New Shutesbury Library Project Goes Out to Bid

Without fanfare or public announcement, Shutesbury’s new library bid solicitation went out on April 24, 2024. 

It was easy to miss. Because I subscribe to meeting notices through our town’s website, I received a notice for the Library Building Committee’s (LBC) June 6 meeting where they plan to “Review construction bids”. 

On May 8 I contacted the Chair of the Shutesbury Library Building Committee for details. She said the bid was submitted to Projectdog.com  on April 24. I also asked about the well water tests, to which she replied that they have received preliminary results and are waiting for final testing results. Despite requests for this information, the preliminary results have not been made public.

Projectdog requires creating an account to view information. Unable to find the project, I asked the Chair for the project code, which she gave me (861574). In the same email, I also suggested the Committee post the bid documents on the town website but received no response.

The Library Director sent a town-wide “Library News” email on May 16 with an announcement regarding the library project bid.

Bid Solicitation Highlights

As you may imagine, there were many documents uploaded for this bid, including forms, plans, and blueprints. Here are a few details to inform our understanding of where the library project now stands.

The estimated construction cost is $6 million. Recalling that a recent LBC meeting revealed a $6+ million price estimate for the 75% complete construction documents, I forwarded another question to the LBC chair. She reminded me that the $6 million is only the construction cost, not the entire project's cost. She also noted that value engineering (cost-cutting) had been done before sending out the bid.

Shutesbury has requested a base bid, with add alternates available if the base bid comes in under the cost estimate amount.

The original general contractor and subcontractor bid submission dates were May 30 and May 15, respectively. These dates have changed and may change again.

Addendum No. 1, filed on May 1, answered 7 questions from contractors. This 283-page addendum made substantive changes to the bid package, advising bidders that it “modifies, amends, and supplements designated parts of the Contract Documents” for the project.

Addendum No. 2, filed on May 6, answered 17 questions from contractors.  This addendum also made substantial changes and contains 75 pages.

Addendum No. 3, filed on May 10, answered 23 questions from contractors.  This document also extended the following dates:

• Subcontractors' bid deadline: May 23;

• General contractors’ question deadline: May 28;

• General contractors’ bid deadline: June 4.

Addendum No. 4, filed May 15, answered 30 questions from contractors. This document contains 76 pages. 

Addendum No. 5, filed May 17, answered 15 questions from contractors, and corrected answers provided to two previous questions in Addendum No. 4. There are multiple revisions, additions, and deletions to the original bid. This document contains 63 pages.

One of the revised answers in Addendum No. 5 pertains to the wood products used in this project. The new answer, with additional text bolded and underlined (per Addendum No. 5), now reads:

Wood materials for this project are not required to be obtained from forests certified by an FSC-accredited certification body to comply with FSC’s "Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship". All specification requirements will not need to be verified during submittal review.

This change surprised me since Shutesbury has been clear about wanting the building to be as environmentally responsible as possible, as is apparent in the LBC’s discussions on Net Zero and solar. All MA state-owned forests have been certified since 2004.

NOTE: All addenda documents include the list of bidders’ questions.

How Does Shutesbury’s Bid Experience Compare with Similar Projects?

I found the number of bidder inquiries and, importantly, the amount of revision done to the bid documents particularly interesting. Wondering if the number of questions from bidders and the scope of revisions was commonplace, I  compared Shutesbury’s bid with Amherst’s two recent library projects: the North Amherst Library addition and renovation, and the Jones Library renovation and addition. Both projects have readily available public information and have been extensively covered by the local media.

A recent article on the Amherst Indy expressed concern over the number of bidder inquiries as well as the voluminous addenda submitted by the Town of Amherst in response. For a $35.5 million contract, there were 98 questions and 22 answering addenda, totaling approximately 1,100 pages in addition to the original 3,400 in the bid solicitation.

By comparison, the bid documents for the North Amherst Library Addition project, originally estimated at $1.25 million, comprised the original bid document of 70 pages, plus six addenda. The N. Amherst, Jones, and Shutesbury library projects are compared in the table below.

