LETTER to City Manager About North Branch Library

An Open Letter to George Proakis

Dear George,

It is the beginnings of some very lean financial times for Watertown, and one would hope that the City’s selected capital projects would be carefully chosen to reflect these times.

In your proposed (now approved) FY26 budget, you listed one and a half million dollars to renovate the North Branch Library. No purpose for the building had been stated. Apparently, that would be determined later, cart before the horse style.

In the course of the discussions about the North Branch Library, you noted that you had had an engineering study done to see the feasibility of spending money to do these repairs, and that the study had been quite favorable.

I got curious … a study funded by Watertown taxes to repair a Watertown public building that hasn’t been used in 20 years … how hard would that be to find?

First, I found some old City Council minutes regarding the North Branch Library from December 2010. One of the comments that stood out to me in these minutes was the thought that we could change the zoning on this public property. This public property was and currently is zoned OSC, Open Space, Conservation … a rare distinction in this City that personally, I would hate to lose.

I typed in the name of the property into the City website, where you said that all of the information on a City property would be available to the public. No luck.

Then, I sent in a request for public records to the Watertown Clerk’s Office. This was what came back:

“Linda … The City of Watertown is in receipt of your public records request dated May 20, 2025 delivered by hand and received by the City on May 20, 2025. You requested a “copy of the most recent engineering study that the City contracted for that property (241 Orchard Street). Attached please find the City’s response to the request in accordance with the Public Records Law. There are no further responsive documents.” And here’s what I got:

A 1941 schematic of the North Branch Library and land … hmmm … not very helpful, I’m afraid.

My note: the address for the library that I included was incorrect. I found that address on an old library history site. The correct address is 267 Orchard Street, and the Clerk, noting that I was looking for information on the North Branch Library, was still able to look for my information.

I thought, maybe I didn’t word my request correctly, or maybe I misheard you and was mistaken about the existence of a report, so to determine that this report is a real thing, I sent in this next public records request to the Clerk’s Office:

“Dear Ms. Gilligan:

I am requesting a copy of any rfp’s [requests for proposals], rfq’s [requests for quotes] etc. that the City has sent out requesting a feasibility study for the re-use of the Watertown North Branch Library. Also, please send me the legal ad that went out on this work as well. I think that the approximate time that this would have occurred would be between September 2022 and June of 2024.”

What I got back was a seven page document from the firm Simpson Gumpertz and Heger (a copy can be seen at the end of this letter) with this explanatory comment from the Clerk’s office:

“There was a structural evaluation completed in FY24. However, the procurement is exempt from bidding because it was not a feasibility study. There are no additional documents responsive to your request.” (I put the second sentence in bold type).

Now I was really confused. I looked up Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30B (MGL 30B) website, the Uniform Procurement Act. Massachusetts General Law requires a formal quote process for contracts over $10K that requires soliciting at least three written quotations and awarding the contract to the lowest bidder.

(Note: I have requested more documents from the Procurement Office to shed more light on this SGH letter and to clarify the process involved, which seems to be more involved).

In the law, I don’t see any exception for “non-feasibility studies.” Also, George, as you can plainly see on page two of this scope of work document below, the company describes this work as “evaluating the structural viability for adaptive reuse (i.e. restoring occupancy) of the existing mass masonry building as a first step in the feasibility study phase.” And you signed it! You agreed to pay this company $25,000 for the execution of the beginnings of a feasibility study.

You also see that this November 2, 2023 document refers to a final report, due by December 18, 2023, but as the Clerk’s message written to me states, “There are no additional documents responsive to your request.”

This report, which is relevant, since you’ve referred to it in meetings as an important piece of North Branch Library information, is at least a year and a half old by now, and if I had to guess who would be responsible for making it available to the public, it would be you or Assistant City Manager Steve Magoon. And, as you know, state law mandates a complete and accurate retention of City records.

As I’ve been looking into this, I mentioned it to another resident who happened to be interested in this topic. She said that she had recently asked a Watertown City Councilor about the report and they said, “What report??”

So, it appears that not only are the citizens who paid a whopping $25,000 for a report on a public building not being given access to this information, but Watertown City Councilors aren’t as well. What gives, George???

For the sake of governmental transparency, shouldn’t you release this document? Was this $25,000 transaction even within the limits of the law??

Meanwhile, there’s an 18 month old report still unavailable to the public. This should prove to be some interesting reading, because, as is stated in this letter below, it will be based on a lot of assumptions and professional guesses. See the limitations and exclusions section and the section that starts with “We exclude the following” of this document for verification of this.

So, as I see it, there are (at least) three issues involved here:

Question One:

Does your handling of this report conform with the transparency and accountability standards promised by you as you began your tenure as City Manager?

Question Two:

Does the process used to contract for this $25,000 study strictly conform with the law?

Question Three:

What does this study say about the condition and repair costs of the North Branch Library, and how accurate and comprehensive is this estimate after 18 months?

Question One seems to answer itself.

Question Two? I’m waiting for answers to my inquiries from the Procurement Office and the State. I’m hopeful. But that still remains to be seen.

Question Three: The Watertown public, that paid for this study, has absolutely no way to evaluate this question, until you make this an open process, and they can read the report for themselves. (Click at the bottom of the document to scroll through the seven page report) 2024-027-SGH-North-Branch-Library-1

Linda Scott
Watertown Resident