Frequently Unanswered Questions:  What’s Missing from the Response to Town Councilors’ Questions About the Jones Library?

By Jeff Lee and Maria Kopicki

The following document was placed in the packet for the Town Council meeting of March 24,  2025. The document was not on letterhead and did not note its author or source.  We have added to the document our annotations, pointing out questions that have not been fully answered, misleading answers, and questions that still need to be asked (and answered).  We continue to call for a full and transparent accounting of the real costs of the Jones Library expansion (see e..g. here and here), which is not provided in this document. 

The project represents a considerable and growing financial liability to the town and in this unstable fiscal and political and environment, the risks to the town become more profound with each passing day.  The town has an obligation to clearly document what the project will cost and how the town will pay for it and the project should not proceed until such documentation is provided.

Lee’s annotations are in red.  

Kopicki’s annotations are in blue.

Town Council Questions 
March 24, 2025 

This document answers the questions posed by members of the Town Council with the best information we have available. 

1. Costs and Status of Construction: 

a. Current updated costs: 

i. The latest project cost estimate was developed on November 7, 2024  following receipt of updated contractor bids. The total project cost remains $46,139,800, which includes $3,562,800 (10%) in available  project contingencies. 

Who produced the November 7, 2024 cost estimate? Is it available for council members and the public to view? 

The $46,139,000 total project cost does not include changes in construction documents for a genuine slate roof, a value that has not been determined and will require a rebidding process. It also does not include any other changes that may be required based on any MOA that is being developed with regard to the Section 106 process. Additionally, it is not known whether the low bidders will maintain their prices. 

The ~$3 million in contingency funds are expected to do some heavy lifting. The demolition/expansion/renovation is a complicated project of a 100 year old building on a difficult site in extremely uncertain economic and political times without secured funding up front and based on incomplete bidding and construction documents. Cost escalations and unexpected challenges during construction alone could easily consume and exceed the contingency. Drawing down on it before the project has even begun makes that prospect all the more likely and may or may not even be allowed.

b. Slate roof: 

i. The Library architect, Finegold Alexander Architects (FAA),  estimated the additional cost of shifting from synthetic to natural slate  roofing to be $228,000. This cost will be paid out of project contingencies. 

The true cost of the slate roof won’t be known until the work is re-bid. 

An estimate, based on approximate historical $/SF, from the architects is not sufficient evidence of the actual cost. The cost differential between genuine and synthetic slate was estimated at $300,000 during previous value engineering exercises. The actual cost implication will not be known until construction documents are developed and bids received from subcontractors who are qualified to perform the work, a process that will take significant time to complete.

c. Preservation and restoration of woodwork: 

I. Notably, approximately 80% of the existing mahogany woodwork will remain in place. Of the woodwork to be removed, repurposing of several portions was included in the rebid scope of work and so work  is already priced into the project. 

In the Section 106 process, the Massachusetts Historical Commission recommended preserving all of the historic millwork, the cost of which has not been determined.    

ii. The draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) with the  Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) commits to three additional locations of woodwork removal and potential repurposing  including the doorway lintel and trim at the east secondary stair, the  arched doorway and fanlight window in the director’s office, the   paneling around the door in the east wall of the west secondary stair,  and the two arched panels in the east wall of the young adult reading  room. No detailed estimate of the cost of this additional work has been developed, but it will likely be in the range of $25,000 to $75,000. Any remaining unused mahogany woodwork will be offered to an  architectural salvage company for reuse elsewhere at their expense in accordance with the Jones Library deaccession policy. Any additional  costs will be paid out of project contingencies. 

The proposed removal original millwork does not satisfy the recommendation from the Massachusetts Historical Commission: 

“The MHC recommends that follow stipulations be included in the MOA as   additional mitigation measures for the adverse effects to the Jones Library:   • All historic mahogany wood removed from the historic library shall be   carefully removed and saved in a secure location. The salvaged mahogany shall  be reinstalled within the rehabilitated library and/or the new addition.” 

See the full set of the most recent MHC recommendations. The legality of offering to give the Philippine Mahogany to a salvage  company has been questioned. 

