Opinion: Stop the exaggerated library repair costs!

In an attempt to convince the public of the need for a $46.1 million renovation and expansion of Jones Library, project proponents have made a lot of noise claiming that “it will cost more to repair the library than to renovate and enlarge it. » However, a closer look reveals that this argument is based on a number of false assertions and poorly worded demands and has more value as a political slogan than as a criterion for decision-making.

Library trustees and like-minded allies often present a 2017 repair cost estimate by Western Builders, Inc. (WBI) and a 2020 revision by Kuhn Riddle Architects (KRA) that takes into account the additional cost related to compliance with ADA code requirements. These documents are being used as evidence that the cost of repairing Jones Library and catching up on ten years of deferred maintenance could exceed $20 million, while continuing a state-backed plan that demolishes a 30-year-old addition and adds 15,000 square feet. . It will cost the city a maximum of $15.8 million.

In reality, none of these numbers stand up to scrutiny. Here’s why.

The WBI/KRA repair cost estimates were commissioned and heavily influenced by the Jones Library.
It’s no surprise that the Jones Library would like to maximize the amount of funding it receives from the city. The cost estimate therefore in no way constitutes an independent analysis. It is based on a series of improvements identified by the library as desirable to address as well as more critical needs such as an aging HVAC system.
City staff have identified an alternative repair plan that begins with repairing the HVAC system.
In early 2023, the city and the library formed a task force to study a repair “Plan B” for the building, as described in the March 21 Library Buildings and Facilities report:

“The City has formed an internal working group (Jeremiah Leplante, Rob Morra, George (Hicks-Richards), Sharon (Sharry) and Sean Mangano). The group respected service hours during the winter. The HVAC system is priority number one if the project does not move forward. The city would hire an engineer to develop a solution for the HVAC system. They would look to move forward with the least expensive option. Sean and Jeremiah will receive a quote during the summer.

Library advocates would prefer to ignore this option, which requires less financial commitment from the city, and have recently successfully stifled the effort.
The ADA requirements are overstated.
The KRA report states that if repairs cost more than 30 percent of the building’s assessed value ($23 million in FY24), state regulations set forth in 521 CMR require the project to be compliant with Architectural Access Board (MAAB) codes. There are, however, many mitigating factors that reduce the scope of the work outlined in the KRA report.

a.) KRA advises seeking a waiver of MAAB requirements, stating on page 8: “If this work continues, a waiver should be requested based on historical significance. » Note that the Emily Dickinson Museum carried out a major renovation in 2021 and received an exemption for elevator and entrance work.

b.) KRA explains that Massachusetts regulations do not require staff and private areas to comply with the MAAB standard, but include staff areas in its cost estimate.

c.) Construction of the library addition in 1993, which was planned to be demolished, added the north elevator which is larger than the elevators at City Hall and the Bangs Center. The south elevator is not compliant, but is rendered useless by the north elevator.
The assumption that all plaster containing asbestos must be removed goes against published guidelines.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission states on its website: “The best thing to do with undamaged asbestos materials is to leave them alone!” »
WBI/KRA cost estimates do not include any “value management” design reductions intended to reduce costs.
In contrast, the renovation-expansion design generated nearly $5 million in value due to cost overruns. These include the use of asphalt shingles in place of slate, the elimination of low-carbon cross-laminated timber (CLT) construction, and the demolition of priceless historic woodwork in the original library from 1928.
The Town of Amherst should require that the Jones Library Capital Campaign (JLCC) contribute to the repairs with the same commitment it demonstrated for the renovation-expansion project.
The JLCC says it has raised $9.6 million in donations and pledges for the construction project. The City should insist that the JLCC work to reallocate these funds for repairs in the event the expansion does not proceed. Jones Library, Inc. should approach fundraising for repairs with the same commitment it demonstrated for the renovation-expansion or expect a similar lack of commitment from the city.
The JLCC is still far from increasing the library’s share of the total project cost, which represents a serious risk for the city.
As of June 1, 2024, the JLCC was approximately $6.9 million short of its promise to raise $13.8 million toward the total project cost. To date, the JLCC, which signed an agreement to remit funds to the City as they are collected, has only remitted $1.6 million. If the JLCC ultimately fails to meet its fundraising goal and other library resources fail to make up the shortfall, the city will have to make up the difference with taxpayer dollars.
Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds may be sought to cover the cost of repairs.
As a historic property listed on the state and national registers, the library is eligible for historic preservation funds that could be spent on repairs. In fact, PCA money has already been used to fund roofing and chimney work.
The latest design cuts seriously degrade the value of what the city will receive for its multi-million dollar investment.
A.) Cost-saving design changes include using less durable asphalt shingles in place of synthetic slate and replacing brick with fiber cement siding that requires periodic maintenance.

b.) Natural light is sacrificed by demolishing the current atrium and eliminating a rooftop monitor for cost reasons.

vs.) Important sustainability features, such as CLT, extra-insulated replacement window frames and photovoltaic panels, have been abandoned, putting donor contributions that value green building features at risk.

d.) Finely crafted interior millwork of irreplaceable Philippine mahogany and akle is torn out and thrown away despite the building’s listing in the State and National Historic Registers.