Project	Project Cost (Original)	# of Bid Docs	Bidder Questions	# of Addenda	# of Addenda Pages	# of Bid Extensions
N. Amherst Library Addition	$1.25M	70	88	6	55	1
Shutesbury Library	$6M	130	94	5	551	1
Jones Library Renovation/Addition	$35.5M	3,400	98	22	1,100	3

 

Project variables such as size, cost, and complexity will directly impact the number of bidder questions and the issuance of addenda.

The Biggest Headwind for Local Library Projects: Price

Shutesbury is in a challenging bidding environment. Recent experiences in Amherst and Deerfield demonstrate the difficulty faced by local library projects, as each town received only a single bid for their respective projects.

Faced with a single bid for the Jones Library project that came in at $7 million above expectations, Amherst took stock of its situation. At a Special Meeting of the Amherst Town Council on April 29, the fate of the project was discussed. The general sentiment favored abandoning the new addition and concentrating on repairing and renovating the Jones Library building.

On May 3, the Trustees of the Jones Library unanimously recommended to the Town Manager to reject all general and subcontractor bids, which totaled $55 million. The Manager has until June 10 to decide whether to accept or reject the bids.

Deerfield's Tilton Library Expansion received only one bid, for $10.99 million, exceeding their estimate. Despite the disappointment, the town decided to award the project, stating that there "should be no budgetary issues" after making several adjustments. Deerfield accepted only the base bid.

The Tilton’s Project Manager noted that receiving only one higher-than-expected bid is not unusual for Pioneer Valley projects. Last June, Shutesbury’s architects warned the Library Building Committee that bids for our project will likely be higher because:

• Contractors are busy, which translates into fewer, higher bids;

• This is a small project with no economy of scale;

• Shutesbury is not close to an urban area.

At the time of publication of this post, bids are due by June 4. As long as there are no more deadline extensions, all will be revealed soon.

Information Mining on Shutesbury.org

Photo by Kenny Eliason on Unsplash

Municipal websites provide a wealth of information for citizens willing to explore what they offer. Though not all local governments display all the data the Massachusetts Public Records Law requires, they contain plenty of useful information that residents can access from their favorite web-connected devices.

Shutesbury’s website is no exception. Some information is easy to find and some requires a bit of digging. I’ve spent a fair amount of time over the past few years researching what Shutesbury.org offers, which is quite a lot. Other Shutesbury residents have also generously shared their knowledge.

Here's a quick tour of Shutesbury's website, from the basics to the more obscure, starting with its homepage.

Homepage

The landing page for Shutesbury.org contains answers to commonly asked questions and links to job postings, information about hazardous waste releases in town, and recycling and trash information, among other things.

The link to the town “Calendar” page displays several weeks’ worth of planned meetings and a link to “MyTownGovernment”, a private site that allows information-seekers to sign up for email alerts regarding upcoming meetings. Residents can sign up for as few or as many board and committee meetings as they like. I learned of this service a few years ago and can attest to its utility. 

In addition to listings and alerts for town government meetings, MyTownGovernment lists meetings and agendas for outside agencies, such as the Union 28 School District. The site also allows access to minutes, documents used during a particular meeting, and past meeting listings including their agendas.

On the right-hand side of the homepage and below the heading "Contact Town Officials", are two important sign-up links. One is for the Town Announcement emails, and the other is for Code Red, the town's emergency alert system. Both of these notification systems are extremely useful as they provide valuable information about power outages and other weather-related problems. They also provide updates on road projects and any associated issues. Furthermore, they inform you of any disruptions in the trash and recycling pickup schedule, usually due to trash truck breakdowns. 

At the top of every page on Shutesbury.org is a list of options with dropdown lists. Here are some highlights.

Departments

Assessors: Lots of information and links to explore concerning taxes, tax rates, town real estate values, exemptions, property cards, and Geographic Information System data. 

Dog Officer: Pertinent information about licensing dogs and the Shutesbury Leash Law (yes, we have one).

Police Department: There are links to the “Shutesbury Police Core Values” page, and to police logs, by year. The police logs page is disappointing as there is very little current information, with only one month’s worth of logs from 2023 and nothing from 2024. 

Town Clerk: As you would expect, this page has tons of information and links regarding important issues such as voting, town meetings, policies relating to public officials, the Open Meeting Law, the Public Records Law, and much more. 

