Town Manager Offers Vague Reassurances on Viability of Jones Library Expansion

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, March 24, 2025. Part 2

This meeting was held in hybrid format and was recorded.

Present
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Andy Steinberg, Mandi Jo Hanneke, Ellisha Walker (at large), Cathy Schoen and Freke Ette (District 1), George Ryan and Hala Lord (District 3), Jennifer Taub and Pam Rooney (District 4), Bob Hegner and Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5). 

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk)

Many Uncertainties Remain for Jones Library Expansion Project
Several councilors have requested a full accounting of the Jones Library expansion project and its fundraising from Town Manager Paul Bockelman, since the bid within the town’s $46M budget was received on November 7, 2024. Although councilors submitted questions, which were answered by Bockelman and others, some councilors were not reassured by the responses.

Jennifer Taub (District 4) stated, “My takeaway from the responses is that any overage will be covered by the contingency, and if the capital campaign isn’t able to achieve its goal, they’ll take out a loan. And that was not reassuring to me. The world has changed a great deal since we voted to extend the borrowing authorization in December of 2023, and it doesn’t feel credible that the contractors could hold their bids for going on six months. There was a recent New York Times article that said that currently, some contractors will only hold their bids for two weeks. And as we see retirement accounts losing their value almost daily, I question whether many of the pledges made over the last two or three years…how many people will be able to hold to those pledges at those amounts?”

Bockelman admitted that the roof subcontract will be removed from the general contractor’s bid, and rebid for a slate roof, as required by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and that some of the other subcontractor bids will need to be rebid as well. However, he said that the general contractor, Fontaine Brothers, has agreed to hold its bid, and he was confident that the 10% contingency funds would cover any other overage. “All in all,” he said, “we have a budgeted amount that we have to stick with, the $46.1 million. We don’t have a dime more than that available to us. So, if we can get this project credibly with a credible contract signed that will meet that budgeted amount that we have approved, then we will move forward.” He added that the town has been “pretty clear” with the library trustees that $15.8 million is what the town can contribute. He maintained that the trustees will meet their obligations and will talk about a bank loan or a Massachusetts development loan if fundraising falls short. 

Cathy Schoen (District 1) stated, “I think it’s highly unusual to not have the contracts in hand when we go to sign them, and to say ‘we’ll just eat into contingency.’ Originally, we were going to rebid the roof to see what the slate roof installation, not just the cost of slate, would be before we went to a contract. The answer that some of the subcontractors appeared willing to hold and we could always go to the second lowest [if they don’t], it’s not clear to me that the second lowest [bidder] would hold this many months later. So, getting to an ever more slender margin is not a good idea.” She also worried that the cost of steel and the threat of tariffs would further increase the cost of the project.

Councilors’ questions also raised concerns about the reappointment of Colliers as the owner’s project manager (OPM). Schoen said, “My perception from watching what happened over the first few years was that we didn’t have a good solid OPM team working for us, and you stopped paying them because we were waiting to rebid, so I can’t understand why you would go back to the same OPM. It seems super risky. They should have caught some things way back when. I would have called them negligent.”

The town’s Capital Projects Manager Bob Peirent, who has been serving as the OPM for the library project for the past year, replied, “I don’t imagine the town would sign a contract until we know how the final sub bids are going to play out. We have an ongoing discussion with 8 to 10 filed sub-bid categories. Several of them have agreed to hold their price. I don’t imagine that we would sign a contract with the general contractor until we had all of that sorted out. We really need to know what the total project cost is before a contract is signed.” 

However, this contradicts the response  to the councilors’ question about signing the contract before the roof has been re-bid:  “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.” The third extension for the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) grant expires on April 30, so a contract must be signed by that date for the town to receive the grant money.

Bockelman explained that having Peirent act as OPM over the past year has saved the town money. Regarding Colliers, he said, “Bob [Peirent] has had extensive conversations with the principals at Colliers in terms of the people who are on our project. I don’t disagree with your assessment of the previous work that was done by Colliers. But in terms of moving this project forward, Colliers is basically the best path forward, the smoothest path because they’ve already ramped up on the project—they’re familiar with it. We’ve already done the procurement for their services.”