The draft MOA proposed by the town has not been agreed upon by the MHC so the retention of limited additional woodwork is purely hypothetical. It is not clear what the cost estimate provided here ($25-75K) is based on, but it is neither a formal cost estimate nor an actual bid. Seeking to use construction contingency funds for work that is known before contracts are signed but that has not been properly bid may very well run afoul of competitive bidding statutes. 

d. Holding bids, including subcontractors: 

i. Discussions are ongoing with sub-bidders and the low general bidder. Some have agreed to extend their bid pricing through the end of  April, a few have not, and several have not responded. In the event  that a low sub-bidder is not willing to hold their bid pricing,   Massachusetts General Law allows for a municipality to move on to  the next lowest bidder and adjust the general contractor’s contract  value accordingly. 

Which Massachusetts General Law states that a contract can be awarded  to the next lowest sub-bidder? Does it hold true even when sub-bids are  several months old? 

Which bidders have agreed to extend their pricing, which ones have not agreed, and which ones have not responded? For the ones who have “agreed”, how was this agreement memorialized and until what date? The sum of the second lowest subbids is more than $1 million more than the sum of the lowest bids (and this does not account for the changes in roofing, woodwork, and other changes emerging from the Section 106 process).

Please provide written documentation that the Attorney General’s Bid Unit has reviewed the above plans for this specific project and has made a finding that this does not violate any laws or regulations. 

e. Owner’s Project Manager (OPM): 

i. Colliers was the OPM for the project. On May 21, 2024, the Town  asked Colliers to halt all activity as we worked through the process. This has saved about $200,000 in project costs. The work has been  done by the Town’s Capital Projects Coordinator, Bob Peirent. Colliers will be re-engaged as OPM when the project moves into  construction. The Town has maintained contact with Colliers, and  they have confirmed their availability to perform this work. 

Has anyone verified that Bob Peirent “has experience in the construction  and supervision of construction of buildings of similar size and scope of  complexity as the project to which he is assigned” (M.G.L. c. 149,  §44A1/2)? 

Please provide confirmation from the Attorney General’s office and/or other state agency that it is legal to have Colliers to resume work as OPM without an RFP engaging in a competitive process to hire an OPM going forward. 

f. Timing for new and revised work: 

i. Rebidding the roof work will occur after a contract has been executed  with a general contractor. This will likely be in late spring/early  summer 2025. 

Is it good practice and wise fiscal management to execute a contract with  a general contractor before the cost of roof work is known? 

Will signing a general contract before a contract for roof work has been  executed be considered a choice-limiting action by NEH and HUD and risk  eligibility for federal grant funds? 

Please provide confirmation from the Attorney General’s office that it is legal to rebid the roof (and other) work after signing a contract with a GC for this project. Does this mean that the roof work is intended to be a separate contract, outside of the GC’s contract? Has the GC agree to that arrangement in writing? If roofing costs are not known until late spring/early summer 2025, there is no way to know whether the total project cost exceeds the current authorization.

g. Can all this be done including contracting by the end of April? What happens if  costs are higher than the budget? 

i. That is the plan. The latest project budget summary updated to reflect  the bids that were received in November 2024 indicated an available project contingency in excess of $3.5 million. Any costs in excess of  what are shown on this summary will reduce this available  contingency amount. 

The question has not been answered. What happens if all this cannot be done by the end of April? What happens if actual costs exceed the contingency?

This is contradictory. If the roofing is not rebid until late spring/early summer, that contract cannot be completed by April 30 and the total project cost cannot be known. See above for the lack of wisdom and legality of using contingency to pay for issues known prior to contract execution.

2. Federal Grants: 

a. Do we have assurances that the HUD and NEH grants are secure? 

1. We recently received an executed grant agreement with HUD. The executed NEH grant agreement is pending. 
   
2. HUD grant: What is an update on HUD and Section 106 Review? 

An environmental review in accordance with HUD  specification has been drafted. This review cannot be finalized and released for public comment until the  Section 106 Historical Preservation process is complete.  It is expected to be released within a few days of  receiving a signed Memorandum of Agreement f rom  the Massachusetts Historical Commission. 

Be aware that the Town’s proposed Section 106 MOA does not include several stipulations recommended by the  Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Advisory  Council on Historic Preservation and several consulting  parties. 

The Environmental Report for the HUD grant must be made available for public review, comment, and objection which must then be addressed by the town and HUD before the process can be completed. Additionally, the Section 106 has not yet been not resolved with no signed MOA to date. 

