Jones Library Director Suppresses Bad News About Expansion Project

The Jones Library Director has known for over half a year that the nearly $2 million in Historic Tax Credits for the demolition/expansion project were unlikely to materialize, yet that information has only become public in the past few weeks.

Library Director Sharon Sharry, as well as the Amherst Historic Commission, received a letter sent from the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) on November 22, 2023. State Historic Preservation Officer and Executive Director Brona Simon advised Federal Preservation Officer Ann Piesen of multiple concerns about the plan. Notably, this assessment of the project was made before the more recent drastic decision to remove historic interior woodwork. She pointed out that “Ultimately, under Section 106, NEH must make a determination of effect and complete the review process.” Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act “requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties”, the goal being “to seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.”

Importantly, this notification was received before the Town Council deliberated (December 4, 2023) and took its vote (December 18, 2023) to authorize $46 million in borrowing for the project, but it was not mentioned at all during those deliberations. Indeed, the materials included in the packets for those meetings listed both the NEH grant and Historic Tax Credits as funding sources and they were included in the cash flow analysis that was developed by several Town and Library leaders, including Sharry. There was no public mention made of the MHC letter or its possible implications on both the historic integrity or financial solvency of the project.

Simon sent another letter to Sharry on December 29, 2023 to formally notify her that the MHC had rejected the Jones Library application for Massachusetts Rehabilitation Tax Credits “because the proposed project does not meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.” She enumerated five Standards that were violated by the plans, noting the intended demolition of portions of the 1928 historic building, intrusion and size of the new addition, and “removal and loss of historic fabric” such as the woodwork. Simon encouraged Sharry to submit a new application by the next deadline (January 16, 2024) “if the project can be redesigned to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.” 

On January 24, 2024, Andrea Bono-Bunker from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) wrote to Sharry regarding the MHC’s November letter and “ongoing concerns regarding the elimination of certain existing interior walls and conditions within the building.” She did not address the negative impacts on historic preservation, but did offer a stern warning.  “As the Library Building Consultant for this project, I can unequivocally state that retention of these elements will seriously alter the functional integrity of the building and jeopardize State funding, as no other reductions to programmatic space are allowed.” This insistence on maintaining the space and size of the project but a lack of interest in other aspects, such as historic preservation, sustainability, and affordability, is consistent with statements made by MBLC members when they voted to grant the project an extension to go out to re-bid. The letter can be viewed in its entirety here. (See here for Indy coverage)

Again, these letters were not mentioned publicly by Sharry or other town or library leaders at the time. This occurred during several months of the bidding process when the Jones Library Building Committee (JLBC) did not meet publicly to discuss the multiple delays in bid deadlines and addenda to construction documents. The Jones Trustees, however, continued to meet monthly during this time but the letters were not brought up.

A second application was indeed submitted, but Simon wrote to Sharry directly on April 26 to advise her that the MHC had again rejected the Jones Library application for Massachusetts Rehabilitation Tax Credits for violating the same five Standards since no changes had been made to the plans. The letter can be viewed in its entirety here. 

Once again, this letter was never discussed or made public. It signaled the loss of nearly $2 million in funding for the project, with possible loss of another ~$1 million (NEH grant). The first time that the rejection of the Historic Tax Credits was mentioned was at a June 4, 2024 trustees meeting when Trustee Tamson Ely asked whether the latest value engineering plans to remove almost all of the interior woodwork would impact the anticipated credits. Sharry replied, “We don’t think we’re going to be getting historic tax credits so that isn’t something that we’re taking into consideration.” Clearly, at least some Library Trustees had not been informed about the actions taken two months prior. It took Sharry another month to clearly state the status of the credits when asked at the July 9, 2024 JLBC meeting about an invoice from a consultant hired to seek these credits. Town Councilor and JLBC member Pam Rooney asked, “So, this was money spent in an effort to obtain them but you’ve decided to not pursue them?” to which Sharry responded, “No, we pursued them but we were denied.” 

Finally, an Indy records request has produced a series of emails between April and June 2024 among Sharry, Bob Peirent (the Town’s Capital Projects Manager, now serving as Owner’s Project Manager for the library project), Ginny Hamilton (Jones Capital Campaign Manager who identified herself as the Grant Administrator for the NEH grant) and members of the NEH and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff. They reveal that Sharry sought to avoid the required Section 106 review by arguing that the funding sought would be for the soft costs of the project, and not construction per se. Martha Curran, Regional Environmental Officer at HUD, rejected that argument stating, “per the principle of the National Environmental Policy Act and HUD’s implementing regulations, the Jones Library Renovations and Expansion project must be aggregated and viewed as a whole.” She instructed that the town must conduct a Section 106 review to satisfy NEH requirements. Piesen (NEH) further stated (on May 22) that “The library will definitely have an adverse effect under Section 106 with its current design.” The email exchanges can be viewed here.  

None of these developments were discussed by the JLBC until town resident Jeff Lee raised a question about the need for a Section 106 review. The first public discussion occurred at the July 9, 2024 meeting, prompted again by a question from Rooney. Sharry answered,  “It’s a very proscribed process. There’s a definite beginning and a definite end that we will have to follow. We absolutely are meeting with NEH and HUD. Mass[achusetts] Historic [Commission] is involved and all of the proper processes will be followed and everybody will be invited to participate. It’s actually a really great process. We will have more specifics coming up in the next couple of weeks.” JLBC Chair Austin Sarat prompted her further, “So, is it fair to say that we are on top of this 106 process?” Sharry said “Yeah, absolutely and in close communication with the people in Washington DC.” Asked by Sarat who is actually running the process, Sharry replied “the town, meaning Bob [Peirent] and me and Paul [Town Manager Paul Bockelman].”

This pattern of opacity and withholding of critical information from decision makers and the public is disturbing. It is not clear who was aware of these issues and when, which raises many questions about the legitimacy of the process. With respect to the project itself, several million dollars of promised funding is either gone or at significant risk. With an already daunting fundraising shortfall of more than $8 million at a minimum, this loss adds to the substantial risk the town would assume to backstop the cost. 

In addition, the findings of harm and adverse effects to the historic Jones by the MHC would be worsened considerably with the redesign underway that will strip away virtually all the unique and irreplaceable features of the library in an attempt to make the project cheaper and more appealing to contractors. Continuing to pursue this ill fated project has no happy ending, taking away the real value of this building while still costing the town too dearly. It is well past time to stop and take another path.