Some Councilors Wary of Next Steps for Jones Library Project

1

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.

Spread the love

1 thought on “Some Councilors Wary of Next Steps for Jones Library Project

  1. 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.

Leave a Reply

The Amherst Indy welcomes your comment on this article. Comments must be signed with your real, full name & contact information; and must be factual and civil. See the Indy comment policy for more information.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.