News from the Building Committee
An informational meeting was held at the library on Saturday November 6th at 1 pm. 34 people attended.
In response to several patrons’ concern regarding the progress being made by the Facility Needs Committee, the following FAQ page has been set up to keep more people informed as we conclude this initial phase of planning and design. It is with the understanding that much more work and deliberation is still needed before any physical work begins in the library.
As stated at the meeting, the committee has spent much of the last 3 years learning and gathering information in many forms and from various sources; the community, other libraries ahead of us in this process of schematic design, hired, experienced professionals, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners’ small library specialist, to name but a few.
While we have learned much, many questions remain to be answered and as patrons and friends of the library continue to have questions, we will try to answer them as best we can.
In no particular order, we have included a beginning list of questions/concerns raised by the community. As always feel free to contact either Jayne Arata at the library or Lynn Herzog at LM_dibenedetto@yahoo.com with additional questions. We will answer them as soon as we can and with the information we currently have.
In response to several patrons’ concern regarding the progress being made by the Facility Needs Committee, the following FAQ page has been set up to keep more people informed as we conclude this initial phase of planning and design. It is with the understanding that much more work and deliberation is still needed before any physical work begins in the library.
As stated at the meeting, the committee has spent much of the last 3 years learning and gathering information in many forms and from various sources; the community, other libraries ahead of us in this process of schematic design, hired, experienced professionals, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners’ small library specialist, to name but a few.
While we have learned much, many questions remain to be answered and as patrons and friends of the library continue to have questions, we will try to answer them as best we can.
In no particular order, we have included a beginning list of questions/concerns raised by the community. As always feel free to contact either Jayne Arata at the library or Lynn Herzog at LM_dibenedetto@yahoo.com with additional questions. We will answer them as soon as we can and with the information we currently have.
Schematic Design Plans
Initial schematic design plans may be viewed here. A very preliminary plan exploring one possibility within the footprint as well as a more thorough design incorporating a modest addition are both available for vieweing. Click on Schematic Design Plans
Building Program written by Mary Braney 2008
Following a needs assessment conducted by Mary Braney the following building program was created. Mary used data collected from the librarian at the time, community surveys, discussions with Board members, and current demographic data, as well as existing number of books etc in the collection in order to calculate space required to provide library services for the next 20-30 years (and hopefully beyond). To view the documents please click on petersham building program 2008.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Is the trustees next vote just to keep options open, including staying within the footprint, or is it a decision to definitely pursue the expansion?
Ans: The next vote we hope to have during the December board meeting will be whether or not to apply for a MBLC construction grant. A vote to do so would mean incorporating some, if not all of the required elements for a building program as set forth by the MBLC guidelines. This would include space for a meeting room as well as accessibility elements. We can apply for the grant stipulating no meeting room and/or expansion but have been told be the MBLC we most likely would not be considered.
2. Is it only the Trustees’ responsibility to decide such a large issue with so many impacts, or should corporators or even townspeople help decide?
Ans: The bylaws have been reviewed and there is no proviso that suggests the corporators vote on issues pertaining to the library, big or small. Please note: as a building committee and Board we have recognized long ago the magnitude of the currently proposed capitol project and have independently questioned the appropriateness of expanding voting responsibilities.
3. Should the project wait until the Nichewaug situation is clear?
Ans: The Building Committee, after speaking with the former task force group, concluded that the time is most advantageous for the library to move forward and attempt to acquire land from the Nichewaug/Town for several reasons: 1) The Nichewaug situation has been in flux for more than 20 years, the grant to demolish it has not yet been approved and no strong buyer candidates have been publicized. It is conceivable that it will be many more years before a completed plan is put in place. 2) The opportunity of 50-65% of construction costs being covered by the MBLC may well not happen again. Right or wrong, considering the current economic climate, the State has earmarked 100million dollars for library projects such as ours. 3)Currently construction costs are at a low and this is a good time to construct.
4. Are the cost estimates for the current project reasonable?
Ans: Currently we have preliminary cost estimates provided by the independent cost estimating firm of Deadalus Inc. We contracted to have estimates calculated based on a renovation within the current footprint only (no prevailing wage incurred) and one in which a 1400 sq ft. addition was included using supplemental construction grant money from the MBLC. These estimates were then reviewed by the PML owner’s project manager Katie Crockett, and superficially discussed with the MBLC small libraries specialist, as well as a community member with extensive construction experience. All deemed the figures to be consistent with the scope of the project and current building cost trends. Estimates are still preliminary because environmental studies have not yet been completed to assess the feasibility of installing alternative energy sources and their cost effectiveness over the long term.