2. HUD grant payment: What is the timing of grant payments? 

1. The $1,110,661 in HUD grant funds have been  approved for reimbursement of project soft costs. As   noted in HUD’s FY2023 GRANT GUIDE, payment of  soft costs can be made once a Grant Agreement is   executed by HUD. We anticipate submitting a reimbursement application to HUD within the next few   weeks. Follow-up discussions with HUD staff  environmental review have indicated that full release of   grant funds will not occur until the project-specific environmental review is completed. The amount of our   initial reimbursement request will be confirmed after  further discussions with HUD staff. The balance of the  funds will be requested for reimbursement after the  environmental review process has been completed. 

It is not clear that soft costs can be reimbursed before required reviews are complete. HUD Regional Environment  Officer Martha Curran explained in a May 24, 2024 letter that

 “I wanted to remind everyone that, as I had communicated on  May 1, per the principles of the National Environmental Policy  Act and HUD’s implementing regulations, the Jones Library   Renovations and Expansion project must be aggregated and  reviewed as a whole. The Nationwide ERR for Soft Costs  does not satisfy the overall requirement to review the  project as a whole.” 

Please provide documentation supporting the claim that HUD grant funds can be used for soft costs. That appears to contradict previous communications from HUD representatives.

iii. NEH grant: 

1. What is an update on the grant payment? 
1. A signed agreement with NEH for their $1,000,000  grant will be issued once the Section 106 Historical   Preservation process has been completed and the   required 4:1 nonfederal funds match is certified. 

What will be the source of the $4 million in matching   funds? State funds, Town funds or Library funds? 

Again, the Section 106 process has not yet been completed.

2.NEH remains committed to providing funding for this project and as recently as February 24, 2025, stated in  writing that they will be providing federal financial  assistance to the Jones Library, 43 Amity Street,   Amherst, Massachusetts 01002, through an Infrastructure and Capacity Building Grant (CHA  292057). 

Is there any way to qualify for NEH and HUD grant money   if the full project as demanded by the MBLC cannot be   completed? 

Please provide the above referenced NEH communication.

3.Full funding will not be released until it can be certified that the required matching funds have been expended   on the portion of the project funded by the grant, the Jones Library Humanities Center. That will likely be at least 6 months from the start of construction. 

2. What is the plan if the review is not completed by April 30th? Could a contract be signed in the hopes that the Section 106   Review will achieve a satisfactory resolution? 

1. Reviewing options for this contingency. 

HUD advises that signing a construction contract before   completing required reviews is a choice-limiting action and  jeopardizes funding. See HUD Choice Limiting Action (CLA)   Violation Review Process Fact Sheet

Uncertainties around resolution of the Section 106 process involves not only the possible loss of more than $2 million. It also involves the changes to construction costs and bidding as noted above. Notably, there are less than 6 weeks between now and the April 30 deadline with the MBLC.   

3. Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC): 

a. MLBC originally planned 4-5 distributions of the $13,871,314 grant. When will Amherst receive the added funds for inflation – $1,694,158 Pandemic Escalation?

i. The Town has received a payment from the MBLC in the amount of $2,774,263 

ii. Once the contract with a General Contractor is signed, the MBLC will  send Amherst two disbursement payments in FY25 ($5,548,526 total);  three disbursement payments (including the extra for Pandemic relief) will remain. Disbursement payments are sent after certain  milestones are met. Normally, only one disbursement payment can be  sent in any given fiscal year; this year is different because our project  is so far behind (i.e., the MBLC has begun a new grant round, and it is important that they complete our grant round so they can begin to  disburse payments to new awardees). 

The Town Manager has suggested that if the Library project is not able to  go forward, the MBLC should not expect the initial disbursement of   $2,774,263 be returned, because that Town has followed all MBLC guidance  in good faith. This suggestion seems reasonable, but the consequences  should be verified. 

Unless the GC signs a contract that assumes financial responsibility for costs in excess of the contingency (a highly unlikely event for a seasoned firm), the town will bear the full weight of these overruns. 

4/Jones Library Endowment: 

a. What was the endowment as of end of February? 

i. As of 2-28-25 the foundation account’s value was $9,006,334.95. 

b. What is the expected annual draw in percent or dollars? 

i. The 4% draw for FY25 was $354,619. 

ii. The 4% draw for FY26 is projected to be $350,858. 

c.Has this already been adjusted for the payment for additional architect work? 

i. The FY25 draw of $354,619 does not include summer 2024 payments to Finegold Alexander Architects. 

It would be clearer to ask what costs for Value Engineering redesign have  been paid by the Library, what costs remain, and are these payments   being drawn from the endowment or from some other source? 

d. Has Woodbury been distributed to Friends for Project? What is the balance of this  fund? 

i. Funds will not be withdrawn until we have a project certain.  ii. As of 2-28-25 the Woodbury Fund’s value was $792,916.71.