Meetings

Under this heading, you’ll find links to posted meeting minutes of all boards and committees, links to the meeting Calendars page, and the link to Shutesbury’s YouTube channel, where Zoom meeting recordings are posted.

Services

I strongly recommend you peruse each of these pages as they all have pertinent information for residents and describe much of what our taxes pay for. 

Emergency Management: This page has information about and links to CodeRed and Shutesbury’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. NOTE: Though not a part of our town website, I recently found this MA Emergency Management Agency page for power outages, making tracking power restoration in town quick and easy.

Our Town Newsletter: This local news publication sports an end page that lists contact information for town officials–a low-tech reference item that we cut out now and then and tape to the inside of one of the kitchen cabinets. The most recent issue has an insert about creating a “Peace of Mind Binder” that is a real gem.

ShutesburyNET: Loads of information about our popular town broadband service and the perfect place to start if you have questions or concerns.

A few pages contain referral links to other websites, such as the Library, Housing Rehabilitation, Schools, Social and Community Services, and Veterans’ Services.

Town Governance

Interesting topics include links to Annual Reports from 2016 to 2022, Town Bylaws, Town Policies and Guidelines, and a handy Town Organizational Chart.

Town Officials

In addition to listing all Appointed and Elected town officials and their contact information, this tab also shares helpful information and links regarding Legislators and State Offices.

If you’d rather not have to mouse over headings to see the subheadings, clicking on the Site Index at the bottom of any webpage will show you the options in a single-page layout.

Search Tips & Tricks

Like many websites, Shutesbury.org’s search engine is less than robust. I’ve found it helps to be creative when searching the site.

Let’s take an example. I typed “finance” into the white search box and got 14 pages of results. Most were Finance Committee minutes, meaning the search engine grabbed the word “finance” and returned those results. Fair enough, but on page 14 I noticed a “Food Resources” page that did not contain the word “finance”.  This page has good information but seems inaccessible unless you search for “food resources”. It seems like a good fit for inclusion under the “Services” tab but is not listed there.

Similarly, searching for “budgets” does not return pages containing the town’s fiscal year budgets. Clicking the “Finances” link under the Town Governance tab brings up the Finance Committee’s page, which includes a link to several years’ worth of annual town budgets using the vague anchor text, “to be voted at the Annual Town Meeting”--which, in turn, brings you to the Town Meeting page.

I’ve noticed the presence of various nodes on the website, many of which do not seem connected to other website content. These nodes often present items of interest such as committee reports, election results, and, occasionally, bid requests.

Fortunately, the Shutesbury town website also has a Google Programmable Search Engine that crawls the entire site to return more targeted results. Happily, this service is free for non-profit sites. 

To find all the nodes on the site, simply enter your search query in the “Enhanced by Google” search box. The search engine will display all the relevant nodes on Shutesbury.org, and you can browse through the multi-page search results.

The Google Programmable Search is particularly useful for researching a specific event, document, issue, or concern since it searches all documents on Shutesbury.org, including minutes.

Give Shutesbury.org a test drive and let the Web Communications Committee know if you have any questions, ideas for better site navigation, or suggestions for new or expanded content. They are there to help.

Voting in Shutesbury: Pre- and Post-Pandemic

Via Clipart Library

Shutesbury’s Annual Town Meeting (ATM) is this Saturday, April 27, inside the Shutesbury Elementary School gymnasium. This marks the first time since 2019 that the event has been held inside and on the last Saturday in April, as required by the town’s bylaw.

This milestone started me thinking about how voting has changed since the pandemic struck in 2020, particularly at the local level. In many small towns with the town meeting style of government, voter turnout is generally low for both local elections and ATM attendance. This has also been the case in Shutesbury.

Let’s look at voting behavior before and after the pandemic hit in early 2020, nationally and here in Shutesbury.

2020 Was a Banner Year for Voting

Before the pandemic, many articles bemoaned the consistently low turnout of voters during local elections, even among those who voted in national elections. A 2018 New York Times opinion piece suggested that timing was the problem, and proposed aligning local and national elections to increase participation at the local level. 

On the national level, approximately 67% of eligible American voters cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, the highest number in 120 years. More than ⅔ of those voters chose early voting and mail-in ballots rather than voting at traditional polling locations.  