5. If it’s projected that there will be negligible growth in the population over the next 20 years, why is an expansion being considered at this time?
Ans: An expansion to the library is necessary to comply with current building codes based on the current number of books within the library’s existing collection. Once any improvements to the building (such as installing drainage around the building, and pouring a concrete slab in the basement to ameliorate moisture in the building) totals more than 30% of the assessed value of the building ALL current building codes become effective. This privately owned building is legally a public building hence subject to such codes.
6. How long would the library have to raise 1.2 million if they take MBLC funds and expand?
Ans: If the library is awarded a construction grant and the town votes to accept it, we have until January 2012 to secure our portion of the total cost. Included in our portion, should the town vote to lease or give a portion of the Nichewaug property to the library, would be the assessed value of the land. The MBLC considers that clear evidence of community support for the project.
7. What if the library can’t raise enough money?
Ans: If we can’t raise the money then we are not eligible for an MBLC construction grant.
8. If the project goes over budget, who is liable for this cost?
Ans: The Town is in no way legally responsible should the project go over budget. No individual’s taxes will be adjusted to cover any loss. The Library Corporation is responsible for the project. That said, within the initial cost estimates exists a 20% contingency fund to allow for minimal overrun. Since this is a rather old building, there are bound to be some unexpected surprises as we restore the building.
9. What are the ramifications if there is an extended indebtedness that will become the responsibility of the Corporation and the Trustees in the future?
Ans: As discussed at the meeting the primary intention is to fund raise all that is needed to complete the project with no extended indebtedness. There does exist a 100% USDA government backed loan that is available currently at 4%. Should the Board decide to incur some debt, then yes, future Trustees would have the responsibility of managing its repayment.
10. If there are increased costs, such as maintenance, need for increased staff, and utility costs, how will this be paid?
Ans: Every effort is being made to consider those ramifications as we design for the future. Sight lines from the circulation are being carefully analysed in an effort to keep the number of staff from increasing , energy efficiency measures are constanly being discussed and a thorough cost to benefit study will be conducted during the next phase of design. The design has already been reworked to better accommodate solar panels to help minimize any additional energy costs. Of course fund raising and sponsorship will continue to be focus for the library.
11. Is there a list of possible increased costs to help in planning and decision making?
Ans: The major issues are always 1) energy trade offs 2) Staff requirements and 3) Continued building maintenance. Those factors are always at the forefront of planning.
12. Has consideration been given to doing repair projects over a period of time using local businesses and workers instead of outsourcing away from the community?
Ans: Yes, consideration has been given to such an approach however, this is actually more expensive and more disruptive to the library and its services over the long term.
From the beginning of this project local businesses and/or workers have been and will be welcomed to apply for any advertised position for which they are qualified. No local architects applied for the postion of either project manager or schematic design architect so “outsourcing” was necessary. We carefully interviewed people who demonstrated a sensitivity to small communities as well as historic building renovations.
1. Is the trustees next vote just to keep options open, including staying within the footprint, or is it a decision to definitely pursue the expansion?
Ans: The next vote we hope to have during the December board meeting will be whether or not to apply for a MBLC construction grant. A vote to do so would mean incorporating some, if not all of the required elements for a building program as set forth by the MBLC guidelines. This would include space for a meeting room as well as accessibility elements. We can apply for the grant stipulating no meeting room and/or expansion but have been told be the MBLC we most likely would not be considered.
2. Is it only the Trustees’ responsibility to decide such a large issue with so many impacts, or should corporators or even townspeople help decide?
Ans: The bylaws have been reviewed and there is no proviso that suggests the corporators vote on issues pertaining to the library, big or small. Please note: as a building committee and Board we have recognized long ago the magnitude of the currently proposed capitol project and have independently questioned the appropriateness of expanding voting responsibilities.
3. Should the project wait until the Nichewaug situation is clear?
Ans: The Building Committee, after speaking with the former task force group, concluded that the time is most advantageous for the library to move forward and attempt to acquire land from the Nichewaug/Town for several reasons: 1) The Nichewaug situation has been in flux for more than 20 years, the grant to demolish it has not yet been approved and no strong buyer candidates have been publicized. It is conceivable that it will be many more years before a completed plan is put in place. 2) The opportunity of 50-65% of construction costs being covered by the MBLC may well not happen again. Right or wrong, considering the current economic climate, the State has earmarked 100million dollars for library projects such as ours. 3)Currently construction costs are at a low and this is a good time to construct.
