Jones Library Building Committee Reviews Progress on Expansion Project

2
Jones Library Building Committee meeting

Architects rendering of the proposed renovated Jones Library. Finegold Alexander Architects. Photo: Jones Library

Report on the Meeting of the Jones Library Building Committee, May 2, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

In its first meeting since November 19, the Jones Library Building Committee (JLBC) received reports on the progress of the expansion project. Town Manager Paul Bockelman reported that the construction contract with Fontaine Brothers of Springfield was signed and that the town received two additional installments of the $15.6 million from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) grant totaling $5.5 million. He said the MBLC was required to disburse the money by April 30 or it would return to the state coffers. 

The town paid two outstanding bills from a year ago to Finegold Alexander Architects (FAA) for work done on the application for historic tax credits. These amounted to about $90,000. The Jones Library paid two bills of about $43,000 to FAA for value engineering work done last summer to reduce the total cost of the project.

Amherst’s Special Projects Manager Bob Peirent, who has been serving as the Owner’s Project Manager (OPM) of the project reported that the project has successfully completed the Section 106 process required to receive grant funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and has a signed memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the town, the library, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The 30 day public comment period for the environmental assessment required by HUD ended on April 28, 2025. Peirent said that, as OPM, he is required to respond to the four comments received before the HUD money can be released, so he is now working on those responses. HUD then has its own internal process to go through before approving the funds [Editor’s note: Peirent could decide that an Environmental Impact Statement is required (i.e. reversing the Town Manager’s Finding of ‘No Significant Impact’ (FONSI) statement. If he does not find that an environmental impact statement is needed,,the town then needs to submit a Request for Release of Funds (RROF) and then there will be a second public comment period of 15 days].

As part of the environmental assessment, Peirent said that an archaeological survey was conducted at the rear of the library and in the area between the library and the Strong house. No significant archaeological material was discovered. Archeological consultants determined that small objects recovered in the survey were probably carried in with the fill for the 1993 addition. All of those items were cataloged and a listing sent to MHC.

As the project moves on, Collier’s will again be the OPM. The budget for the $46.1 million project has a built in 8.5% contingency or $3.5 million to cover cost overruns. It is hoped that prep work for the project can begin in mid to late June.

Peirent also announced that the temporary location for the library during construction will be at 101 University Drive. He said three previous procurement processes had yielded this as the most competitive lease cost. He did not mention what that cost will be. The contract must be open to public comment for 30 days before it can be signed. The town is putting out a request for bids for moving costs to relocate the library materials to University Drive. The project also needs to hire a firm to test the materials used in construction and a firm to do hazardous materials testing. The state maintains a list of qualified firms for these processes.

When asked about the space on University Drive, Library Director Sharon Sharry said that it is a “wonderful, light-filled space with plenty of free parking and is only a half mile from the Jones Library.“  [Editor’s note: It is actually 1.3 miles from the library.] She said there will be space for most of the library’s collections, as well as interlibrary loan. However, part of the adult collection might need to be placed elsewhere. Peirent said the swing space is about 19,000 square feet and occupies most of the second floor and part of the first in the building. It is ADA compliant.

Town Councilor Pam Rooney asked if the architects had identified areas where the Philippine mahogany removed during the renovation could be reused. Peirent said that there are four areas where the woodwork would be removed, but 80% would remain in place. If there is no place for the other 20% in the renovated building, Fontaine Brothers has agreed to try to reuse it in another project. Rooney then asked if the JLBC would be involved in a decision as to what happens with the woodwork that is removed. JLBC member Christine Gray Mullin said she supposed that FAA was working on this and will come back with some suggestions. After first saying that these types of design decisions were now in the hands of the architects and builders, Chair Austin Sarat relented somewhat and agreed that the committee could participate in the decision as to the reuse or disposal of the woodwork removed.

Sarat ended the 28-minute meeting by thanking Sharry and Peirent for their leadership in the project. He stated that this is a town project and he hopes residents will continue to be involved as it takes shape, regardless of their feelings about the wisdom of the project, because many things will need to be decided during construction, and it is obvious that the town cares deeply about its library. 

Spread the love

2 thoughts on “Jones Library Building Committee Reviews Progress on Expansion Project

  1. The Library must follow the requirements of state law when disposing of the Library’s woodwork. If the value is over $10,000 a bid or auction is required. If the value is under $10,000 the Town’s written policy for disposal must be followed.

  2. Where to start? Maybe with a little math. The JLBC hasn’t met to discuss anything about the project since November 2024 – so about a half a year during which time time a LOT happened. And then when they do meet, they spend all of 28 minutes talking about a $46(++) million project, so that comes to a little over $1.6M per minute. Not reassuring.
    So, what didn’t they talk about?
    Not about the Town Manager flouting the instructions of the Attorney General to refrain from signing a contract while a bid protest was under investigation. Or the fact that the AG expressed significant concerns, closed the investigation without prejudice, and essentially told the protester to give them a call after the impending violations occur.
    No comments on spending $90K applying for historic tax credits that were never going to happen because the plan violates multiple standards of historic preservation.
    No questions about whether the NEH or HUD grants are still viable.
    No curiosity about the content of the letters questioning the claims of no significant environmental impact.
    Not a care in the world about an OPM retaking the reins on a project that was very poorly managed under their care. And no queries about the amount of their apparently reinstated contract without consideration of rebidding this work.
    No one correcting the claim of an 8.5% contingency because it doesn’t account for the added costs of genuine slate roofing or (alleged) preservation of woodwork.
    Not a moment’s concern about the cost of the temporary space (which, if it exceeds the estimate from 2023, will take another bite out the contingency). Since it’s been so long since they met, the committee members apparently also forgot that they were informed in September 2024 that there were NO bidders for the lease at that time and the contract they are currently pursuing is not the result of a competitive bidding process (hence the need for the 30 day comment period before it can be executed).

    Buckle up, Amherst. It’s gonna be a bumpy (and expensive) ride.

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.