Town Council Calls for More Assurances on Library Project Funding
Photo: istock
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, February 10, 2025. Part 2
During a Town Council discussion of Town Manager goals on February 10, 2025, District 1 Town Councilor Cathy Schoen called for language that directs the Town Manager to make sure that funding is secured before entering into any contracts on the Jones Library demolition/expansion project.
The original wording of the goal for the Town Manager with respect to the project was for him to “Sign a contract and break ground.” Schoen moved to add “Provided that the funding for the trustees’ share, grants, and other taxpayer share of the Jones project is secured, and the budget is no more than $46.1million.” District 5 Councilor Bob Hegner seconded the motion.
“I don’t think we should just say sign the contract and break ground,” Schoen said, “because we need to make sure we are on secure ground to keep the town’s taxpayer share at what we have publicly said it is multiple times.” She also noted that $2 million in federal funding remains in question and that the trustees had mentioned taking a $5 million loan out against their endowment, but that the current gap in fundraising is approximately the same amount as the endowment (~$9 million).
District 3 Councilor George Ryan questioned what Schoen meant by secured. “Clearly, the fundraising campaign won’t have all their money on hand by the time it’s time to sign a contract,” he said. “We have been relying on the good judgment of the Town Manager that he and his finance team would be satisfied, and until they’re satisfied they’re not going to sign anything.”
Town Manager Paul Bockelman also questioned Schoen’s intent. “I don’t want to be caught up on what you imply – what you mean by secured versus what I consider secured. Security has a certain, I’m sure, technical definition.”
Schoen explained that the funding plan for the project involved short term loans to cover costs incurred while the Library continued to seek fundraising and that those loans could have substantial interest rates. She also shared her concern that “When we voted on this, we all thought there were tax credits on the table, as did most of the trustees. But then we found out they knew there weren’t tax credits on the table anymore.” She pointed out that the previous treasurer of the trustees cited the anticipation of receiving tax credits as one reason that they could expect to receive a $5 million loan. “I really am worried about our operating budget and our capital budget if the interest cost on us turns out to be a lot more than just carrying the $15.8 million.”
District 4 Councilor Pam Rooney spoke in favor of the motion, saying “I would not want to say, please just go ahead and sign this contract. I want caveats, and there’s enough concern about some of the funding sources that it’s appropriate to add this word of caution.”
Bockelman pushed back, stating that the proposed language does not give the Town Council the power to control his actions. “There’s no authorization for you to say I can’t sign a contract – that’s within the purview of the Town Manager. This is a goal that you’re asking me to meet, and I will attempt to meet it. If I don’t accomplish it, I don’t accomplish it.”
District 2 Councilor Pat DeAngelis expressed “faith and trust” in the Town Manager and asserted that “I think we’re sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong.”
Councilor at Large Ellisha Walker disagreed. “I think it’s just about providing guidance to the Town Manager that represents what our expectations are. Adding them to the goal, is also just saying, when we are doing the Town Manager evaluation, this is a criteria we will use to evaluate his performance in this area.”
Schoen likened her suggestion to how one would approach buying a house with a mortgage. “The bank would want to know I’m secured. So, I think we’re buying a library building, and I would like to know we’re secure on our end of what our risks are.”
District 2 Councilor Griesemer wondered whether the proposed language was consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the library and the town.
Schoen noted that “The MOU says we get the endowment – that’s the security. If we take the whole endowment, we have an enormous hole in the operating budget for the library.” She added, “Do I want to rewrite that MOU? You betcha! It is a pledge with the security of the endowment, and then the building that we don’t own. We get some rights over it for an extended period of time that they can’t sell it, but otherwise the time period leaves us exposed to a lot of money, particularly if the federal grants fall through. I want to send a signal out to every resident in town that we, too, are concerned.”
The Town Council voted 6-5 in favor of Schoen’s added language, with Schoen, Rooney, Walker, Hegner, Steinberg, and Devlin-Gauthier voting yes and Ryan, DeAngelis, Ette, Griesemer, and Hanneke voting no; Taub was absent and Lord was not present for the vote.