The Woodbury Fund would be reduced to ⅓ of that value. What will be the impact of that large drop on activities that it currently supports.

5/ Fund Raising: 

• What is the current status of Fund raising? 

Please note that the Capital Campaign has not provided any information on fundraising expenses since summer 2024. Whatever they spend on fundraising adds to their total responsibility (which becomes the town’s responsibility if they are unable to cover their share). Additionally, their reports have also stopped providing a breakdown of pledged vs received funds. This information is critical to evaluating the feasibility of the project.

b. Is there any concern that economic uncertainty will impact fundraising, especially donations from individuals? 

i. Unknown 

The Library’s Community Campaign raised $1129 in February 2025 toward a  reported amount needed of $6,974,117. At this rate it will take 514 years to  raise the necessary funds.

The minimum amount of additional fundraising that will be required is $7 million ($9 million if the federal grants fall through, even more if project costs exceed $46 million). What has the Capital Campaign done to assess the status of pledges not yet received given the recent extremely volatile economic climate?

“Unknown” is not a reassuring or acceptable answer to this question. 

c. Has Amherst College distributed a second payment? 

i. No. 

Note that the Amherst College 2022 contribution for the project was to the  Friends of the Jones Library and not to the Jones Library, Inc. or to the  Town of Amherst. 

6. Finances: 

a. What assurance can the Trustees provide the Town for payment of the $7 million  dollar gap in their share. 

i. The Trustees have signed an MOA with the Town that provides  assurances that the Trustees will meet its share. 

The MOA is only as good as the Library’s ability to pay its share  without serious reduction of the endowment needed for an annual   $300,000+ draw. 

The $7 million is a best case (an increasingly unlikely) scenario. The MOA between the town and Trustees is unenforceable if they don’t have the funds.

b.Is there an arrangement with a Bank or Other loan entity to provide full payment  as agreed to in the MOA? Would this be a mortgage? Or loan against the  endowment? 

i. Many conversations have been held with MassDevelopment and local banks regarding borrowing funds if the need arises. The Trustees will  make the best decision when the time comes to ensure the Endowment  and Library services continue in perpetuity. 

This answer offers no assurance to the town or its taxpayers.

So, the answer to the question is “no”. For a project that has been dragging on for over a decade with an MOA that was signed more than a year ago, the lack of an actual plan at this point is unacceptable.

c. Updated cash flow and principal interest projections 

i. Will be updated when the project is ready to move forward.

This information is needed to make an informed decision on the viability of  the project and should not wait until the project is ready to move forward. 

What exactly is meant by “when the project is ready to move forward”? Would the Town Manager sign a contract (which would commit the town to not only the $46 million but any overruns) before producing this information to the Town Council and the public for review? 

d. Does the town council have the authority to approve an additional $7m in  taxpayer money to pay for the library budget shortfall without a town vote? 

i. Yes, this is true for any Town project. The Town Council is the Town  body with the authority to borrow funds upon request by the Town  Manager. If the funds are to be borrowed, a 2/3 vote of the Town   Council is required. No Town-wide vote is required unless the   borrowing is contingent on a debt exclusion override. 

If a contract is signed and the project occurs but the Trustees are unable to pay their share, the Town Council will have already authorized the payment of the fundraising shortfall with Town funds. Likewise, once the project has started, If the total project cost exceeds the authorized amount, the town will have no choice but to approve additional funds to complete an unfinished project.

What would be the effect on other town spending needs if the town does not receive the promised funds from the library?

e. Who is responsible if there is a shortfall? 

1. The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners has committed  grants of $13.8m + $1.7m = $15.5m 
2. The Town Council has committed to borrow = $15.8m 
3. The Town of Amherst Community Preservation Act Committee and Town Council have approved a grant = $1m  iv.
4. The Library Trustees have committed to raising the remainder  through Federal and state grants and private fundraising.  Total approved project cost – $46.1m 
5. The Trustees have agreed to use either the Library’s endowment or  other soruces of funds available to it, which may include a bank loan,  to pay its share.

This answer does not clarify who will pay if the Library is unable to meet  its share, or if the project cost rises above the budgeted amount due to unforeseen circumstances.

See above. All project costs will be paid by the town. The Library’s share would occur in the form of reimbursements to the Town. If they don’t have the money they promised, the town will not be reimbursed.