NOTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE MEETING

Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League

 

            Present from Committee (clockwise around the table):  Selectman Craig Musselman, Ed Hayes, Selectman Joe Mills, John Loftus, Jeff Quinn, Chairman Paul Goldman, Bev Giblin, Tim Durkin, Karen Stewart, Ritchie White, Joe Tucker.

Town staff present in the audience:  Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie.

            Persons present from the public included:  Victor Azzi, Mae Bradshaw, Lori Carbajal, Peter Crawford, Frank Drake, Lindsey Josephs, Mark Josephs.

 

Editor’s note:  For ease in finding particular sections using the archived video and audio on Vimeo, the elapsed time is indicated.  Use the slider and the elapsed time indicated at the bottom of the video window to fast forward to the desired section. You may also click on the bold times in the video description to step directly to a section.  The video is available at https://vimeo.com/147847779/ (part one) and https://vimeo.com/147837440/ (part two).

 

Summary

 

1.      A resident asserted that the Committee has been wasting its time as the parameters of square footage and cost have not been agreed to. 

2.      The Committee voted to advance five options to the next stage.  The Selectmen will draft a warrant article to ask the town for funds to have an architect come up with cost estimates for each.  These are:

a.      Renovate the Town Hall preserving historic features (11-1 vote).

b.      Renovate the Town Hall with no regard to the historic features (9-2 vote).

c.       Tear down the Town Hall and rebuild it on the current site (7-4 vote).

d.      Construct a new Town Hall on the existing site, with the fate of the existing Town Hall to be decided later (passed at prior meeting).

e.       Construct a new Town Hall on a site just north of the Public Safety Building at 541 Washington Rd.  It would cost $500,000 to purchase the property and the existing house would be torn down (8-2 vote).

3.      Selectman Mills directed the Committee members to the video of the November 19, 2015 Heritage Commission meeting and took offense to their assertion that the Town, not the Selectmen, own the Town Hall.

4.      A resident asked why the Parsonage Apartments site, which may be sold for one dollar, were not a better one for a new Town Hall than the one on Washington Rd. which would cost $500,000.

 

Part One:  Preliminary discussions and formulation of the five options

 

(1:30 elapsed)

Introductory remarks by Chairman Goldman.

 

(6:40 elapsed)

Member Tim Durkin passes out a document that he wrote explaining why the Committee decided to exclude the Public Safety Building and Trolley Barn (a.k.a. Old Police Station) from consideration.

 

(18:36 elapsed)

Member Karen Stewart argues that the survey indicates that the community has rejected the option of a new building on a new site and that that option, which would involve spending $500,000 for the land, should be excluded.

 

(33:09 elapsed) 

            Selectman Musselman, referring to a suggestion at the prior meeting that the existing Town Hall could be repurposed as senior housing, states that Marty Chapman of the Housing Partnership was contacted and is excited about the possibility.  He believes that it would be easier to raise funds for that than for an expansion of the Parsonage Apartments.  Sale of these to the Housing Partnership is currently under consideration by the Town, Selectman Musselman explained. 

 

(78:38 elapsed)

            Ray Jarvis, speaking from the audience, states that the Committee has been wasting its time as the parameters of the maximum dollar expenditure and the square footage have not been nailed down.  He refers to the use of a figure of 663 square feet (sic) per person multiplied by 10 employees to arrive at an approximate estimate of the space need.  Editor’s note: Mr. Jarvis was apparently referring to a survey done by Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie that arrived at 633 square feet per employee as the average of a number of nearby towns.  See: http://www.town.rye.nh.us/Pages/RyeNH_BComm/TownHall/comparisonoftownhalls.pdf.  See also 2012 Warrant Article 27 (requiring consideration of this data).

 

Part Two:  Voting on the five options

 

            Editor’s note:  This section is on a different video.  See https://vimeo.com/147837440/.  The elapsed times for this section are relative to the start of this video.

 

            Chairman Goldman enumerated the five options:

1.      Renovate the existing Town Hall and preserve historic features.

2.      Renovate the existing Town Hall, but do not preserve the historic features.

3.      Demolish the existing Town Hall and construct a new building on the same footprint.

4.      Build an additional building on the Town Hall parcel, but leave the existing building intact with its fate to be determined.

5.      Build a new building on a new site.

Selectman Musselman argued that there was no benefit to including option two.