I reviewed the data for Shutesbury, using information available on the town’s website and statistics provided to me by our Town Clerk.

86.3% of Shutesbury voters cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election;

44.2% voted in the 2018 state primary and 78.5% voted in the state election;

 65% voted in the 2020 presidential primary, 58.7% voted in the MA state primary, and 89% of town voters cast ballots in the presidential election. 

Like the rest of the country, a high percentage of registered Shutesbury voters cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election. This was typical behavior for our town since nearly as many also voted in the 2016 national election. We exhibit high participation rates for state elections as well.

Local Election Participation Lags State and National Turnout 

As in other American communities, this vigorous voting behavior is not mirrored by Shutesbury when it comes to local elections, as we can see from this chart. 

Shutesbury Annual Town Meeting

Fiscal Year	Registered Voters as of ATM	No. of Voters Attending	Turnout	No. of Ballots Cast	Turnout
2016	1,452	160	11%	208	14%
2017	1446	220	15%	286	19.7%
2018	1454	173	12%	225	15.5%
2019	1425	283	20%	262	18.3%
2020	1443*/1228**	N/A	N/A	545	38%/44%
2021	1492	218	14.6%	308	20.6%
2022	1426/1528***	542	35.5%	458	32.11%/30%
2023	1516	188	12.4%	340	23%

Source: Annual Town Reports, Shutesbury.org, and the Shutesbury Town Clerk (unless otherwise specified)

*FY2020 Annual Report

**Unofficial Town Election Results

***Both sets of numbers contained in the FY2022 Annual Report

While participation in Shutesbury ATM before the pandemic was dismal, things have perked up a bit since. Even without the 2020 voter sign-in data for ATM, the number of ballots cast was phenomenal. Participation in town elections has remained higher since, compared to the four years preceding the pandemic. This is likely due to the continued availability of early and mail-in ballot voting.

The Shutesbury election with the highest voter participation was seen during the successful June 28, 2022 debt exclusion vote for the new library. A total of 829 ballots were cast, resulting in a 54% turnout rate. Previously, at the best-attended ATM in years, a majority of citizens present voted to pursue funding for the project. The unusually high attendance could be attributed to the get-out-the-vote campaign initiated by the Shutesbury Library Trustees and an online pledge/signup sheet organized by library supporters. 

Unfortunately, attendance at Shutesbury’s 2023 ATM returned to pre-pandemic lows, though ballot voting was still more robust than in the four years before 2020.

Can Local Election Involvement be Improved?

Other Massachusetts towns have asked this question too–with different results.

In Andover, the paltry 2% voter turnout at their ATM prompted town officials to float the idea of changing Andover’s local government structure. Sadly, so few citizens expressed interest in town government in any form that the study committee could not justify support for change and said so.

Ashland took a different tack. Between 2016 and 2019, town officials used a variety of tactics to increase residents’ trust in local government and motivate them to become more invested in the town. The program worked so well that Ashland substantially increased ATM attendance and the town was a finalist for the national Voice of the People Award for Transformation in Community Engagement.

Can Shutesbury do the same? The turnout in 2022 proves that an issue of significant local interest–the construction of a new public library–paired with personal appeals and plenty of advertising can turn the tide against apathy.

This year, the Town Moderator and the Shutesbury Town Meeting Clicker Study Group are inviting residents to fill out a survey regarding their attitudes about ATM. Notably, the email about the survey acknowledges the concern Shutesbury residents have expressed about others critiquing their voting behavior during public voting at ATM. That is an issue that needs exploring if town officials want to ramp up community involvement in any context.

The fact sheet about voting with clickers is accessible here:

https://www.shutesbury.org/town_meeting

Here is the address for the survey:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc_fl7086hRWFT69WX3kXQW1_1QNk4b98zB8lOkJAMOOtqxNA/viewform

Please let town officials know how you feel. 

Possibly related is this agenda item for the Select Board meeting on Tuesday, April 23:

Moderator Report to the Selectboard on Electronic Voting Study Group

It will be interesting to see if this study group is related to the clicker study group. There is no information on either group on the town website, which is unusual. I suppose we will have to attend this meeting to be educated about this new development.