The trustees of the Jones have had years to raise money and are still short of funds? Also, not much discussion concerning the late 2 million dollar payment past due to the town since….. a year ago? This is an awful lot of time and effort towards a privately owned building that will not benefit all residents if the town. I guess it’s a good thing we don’t need a new Police building on top of the rest of the pending capital projects.
Thanks for the reminder about the past due payments, David.
The cash flow presented to the Town Council in order to convince them to increase the borrowing from ~$36M to $46M in December 2023 showed the Library paying the town another $4M by January 31, 2025. That is in addition to the $900,000 it still owes from last January.
Meanwhile, the project has to go back out to bid for the slate roof and the Massachusetts Historical Commission just told the Town that if they want the $2 million in provisional federal funding, they need to keep all the original Mahogany woodwork. We can’t know the cost implications of these changes and we don’t know how the general contractors feel about continuing to hold a bid that is now several months old in the face of not only these developments but also the rapidly evolving national situation.
We also still don’t know how much the fundraisers have been paid since summer 2024. The most recent information from the Library Capital Campaign reported that they have only secured (as in “in hand”) $3.3M of the Library’s $14.8M portion of the project. That leaves a gap of $11.5M , over $7M of which doesn’t even have a theoretical or identified potential source.
One has to wonder whom Town Manager Bockelman is serving: the people of Amherst or the powers behind the library project?
Thank you Councilor Schoen and all who voted in favor of her motion to amend the language. What a hopeful breath of fresh air and common sense.
Jeff, there are many of us who do not need to wonder, the proof has been in the Jones Pudding all along.
Thank you Councilors Schoen, Hegner, Steinberg , Rooney, Walker, Devlin Gauthier for voting for tax dollar accountability related to the Jones Library debacle demolition project in Amherst Massachusetts..bummer for constituents that the following Amherst Town Councilors didn’t agree.. Griesemer, Ryan, Deangelis, Ette, Hanneke
I would like to add my thanks to Councilor Schoen for adding fiscally responsible language to the Town Manager’s goals, and thanks to those who supported her motion, Councilors Hegner, Steinberg, Rooney, Walker, and Devlin-Gauthier. It is shocking that Jones Trustees are now nearly $5 million BEHIND in payments to the town of Amherst, are $11 million behind in fundraising, and may well lose $2 million in federal grants. The Jones Library expansion project has always been too costly, and now in this an era of financial instability, the risks to the town are even greater.
Thank you Councilor Schoen for listening to your constituents and amending the language for the Jones Library project. And, thanks to those members who supported your effort. Finally, it feels like something sensible and responsible has happened. Fiscal responsibility in government is paramount now.
It has been explained repeatedly why this project seems insolvent. I’d like to hear from our town government how the math works, explained clearly, with 8 x 10 glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.
The council and manager are the board of directors of this town, and have a fiduciary duty to care for the stakeholders, aka the 40,000 members of our community, not only the 3000 people who voted for the library, minus whomever of them have lost their confidence in it by now.
For a councilor to change their vote to no, all they have to say is that it now seems the math doesn’t work. It would be nice to say that without disparaging people who’ve been saying the math doesn’t work for a very long time. Or blaming them for why the math doesn’t work.
I am concerned about the direction of this country and planet, but also concerned that the town where I hope to age in place is going to have ever crummier roads, inadequate senior resources, no money for more urgent projects, and budget busting property taxes.
I like libraries, and like the Jones. It needs new furniture, new carpeting, fix what’s broken. We need to live within our means. My vote is maintain the library, and after we maintain the library continue to maintain the library, like it’s never been maintained before.
Councilor Schoen’s leadership in amending fiscally responsible language to the Town Manager’s goals and the support of her motion from Councilors Hegner, Steinberg, Rooney, Walker, and Devlin-Gauthier signals that residents concerned about the fiscal feasibility of the library project are being heard. Thanks to all.
Thank you, Councillor Cathy Schoen, for adding this goal to the Town Manager’s report card; and thanks to the other five councillors who joined in support of this prudent action. It’s hard to ignore such a clear message about municipal fiscal responsibility….
Kudos to Cathy Shoen and the other Councilors who voted with her. But how sad that a motion requiring something so fundamental as fiscal responsibility should be a matter to debate. Sadder still, 5 Councilors voted against it and the Town Manager opposed it. What does this say about our system of town government and the people charged with serving it?