4. Are the cost estimates for the current project reasonable?
Ans: Currently we have preliminary cost estimates provided by the independent cost estimating firm of Deadalus Inc. We contracted to have estimates calculated based on a renovation within the current footprint only (no prevailing wage incurred) and one in which a 1400 sq ft. addition was included using supplemental construction grant money from the MBLC. These estimates were then reviewed by the PML owner’s project manager Katie Crockett, and superficially discussed with the MBLC small libraries specialist, as well as a community member with extensive construction experience. All deemed the figures to be consistent with the scope of the project and current building cost trends. Estimates are still preliminary because environmental studies have not yet been completed to assess the feasibility of installing alternative energy sources and their cost effectiveness over the long term.
5. If it’s projected that there will be negligible growth in the population over the next 20 years, why is an expansion being considered at this time?
Ans: An expansion to the library is necessary to comply with current building codes based on the current number of books within the library’s existing collection. Once any improvements to the building (such as installing drainage around the building, and pouring a concrete slab in the basement to ameliorate moisture in the building) totals more than 30% of the assessed value of the building ALL current building codes become effective. This privately owned building is legally a public building hence subject to such codes.
6. How long would the library have to raise 1.2 million if they take MBLC funds and expand?
Ans: If the library is awarded a construction grant and the town votes to accept it, we have until January 2012 to secure our portion of the total cost. Included in our portion, should the town vote to lease or give a portion of the Nichewaug property to the library, would be the assessed value of the land. The MBLC considers that clear evidence of community support for the project.
7. What if the library can’t raise enough money?
Ans: If we can’t raise the money then we are not eligible for an MBLC construction grant.
8. If the project goes over budget, who is liable for this cost?
Ans: The Town is in no way legally responsible should the project go over budget. No individual’s taxes will be adjusted to cover any loss. The Library Corporation is responsible for the project. That said, within the initial cost estimates exists a 20% contingency fund to allow for minimal overrun. Since this is a rather old building, there are bound to be some unexpected surprises as we restore the building.
9. What are the ramifications if there is an extended indebtedness that will become the responsibility of the Corporation and the Trustees in the future?
Ans: As discussed at the meeting the primary intention is to fund raise all that is needed to complete the project with no extended indebtedness. There does exist a 100% USDA government backed loan that is available currently at 4%. Should the Board decide to incur some debt, then yes, future Trustees would have the responsibility of managing its repayment.
10. If there are increased costs, such as maintenance, need for increased staff, and utility costs, how will this be paid?
Ans: Every effort is being made to consider those ramifications as we design for the future. Sight lines from the circulation are being carefully analysed in an effort to keep the number of staff from increasing , energy efficiency measures are constanly being discussed and a thorough cost to benefit study will be conducted during the next phase of design. The design has already been reworked to better accommodate solar panels to help minimize any additional energy costs. Of course fund raising and sponsorship will continue to be focus for the library.
11. Is there a list of possible increased costs to help in planning and decision making?
Ans: The major issues are always 1) energy trade offs 2) Staff requirements and 3) Continued building maintenance. Those factors are always at the forefront of planning.
12. Has consideration been given to doing repair projects over a period of time using local businesses and workers instead of outsourcing away from the community?
Ans: Yes, consideration has been given to such an approach however, this is actually more expensive and more disruptive to the library and its services over the long term.
From the beginning of this project local businesses and/or workers have been and will be welcomed to apply for any advertised position for which they are qualified. No local architects applied for the postion of either project manager or schematic design architect so “outsourcing” was necessary. We carefully interviewed people who demonstrated a sensitivity to small communities as well as historic building renovations.
13. Why isn't the basement being considered for usable library space?
Ans: The idea generated lots of excitement initially. However, the need for an elevator was just one of the many stumbling block in terms of expense, as well as long term maintenance. Also, the basement floor would need to be dug out the meet ceiling height requirement. Because the walls are rubble walls and the old building plans show no depth to the walls below the floor, the building itself would need to be 'underpinned' (structurally supported from below) this is extremely costly. Finally, with the high water table at times on the common, there could be no guarantee that the basement would not still have moisture and be unsuitable for book storage.