 

(8:55 elapsed)

            Chairman Goldman stated that he would push forward to see what the position of the Committee is.  Frank Drake, speaking from the audience, pointed out that the lot under consideration for Option Five is in the center of town and that there would be a huge cost to maintain town services during construction with some of the other options.  Mark Josephs, speaking from the audience expressed opposition to Option Five as he lives near the parcel in question. 

 

(17:32 elapsed)

            Selectman Musselman pointed out that Option One would cost a whole lot less than $4 million as it is a “whole lot less” space than was included in the proposal rejected by voters in early 2015.

 

(20:06 elapsed)

            The vote in favor of including Option One in the list for consideration by the architect was unanimous, with the exception of Selectman Mills, who voted no.

 

 (24:27 elapsed)

            The vote on Option Two was 9-2, with Selectman Musselman and Member Bev Giblin voting against.

 

(27:36 elapsed)

            After the motion to include Option Three in the list for consideration was made, Mae Bradshaw, speaking from the audience, asked whether it mattered whether the citizens had opposed the tear-down option in the survey results.  Chairman Goldman responded that they were trying to be complete by including it.  The vote on Option Three was 7-4, with Members Karen Stewart, Selectman Musselman, Tim Durkin and Bev Giblin voting against.

 

(29:24 elapsed)

            No vote was taken on Option Four as it had been included among the options in a vote at the prior meeting. 

 

(29:54 elapsed)

            Option Five was linked to a specific parcel at 541 Washington Rd.  Editor’s note:  This parcel is immediately north of the Public Safety Building.  Lindsey Josephs, speaking from the audience, stated that the house had not been lived in for six months.  Mae Bradshaw, speaking from the audience, asked whether the house, which is in the Historic District, would be torn down if this option were to be ultimately selected.  The response was yes.  Selectman Musselman suggested that the Committee keep this option on the table.  He asserted that all of the other options have fatal flaws, and that he did not believe that the community would coalesce behind any of them.  Member Karen Stewart enumerated various reasons why this was not a good option.  Chairman Goldman acknowledged that this option was not exactly within the boundary conditions of the survey, but argued that it should remain as it is in the center of Town and would demonstrate that the Committee exercised due diligence.  Member John Loftus provided a number of reasons why leaving the existing Town Hall in place would be a bad idea. 

 

(39:25 elapsed)

            The vote on Option Five was 8-2, with Members Bev Giblin and Karen Stewart voting no, and Member John Loftus abstaining.

 

(41:34 elapsed)

            Selectman Musselman suggested that the contractors and others with building knowledge on the Committee review the proposed scope of work for the architect. 

 

(44:16 elapsed)

            The motion to include funding for a survey after the architect presents his results carried unanimously except that Member Jeff Quinn voted no.

            Member Jeff Quinn argued for including the Recreation and Sewer Department administrative functions in the Town Hall.  After he was informed that the Sewer Department was based in Rye Beach near their customers in the Rye Beach and Jenness Beach Village Districts, Mr. Quinn pointed out that, in 20 years the sewer may not be constrained to those areas.  Selectman Musselman stated that this was a “very expensive” topic for another day. 

 

(54:18 elapsed)

A motion was made to include Selectman Musselman, Members John Loftus, Ed Hayes and Joe Tucker on a subcommittee to look at the architect’s scope of work.  Selectman Musselman indicated that, given the five options selected, it might not be appropriate to require elevation and 3D models for all five options.  The motion carried unanimously.

Selectman Mills raised the issue as to whether the subcommittee would be subject to the right-to-know law.  The discussion appeared to indicate that it was not.  Editor’s note:  In fact it is subject to right-to-know.  See RSA 91-A:2, I (all meetings of a quorum of a “public body” must be open to the public, with certain exceptions); RSA 91-A:1-a, VI(d) (subordinate bodies of committees are considered to be public bodies).      

 

(59:09 elapsed)

            Selectman Mills referring to a statement made at the November 19, 2015 meeting of the Heritage Commission.  Editor’s note:  See in particularly the video of that meeting, accessible from the Town website, at 6:37:19 p.m.  Selectman Mills asserted that, based on statements made at the Heritage Commission meeting:

           

“You people right here are nothing.  You’re lower than whale, you know what, in the water, let me tell you that.  Okay, and Craig, turn your keys in to the Town Hall because you no longer own the Town Hall.  Okay.  The Town owns it.  You.  And I turned my keys in today and Priscilla’s got to turn hers in because the statement made ‘you think you own the Town Hall.’”

 

Chairman Goldman then opened the meeting to public recognition.

