In an interview with the Press Oct. 15, Old Library Accessibility Committee (OLAC) Chair Lucy Wallace and Harvard Cultural Collaborative (HCC) board President Mark Mikitarian both expressed frustration with the Finance Committee’s recommendation to table Article 3 until spring.
The main point that both Wallace and Mikitarian made is that the town has voted repeatedly to support and fund making the old library accessible, and the Finance Committee should honor those votes. Wallace added that it’s always difficult to know what might be coming up, but “we can’t keep second-guessing” decisions.
Wallace acknowledged that the old library’s leaky roof is a problem but said the scope and cost of the roof repair or replacement is not yet known. She said the town has had only one company’s opinion and estimate, and a project with known costs that’s ready to go should not be held hostage to a project that’s not yet fully defined.
As for the high bids, Wallace said the two bids for the accessibility project were within 10 percent of each other, so OLAC believes they were realistic in this economic climate, and, if anything, bids will be higher in the spring when larger projects are typically put out for bid.
“There’s no better time to invest in the building than now,” Wallace said. She added that combining the accessibility project with the roof replacement would not likely save the town any money and might not even be viable. She referenced the experience with the Bromfield School science labs several years ago when the school department tried to combine the work into a single project. The result was no bids, and the work had to be broken up and put out to bid again separately.
Wallace also expressed frustration with John Seeley’s negative input regarding the accessibility project at the Finance Committee’s meeting Oct. 3. Seeley, who co-chairs the Capital Planning and Investment Committee, was the only person on CPIC to vote against recommending the project. Wallace said the Select Board’s policy is that after a measure passes, board members who cast a ‘no’ vote must still support the measure. Seeley also serves as the CPIC representative to the Finance Committee, and while he did report CPIC’s decision to the Finance Committee, he also stated his own negative opinion about the project, which may have influenced the committee to recommend tabling the project until spring.
Déjà vu?
Mikitarian was frustrated that the Finance Committee is once again revisiting the accessibility conversation. He said the HCC board has been committed to keeping the old library alive and part of a vibrant town center, and accessibility has always been a priority for the group, which contributed $6,000 of its first-year revenues to the town to put toward making the building accessible.
He also pointed out that the $192,000 grant from the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund would not exist if the HCC were not the building’s tenant, and that the collaborative did most of the work applying for the grant. He added that he has heard that repeat applicants are likely to be successful in attaining another grant because the action shows a town is continuing to invest in cultural facilities. He believes the town could apply for an additional grant to help pay for the roof.
Wallace also asserted that HCC is being treated badly in all of this. The collaborative agreed to vacate the building during the renovation, and Wallace said collaborative members have worked hard to plan for the closure during the work they expected would begin this fall. People interested in renting space in the building had to be put on hold, jeopardizing the group’s income stream and potential customer base.
And finally, Wallace and Mikitarian both expressed how difficult it is for volunteers to keep moving forward when boards revisit decisions that were already made. “It gets wearing,” said Wallace.