14. What will this project (an addition using MBLC funds) do to the current look of the Common?
Ans: Very little as an addition would be hidden in the back and the library would still use the original entrance as the main entrance. All Board members as well as Building Committee members vehemently agree that no additional asphalt or garish lighting will be added to the Common. According to MBLC quidelines, we have sufficient parking as it stands now. There has been some discussion (and ONLY discussion) that perhaps parallel parking in front of library might be a better solution with Common St. being made one way but neither the highway department nor the neighbors nor the Board have been officially approached with this suggestion.
As for lighting, a meandering, gently sloping walkway has been initially proposed to allow for handicapped access into the building without the need of unsightly handrails to mar the beauty of the library facade and close to the ground solar lights have been suggested to light the way during evening events. Again, nothing has been decided.
Ans: The idea generated lots of excitement initially. However, the need for an elevator was just one of the many stumbling block in terms of expense, as well as long term maintenance. Also, the basement floor would need to be dug out the meet ceiling height requirement. Because the walls are rubble walls and the old building plans show no depth to the walls below the floor, the building itself would need to be 'underpinned' (structurally supported from below) this is extremely costly. Finally, with the high water table at times on the common, there could be no guarantee that the basement would not still have moisture and be unsuitable for book storage.
14. What will this project (an addition using MBLC funds) do to the current look of the Common?
Ans: Very little as an addition would be hidden in the back and the library would still use the original entrance as the main entrance. All Board members as well as Building Committee members vehemently agree that no additional asphalt or garish lighting will be added to the Common. According to MBLC quidelines, we have sufficient parking as it stands now. There has been some discussion (and ONLY discussion) that perhaps parallel parking in front of library might be a better solution with Common St. being made one way but neither the highway department nor the neighbors nor the Board have been officially approached with this suggestion.
As for lighting, a meandering, gently sloping walkway has been initially proposed to allow for handicapped access into the building without the need of unsightly handrails to mar the beauty of the library facade and close to the ground solar lights have been suggested to light the way during evening events. Again, nothing has been decided.
FAQs 11/29/2010
15. Does the Library need to become fully ADA compliant?
Ans: The ADA is a federal law and we are currently out of compliance and could be sued at any time. Compliance with the Massachusetts Accessibility law is what is triggered at the 30% of assessed value level and that will be enforced, there is no way around it.
16. Why did a plan proceed with the architects to build outside the land owned by the library without assurance that the land could be obtained?
Ans: Very informal discussions with the previous Nichewaug Task Force led us to believe that the acquistion of land was a highly probable event. The NTF stated that they too were in their discovery phase but would do whatever they could to help and that each group should stay in contact as things developed. Because the purpose of the MBLC planning and design grant was to explore options which allowed this library to improve its current services to the public, the Building Committee, with Board approval, proceeded on its current course. No assurances were given or assumed.
17. What has determined the size of the addition/renovation project?
Ans: Based on an assessment of the current building, services desired by the community (several surveys involved), current code requirements including the creation of 2 first floor restrooms (MA code mandated), input from our current director of library services, and the small projected growth of the community, the gross square footage for the building, including an addition was determined. (gross square footage refers to wall thickness etc.) Currently we have 8289 gross square feet. (3963 basement, 3963 first floor and 426 second floor). Gross square footage for the addition would be an additional 1701.
15. Does the Library need to become fully ADA compliant?
Ans: The ADA is a federal law and we are currently out of compliance and could be sued at any time. Compliance with the Massachusetts Accessibility law is what is triggered at the 30% of assessed value level and that will be enforced, there is no way around it.
16. Why did a plan proceed with the architects to build outside the land owned by the library without assurance that the land could be obtained?
Ans: Very informal discussions with the previous Nichewaug Task Force led us to believe that the acquistion of land was a highly probable event. The NTF stated that they too were in their discovery phase but would do whatever they could to help and that each group should stay in contact as things developed. Because the purpose of the MBLC planning and design grant was to explore options which allowed this library to improve its current services to the public, the Building Committee, with Board approval, proceeded on its current course. No assurances were given or assumed.
17. What has determined the size of the addition/renovation project?
Ans: Based on an assessment of the current building, services desired by the community (several surveys involved), current code requirements including the creation of 2 first floor restrooms (MA code mandated), input from our current director of library services, and the small projected growth of the community, the gross square footage for the building, including an addition was determined. (gross square footage refers to wall thickness etc.) Currently we have 8289 gross square feet. (3963 basement, 3963 first floor and 426 second floor). Gross square footage for the addition would be an additional 1701.