 

Public input (61:28 elapsed)

            Mae Bradshaw asked why after picking Option Five despite the survey results, the Committee would not consider the Parsonage as a suitable site inasmuch as it is about to be sold for one dollar.  The existing Town Hall could possibly be used for elder housing she asserted.

            Selectman Musselman responded that the Parsonage site, although difficult to ascertain as it is on the same parcel as the Library, has 209 feet of frontage and is about 80 ft. deep.  That is 16,000 to 17,000 sq. ft., or about a third of an acre.  The site at 541 Washington Rd. is 1.47 acres and another under consideration is 1.37 acres.  He stated that he did not believe that the Parsonage site was large enough.  Editor’s note:  The standard in section 500 of the Rye Zoning Ordinance is that there should be one 10 ft. by 18 foot parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of office space, which, if followed, would mean 30 parking spaces if the building were 9000 sq. ft.  A two story building of that size would occupy a 4500 sq. ft. footprint and the parking 5400 sq. ft.  Additional space would be required for setbacks and aisles between the parking spaces and there are lot coverage limitations.  The space would be tight, but it is not clear that a Town Hall and its parking would not fit if variances for setbacks and lot coverage were obtained or the Town took advantage of its right to be exempt from its own Zoning Ordinance.

            Member Ritchie White stated that the estimate associated with Option Five could be adjusted by the land cost to arrive at the cost of Ms. Bradshaw’s proposal.

            Mark Josephs asked whether the Committee was more interested in new construction.  Selectman Mills stated that the main thrust was new construction.  Selectman Musselman stated that there was a sense among members of the Committee that the cost of renovation would be higher.

            Lori Carbajal stated that she wanted to see something that would last,  well-constructed and was willing as a taxpayer to pay for that.  However, she noted that there was apparently additional cost associated with the Public Safety Building to provide for the possibility of a second floor but it has now been determined that that cannot be used for anything.  Joe Tucker added that the word “deplorable” is close to describing the situation at the Public Safety Building.

            Lindsey Josephs pointed out that the Public Safety Building, which occupies the site previously occupied by a little fire station, became a giant building not in keeping with the neighborhood.  Now they are doing the same thing again.

 

(72:26 elapsed)

            Peter Crawford expressed concern about the cost associated with the warrant article that was to be written.  The written comments in the returned surveys indicate that people are getting tired of the Town Hall being raised again and again.  In 2012, a $135,000 warrant article for an architect was voted down.  The same may occur if the cost associated with this warrant article if it is for $100,000, particularly as the square footage has not been nailed down.  He referred to the earlier comment of Ray Jarvis and noted that Member Jeff Quinn had also made such a statement.  Member Quinn interjected “absolutely.”  Mr. Crawford stated that the square footage should be 7500 sq. ft. since Recreation, Sewer and a Great Hall are not to be included.  Perhaps it should be 7000 sq. ft. if the circulation associated with those is also deducted. 

            Mr. Crawford asked whether the architect was going to be asked to start over with the space needs determination.  He stated that the townspeople had thought that 10,500 sq. ft. had been agreed to when they voted money for Town Hall in 2013.  However, the design ended up being 12,500 sq. ft. and almost twice the $2.1 million cost estimated in 2013.  The Committee had the support of the Town at that point, but it was gradually lost over time due in part to feature creep. 

            Member John Loftus stated that there are three surveys on the square footage, the one by AG Architects, the Committee, and by SMP.  He asserted that the 2012 Committee had not done a good job as it appeared that they had simply reduced everything by 10-20 percent.  Editor’s note:  The AG schematic (i.e. sample) design, in 2011, was for approximately 15,000 sq. ft.  The warrant article to continue the design process based on that failed to pass in 2012.  Similarly, the SMP design, which resulted in a $4.1 million warrant article was voted down in 2015.  Neither received even 40 percent of the vote.

            Selectman Musselman referred to a document that stated that the estimate would be based on the SMP design with reductions for the absence of space for the Great Hall, Recreation and Sewer.  The space was reduced as much as it could be in the SMP design.

            Mr. Crawford stated that this statement adds to his concern.  The SMP design was for 12,500 sq. ft.  Deducting for Recreation, Sewer and the Great Hall brings that to about 9500 sq. ft., perhaps a bit less if the associated circulation is also deducted. 

            Member John Loftus stated that he had arrived at a net square footage requirement of 6864 sq. ft. and a gross requirement of 8923 sq. ft. 

            The meeting then adjourned.