HTML version for Civic News: TownHallCteeMtg120313revBfinal
NOTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2013 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present from Town Hall Committee: Paul Goldman, Peter Kasnet, Paula Merritt, Lucy Neiman, Peter White, Victor Azzi, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Selectman Craig Musselman, Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, Absent: Mark Luz.
Also present from the Town: Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie, Planning Administrator Kim Reed, Recreation Director Lee Arthur (arrived late).
Present from SMP Architects: Eric Palson, Jason LaCombe, Anthony Mento.
Present from public: Peter Crawford, Alex Herlihy, Dominique Winebaum, Sam Winebaum, Michele Sopher, Mae Bradshaw (arrived late), Steven Borne (arrived late), Ann Malpass plus approximately three unknown members of the public.
Editor’s note: As the meeting was held at the Rye Public Library, there is no video.
Summary
- SMP Architects presented the new two building design, reduced approximately 2400 sq. ft. to 12,600 sq. ft. for both the new and old buildings, based on public input at the last public interaction session.
- The alternative one building design (extension to existing building) was also presented, but it provides only 9,000 sq. ft. of space.
- Michele Sopher of the Rye Energy Committee suggested changes to make the building more energy efficient.
- Committee members have different views on whether the one building design, plus a renovated Old Police Station, could accommodate Town needs.
- Emphasizing the usefulness of the Meeting Hall to the voters was discussed.
- The Committee and the public debate whether both designs should have cost estimates done, or only the two building design. The requirements of the Warrant Article in that regard are debated.
- After more debate, the Committee votes, 8-1, to select the two building design.
- Parameters for the cost estimate, expected by the January 9 meeting, were discussed.
Introduction by Chairman by Victor Azzi
Chairman Azzi opened the meeting, described the process that the Committee was following and introduced those present from the Town Hall Committee, the Town, and SMP Architects (“SMP”) (i.e., the first three groups listed above, excluding Lee Arthur, who arrived late and was not present at the time).
Chairman Azzi explained that the focus was now on schematic design, that there had already been 8-9 meetings and there would be another 6 prior to the vote next March.
Introduction and presentation of two building option by Eric Palson of SMP
Editor’s note: See the notes of the prior meetings for a more detailed explanation of the design. The basic concept has remained the same since the early meetings. It includes a second building to the east of the existing one, a short distance away. The new building has two stories, with a connector at the ground floor level to the existing building. Following re-grading of the area, the connector would be located underground, with a courtyard above having entrances into either the new or the old building, as well as access to the parking lot of the Congregational Church. The second floor of the existing building is proposed to be converted to a large Meeting Hall (also called the Great Hall) by removing the existing partitions. The remaining space in the two building would be used for offices, smaller meeting rooms, and storage. The flyover video may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBy8gq-_hNI.
Mr. Palson explained that this was the second public presentation. Some adjustments had been made since the first presentation. The building had been refined and reduced a bit in area. He displayed a revised set of boards based on the new design. One of the graphics showed the areas removed, which are primarily at the north side of the added building. Mr. Palson stated that the reduction in footprint is 1200 sq. ft. per floor, times two floors. The new plan is 2400 sq. ft. smaller than the prior one, without any real compromise of function. It was determined that some spaces were larger than they needed to be to accommodate the function.
The total size is 3300 sq. ft. times two floors for the existing building, and 2900 sq. ft. times two floors for the new one, plus 200 sq. ft. for the connector between them, approximately 12,500 sq. ft. or 12,800 sq. ft. Editor’s note: The figures stated add up to 12,600 sq. ft. The difference between that and the original program space is the added meeting space, Mr. Palson said. Editor’s note: See the notes of the prior meetings. There was significant debate about space for meetings of the Selectmen and other groups. The concept of the original plan was that the large Meeting Hall would serve this function, however there were concerns about the acoustics. Also, the number and size of some of the other meeting rooms were increased.
Mr. Palson explained that this is not the final plan. He stated that the goal at this point is to come up with a preliminary plan that they can put a price to.
Mr. Palson stated that there were three meeting rooms in the new building: small, medium and large.
Presentation of one building option by Mr. Palson
Mr. Palson stated that they were also asked to look at a sympathetic addition. Mr. Palson showed that design, which has a 1200 sq. ft. addition off of the back, a length of about 25 feet, or what the building could tolerate without being overwhelmed. Editor’s note: based on later discussion, it appears that this was the figure for a single floor.
Presentation of other design variations by Mr. Palson
Mr. Palson stated that they were trying to come up with the general bulk so that they could estimate what the building was going to cost. Within that, there is a lot of wiggle room.
One comment that they heard was that the second building was going to look too big. There are many ways to alleviate the effect of that, including lowering the roof line, he said.
Mr. Palson stated that another comment received was that the second building should be further away. That would make the 200 sq. ft. connector 400 sq. ft., he said. That would not make or break the project. There is some room to move it back without impinging on the setback, he said.
Mr. Palson showed a number of variations on the design. He then showed a video flyover of the building. These variations have no impact on the estimate, he said.
