Seven Design Firms Submit Proposals for DPW Building Project. Building Committee Continues to Limit Public Access
Architect's design concerpt for proposed co-located public safety and DPW facility in Easton, MA, to be constructed by Fontaine Brothers, Amherst's contractor for the Jones Library expansion. Photo: Town of Easton
Seven design firms have submitted proposals to be considered for the Department of Public Works building project. Individual rankings by DPW building committee (DPWBC) members will be compiled and discussed at their next meeting on June 10, after which they will recommend a short list of firms to invite for an interview. The interviews will take place on June 23, and the final ranking of the finalists will be determined immediately afterwards. The role of the DPWBC is, however, purely advisory. The town manager created the committee, wrote its charge, selected the members (including himself), and will make all decisions about this project (per the aforementioned charge).
The seven design firms that submitted proposals are:
RGB Architects Providence, RI
Wendel Williamsville, NY
Weston & Sampson Foxboro, MA
HKT Architects Boston, MA
Helene Karl Architects Groton MA
Leers Weinzapfel Associates Boston, MA
Anderson Design Group Montgomery, NY
Public Access Remains Limited
The DPWBC’s June 3 meeting was conducted, as have been all of its meetings to date, in person only and in the middle of a weekday afternoon, with no recording and no virtual accessibility. The committee voted at its last meeting to discuss recording the meetings and possibly changing to a hybrid format, but chair Christine Gray-Mullen did not include this on the agenda. Bockelman confirmed to Gray-Mullen that it is possible to record and conduct hybrid meetings at their current meeting location in the Town Room of Town Hall. Gray-Mullin expressed a preference to only record the interviews and not the committee’s discussion afterward, but Bockelman instructed her that if the meeting was recorded, the discussion would also need to be recorded.
Still No DPW Worker on Building Committee
During public comment, this reporter again requested that all DPWBC meetings be conducted in a hybrid format and recorded, and inquired again when the town manager would make his decision on whether to include a DPW staff member on the committee. Another attendee, Robert Cann, noted that there is an employee who is “ready and willing to serve”: Town Engineer Jason Skeels.
At their previous meeting, the committee discussed making the proposals from designers available in the meeting packet. However, current Owners’ Project Manager (OPM) for this project, and Town Capital Projects Manager, Bob Peirent, said that Massachusetts law allows the DPWBC to withhold the designer proposals from the public until a final selection is made.
At public comment, this reporter questioned who had made the decision to keep the proposals out of the public eye and by what authority?
According to the Guide to the Massachusetts Public Record Laws, “Exemption (h) serves to protect the integrity of the bidding processes used by the government to procure goods and services by allowing a records custodian to withhold the proposals of early bidders from other interested parties.” However, it further states that the records custodian may “withhold proposals and bids from disclosure until the time for the opening bids or until the time for receipt of proposals has expired. Once that occurs, the proposals and bids no longer fall under the protection of Exemption (h) and can no longer be withheld.” Since all proposals were due on June 2, there is no longer any justification for keeping them from the public. These issues were not addressed by the committee.
The town manager has wide-ranging authority on this process and could presumably correct any missteps in the process that are occurring in these early days.
Thank you for keeping an eye on this process. Earlier reporting indicated that designers would be considering the current DPW site and two other sites – do we know what those two other sites are?
Thanks for reading, Cathleen. The sites that have been discussed at DPWBC meetings are Ruxton, Wildwood, and Hickory Ridge. No specific sites were named in the RFP for designers, the addendum only stating “The alternative sites may include locations identified in the Weston & Sampson Study and/or other locations identified by the Town when the project is scoped out and budgeted.” Notably, the Town Manager stated some months ago that he would be assembling a committee to explore the possible future uses of the Wildwood school site, but no further notifications have been issued about this. Two Town Councilors (Cathy Schoen and Andy Churchill) have spoken against siting the new DPW facilities at Wildwood during public comment at DPWBC meetings.
Thanks, Maria. The FY27 Capital Improvement Plan has funding in it for “the creation of a reuse plan for Wildwood inclusive of a series of community engagement sessions, conceptual site/building plans, order of magnitude cost estimates, and a cohesive multi-year strategy for reuse of the site”. I hope that any work being done at the DPWBC won’t preempt that more comprehensive and community-driven process regarding Wildwood reuse.
The re-purposing of Wildwood School in an inclusive and innovative process would be great for what ails Amherst. Too many decisions have been made that are divisive and unilateral, etc etc. This is a consequential intersection and should not be conveniently declared to be the new home of some sub-par or objectionable use.
Consider that when a fair process. all sides are more open to a decision, because they were heard and included. It also saves money, reduces hostilities, and arrives at better solutions to more clearly defined problems.
Why does the DPW Building Committee continue to block remote access to its meetings? With a $35 million investment on the line, residents have both an interest and a right to easily observe building committee deliberations and speak during public comment period if they so choose.
New Bedford State Rep. Antonio Cabral, who is the House Chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, has recognized the transparency shortcomings in the current Open Meeting Law and is championing house bill H.3299 which proposes to make hybrid meetings mandatory for all public bodies. It should be readily apparent to Amherst leaders who profess “Open Government to the Max” that remote public access to DPWBC meetings is essential.
And the absence of a DPW representative participating in committee meetings is highly irregular. Five of the nine voting members of the Jones Library Building Committee have direct connections to the library, Two are staff (Director Sharon Sharry and Facilities Supervisor George Hicks-Richards), and three are trustees or former trustees (Alex Lefebvre, Farah Ameen and trustee president Austin Sarat who chairs the JLBC). This is not to mention Christine Gray-Mullen who has served as a resident member of the JLBC since its inception, and now chairs the DPWBC.
“ And the absence of a DPW representative participating in committee meetings is highly irregular.”
What is the reasoning behind this? Another example of when “We value all town employees” runs hollow. I wish management wouldn’t do this. I wish they understood how important the jobs the DPW employees do, how stressful and technical they can be. They certainly should have a voice in their building creation.