Pam Rooney (District 4) was skeptical that the $3.6 million in contingency funds is enough when it is expected to cover the slate roofing, the Section 106 modifications for preservation of the mahogany paneling and the design work needed, as well as critically needed subcontractor bids. Peirent reiterated that if the project moves forward, it has to be completed within the $46 million budget, but did not address the adequacy of the $3.6 million contingency to meet the changes Rooney raised.

Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) pressed Rooney’s point. She said, “It sounds like, at this point, the contingency is doing double fold, taking in increased costs that we know are above the original bids and for any changes for whatever ends up with the Section 106 review. Whatever is left is the contingency for the rest of the project. How much contingency, once all of these sorts of known uses are factored in, is a contingency you believe would be sufficient to get this project to completion within the borrowing authorization. I have been and still am a supporter of this project, but one of the big reasons I’m a supporter is because it’s supposed to be cheaper than the alternative. But if this project starts, and cannot come in under the authorized borrowing amount, we can’t leave it undone. And I worry that the contingency of $3 million sounds fine until you count that we’ve waited six months to sign and we might already know we have to go with not-the-low bidders. I’m asking what number [contingency] left is a satisfactory percentage to sign a contract?”

Schoen pointed out the need for a larger contingency and an excellent OPM because the project involves tearing down part of the old building. She pointed out that it is uncertain what complications will need to be dealt with. She added that when it was projected to cost $36 million, early in the project, Colliers stated that a 2% contingency was adequate even though the schematic design had not even been completed, “so, I don’t trust them.”

Neither Bockelman nor Peirent would commit to a minimum contingency amount that should be required before signing a viable contract. Bockelman said it depends on “where we think the contingency might be needed in the future.” “We don’t know how much leeway the general contractor has put into their pricing and how hungry they are for this project. We really want to get through the 106 review and see where that ends up, because the[MBLC grant has the April 30 deadline.” That the environmental part of the Section 106 review has yet to be completed was not addressed. The Memorandum of Agreement for the historical preservation was recently signed by the town, the library, and the Massachusetts Historical Society.

“I don’t know a lot about building libraries, but I do know something about fixed price contracts, and if I took this contract to my boss when I was in the private sector, he would laugh at me and say, ‘Go back and do it again because this is a very risky, very risky contract.’ I really can’t emphasize what a risk it is to the town to do this. – Bob Hegner, Amherst Town Councilor, District 5

Bob Hegner (District 5) continued to raise concerns about the contracting process being used for the project. He said, “I don’t know a lot about building libraries, but I do know something about fixed price contracts, and if I took this contract to my boss when I was in the private sector, he would laugh at me and say, ‘Go back and do it again because this is a very risky, very risky contract.’ I really can’t emphasize what a risk it is to the town to do this. I understand the alternative is also risky, but this particular contract is way beyond a risk I’m comfortable with.”

Schoen pointed out that she has expressed similar doubts as far back as 2023 but, she said, “I got my arms twisted to vote yes [on increasing the borrowing limit by $10 million] because I actually thought there were historic tax credits out there. I didn’t know we weren’t going to get them.” She also expressed concern that, even with the optimistic projections for the capital campaign, it is still $7 million short of its goal. If the library trustees need to reduce the endowment by that much, she pointed out, there won’t be an operating budget for the library. She added, “I know we’re not in the driver’s seat right now, other than a vote to rescind [the borrowing authorization], and I don’t know whether the council is there yet, on a vote to rescind.” She noted that the capital budget includes  more than $1 million a year of debt service for the library project. 

Andy Steinberg (at large) voiced the strongest support of the project among the councilors. “We have the benefit of a contractor who is also a very well-known contractor within the region, whose reputation is very important to them, and they have had a good success rate in working with other projects,” he insisted. “The other thing that I’ve been wanting to respond to is I think that the building is in far worse shape than people look at. The worst thing that they see frequently is the atrium, with the buckets if it’s raining that day— it’s a big issue and that’s an expensive repair—and the risks of what we’re going to find in the building when we start to repair it…are really much greater than I think people realize.” He also said that he thought “the handicapped accessibility in a lot of that library is beyond an easy solution.”

Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5) pointed out that the library has not made any capital requests to the town because of the anticipated renovation and expansion project, and that the costs of renovation presented in 2020 have no doubt increased with inflation and would trigger compliance with the ADA. She added that the grants from the MBLC and federal government cannot be used for a renovation project. Bockelman added his support by saying that the town is receiving $2 from other sources for each (taxpayer) dollar it spends on the project.

When Ellisha Walker (at large) echoed the worry that the library might not be able to meet its fundraising obligations for the project, Bockelman chided her with this: “We have to recognize that the trustees are elected officials. They’re the fiscal stewards for the library, so I think there has to be a certain amount of confidence and trust that they’re going to be doing their job well.”

Council President Lynn Griesemer (District 2) took another direction to quell dissent, saying that because money for the library has not yet been borrowed, it cannot be allocated to other projects. However, Bockelman pointed out that the town has already been using the $2.6 million it received from the MBLC as a first installment on the grant, and would have to repay it with interest if the project was canceled.

Public Comment Also Raises Concerns About Financial Viability of Library Expansion
In the public comment period, Lou Conover asked, “Why are we still talking about the library? This project has been going on for far too long. It has run into far too many difficulties. It’s going to cost far too much. And given the situation in the world, with international relations and tariffs, if we spend money on the schools, we’re spending money on the people here—and that’s not something that’s affected by tariffs.”. 

Jeff Lee criticized the plan to demolish the 30-year-old addition to the library because of leaks in part of it, the atrium roof, and to increase the total size of the library by 30% when annual visitors have fallen to less than half of what they were 20 years ago. He also noted that the planned $4.5 million climate-controlled special collections facility replaces one that attracts 600 visits per year, or fewer than two per day. “I’m all for preserving historical artifacts, but this should be done through private, not public contributions.“

Arlie Gould, Maria Kopicki, and Ira Bryck emphasized that financing the project is precarious,  and that the risk to the town is significant if fundraising falls short. Gould felt the answers to the councilors’ questions were vague, and hoped the discussion later in the evening would provide more specific information.

University Drive Overlay Bylaw to Come to a Vote at April 7 Meeting
A proposed bylaw creating an overlay district to allow increased housing density on University Drive between Amity Street and Northampton Road, including permitting of six-story buildings, received favorable comments from the Planning Board and Community Resources Committee. Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall stated that University Drive seemed like an ideal place for more housing and increased density. He believes that although the area is close to the university, the proposed overlay district is not geared only to students. 

Hegner wanted to be sure that the town is serious about efforts to develop more housing for seniors and families. He said when his wife inquired about an apartment in one of the downtown developments, she was actually discouraged by the manager, who noted that it is a student-occupied building. Walker emphasized how difficult it is to rent an apartment as a family.

George Ryan (District 3) supported the overlay proposal. “We have a housing crisis and a revenue crisis,” he said and he felt that  “this addresses both.”

Bockelman Gives Brief Presentation on Proposition 2 ½ Override
With the discussion of budget shortfalls, the Town Manager gave a short presentation on Proposition 2 ½ overrides. A 1980 Massachusetts law limited the increase in property tax levy to 2 ½% plus an amount for new growth. A proposition 2 ½ override differs from a debt exclusion override in that the latter is for a specific project and goes away when the project is paid for. In 2024, the town passed a debt exclusion override for a new elementary school; it raises property taxes until the debt is paid off (in 20 years). In contrast, a proposition 2 ½ override permanently raises taxes. It can be for a specific purpose or for general operating expenses. If a town has raised its taxes by less than 2 ½%, it can pass a higher increase in subsequent years to reach the 2 ½% per year limit.

The Town Council can propose a proposition 2 ½ override and place it on the ballot for a regular or special election.

.