Peer Review

The ZBA indicated that they would like a peer review of the project.  They did not indicate what part of the project should be reviewed.  However, the many comments they made indicate that it would be a review of the building program, which would be outside the scope of their jurisdiction.  Here is what that peer review would accomplish:

1. Taxpayer money spent to conduct a peer review of the program which was written by an independent consultant and already reviewed by:
   •  Library Director
   • Library Staff
   • Library Building Committee
   • Library Trustees
   • Community Members
   • The MBLC, which is dedicated to ensuring an objective unbiased review process for all applicants:
     • As a recipient of a state planning and design grant, the building program was evaluated by a team of three independent reviewers.
     • As part of the state construction grant, the application was reviewed by a team of five independent reviewers.
2. Either a confirmation that the building program was well defined, or it wasn’t.
3. No change in the project no matter what the result of the review. The grant was already submitted, approved, and awarded and a peer review would not change any outcomes including the building design.
4. Delay of the project which could result in the loss of the grant depending on how long the delay is.