have a building if those things are changed, so is there sort of a limited scope on thinking about alternatives?”

Finally, Schoen asked what will happen if the town and the MHC fail to reach agreement. “Will we know whether their concerns put the NEH and HUD grants at risk? Will NEH and HUD give us feedback? Because that’s on the council side and the town side. It’s a $2 million financing source, and I don’t think any of us want to lose it. So how does this process work?  Will HUD say ‘you’ve done enough’ [and] that ‘we’re good to go’ before we start paying the contract. Those are my questions, and I would be happy to submit them in writing.”

Jeff Lee expressed concern that the library’s Capital Campaign has stopped producing monthly reports of fundraising pledges, gifts, and expenses. He also pointed out that contracting for temporary space and a new OPM requires a public bidding process.,

Maria Kopicki criticized the project team for failing to notify the MHC about the meeting of consulting parties which resulted in their inability to attend. (The MHC is the primary decision maker in the Section 106 process.) Kopicki pointed out that the steps outlined during the meeting failed to address requirements for  the consulting parties  to offer input on sufficient ways to address the adverse effects to the building that resulted in not qualifying for $2 million in historic tax credits and said that the adverse effects have to  be addressed in the Section 106 process. She also argued that decisions about extensions of deadlines had been made unilaterally  by Bockelman and Sarat without the input of any involved deliberative bodies in town. 

 “This should be made public and the Town Council should have a role. And you should have a role — although there’s literally almost no oversight by this committee, so I’m not really sure what you guys would do anyway. This remains a mess,” she said.

Arlie Gould commented about the library’s lack of financial transparency, and the  constant uncertainty about whether the library can come up with money to cover its share of the project. She also said she has a  sense that the people leading this project don’t inspire confidence that they know what they are doing, especially when it comes to financing this project.