Mr. Palson stated that the next steps are to look at the other Town properties and to prepare the budget for the work. Editor’s note: One of the tasks specified in 2013 Warrant Article 4 is the preparation of a Facilities Master Plan for the Town. At the end of January there will be a wrap-up presentation, Mr. Palson said. He then opened the discussion up to the public.
Questions and comments by Michele Sopher of the Rye Energy Committee
Ms. Sopher stated that the design looked great. It looked like the new building had always been there, she said. She liked that the long axis is in an east-west direction, providing a lot of area that is a southern exposure. She asked whether the “L portion” of the building could be shortened. Editor’s note: The design of the new building is “L shaped” with the base of the “L” in line with the existing building and the vertical portion proceeding north. See the video referred to above. She stated that she liked the overhang on the south side of the building, which would provide sunlight during the winter, but shade during the summer when the sun was higher. She asked whether there could be more window area there.
Ms. Sopher stated that one of the problems with the existing building is that the cooling load is actually higher than the heating load due to the southern exposure. She would like to see as much passive solar heat as possible during the summer, but with the solar gain mitigated during the summer. The best way to do that is with an overhang, she said. Ms. Sopher suggested that the window area on the west side be made smaller as the sun would be beating in there while the building is the warmest. Also, the windows have a lower insulating value than the walls, so the larger the window area is the more the heat loss would be, she said. Editor’s note: Reducing the window size would reduce the heating costs during the winter as the heat loss needs to be made up by the heating system for the building to be kept warm. Ms Sopher asked whether the shadowing could be modeled to show how the existing building would affect the new one. Mr. Palson stated that it could be put into a model with the times and days plugged in. Ms. Sopher asked whether the walls would be thicker than normal to provide more insulation. Mr. Palson indicated that that is within the margin of error at this point.
Mr. Palson stated that they will be having the building independently estimated. Directions will be given to the person doing so. He indicated that the issue of wall thickness would be taken into account at that point.
Ms. Sopher asked about the attic configuration. Mr. Palson said that depends to some extent on the heating system as they would want the ducts to be on the warm side of the insulation. They would first need to settle on the mechanical system. There may not even be duct work, he said.
Ms. Sopher acknowledged that the hip roof looked better, but cautioned that the configuration would reduce the area for solar panels if a decision was made to add those. Mr. Palson stated that there may be more roof than could be taken advantage of, based on what the Town could afford to spend on solar panels.
Discussion about the square footage of the building
Peter White asked about the alternate design with the building extension and how the 1200 sq. ft. was calculated. It was clarified that that was per floor. One of the architects stated that the addition was 38 ft. by 28 ft.
Mr. White then said that with the 6600 sq. ft. of existing space, that would make the space about 9000 sq. ft. The architect indicated that they had arrived at a similar figure. Beth Yeaton interjected that Recreation was not included in the one building design. Mr. White stated that the Trolley Barn (Old Police Station) would add 2500 sq. ft., which would add up to 11,500 sq. ft. total. He said that he wanted to put that on the record. Mr. Palson agreed that Mr. White’s calculations were approximately correct.
Peter Crawford asked about the calculation of the square footage. He said that, at the prior meeting, it was stated that the new building was about 8000 sq. ft. Mr. Palson agreed that that was approximately correct. Mr. Crawford then stated that, with the 2400 sq. ft. reduction referred to earlier in the meeting, that would mean that the new building is now 5600 sq. ft. He stated that he had been using 6000 sq. ft. for the existing building, leading to a total of 11,600 sq. ft., and indicating a discrepancy relative to the 12,800 sq. ft. stated earlier. Mr. Palson stated that he had used 6600 sq. ft. for the old building. Mr. Crawford stated that that was 600 sq. ft. of the difference, but that there was another 400-500 sq. ft. unaccounted for. Mr. Palson indicated that the total was somewhere shy of the total stated.
Beth Yeaton stated that the single building option would not solve problems with a lack of meeting rooms, space for the Recreation Department and storage. Mr. Palson responded that the citizens would need to determine whether that option was acceptable.
Peter White aired a concern that the last committee had determined that the need was 10,500 sq. ft., plus or minus 10 percent, which leads to a maximum of 11,500 sq. ft. Citizens of Rye might say that they love the building, but it is outside the parameters of what the Committee was supposed to be looking at. Mr. Palson stated that they had looked at that as well and the reason for the increase was that they had added a little to the program. He said that, if this became an issue, the meeting rooms could be reduced in size.
Jason LaCombe stated that solving the problem for a long duration conflicted with the goal of a 10,500 sq. ft. design.
Beth Yeaton stated that she had been on both committees. She does not believe that the earlier group could have gotten any closer than it did as it did not know the design implications. It had come up with an approximate figure.
Chairman Azzi reminded everyone of the two goals. One was to fulfill the programmatic needs for town offices and meeting rooms. The other was that, whatever was done, whether it was building or two, it would need to be subservient.
Other public questions and comments
Paula Merritt stated that the design is still attractive but what troubles her was that the focus was to be the historic Town Hall. She asked that it be made to look as something other than a copy. Ms. Sopher’s comment about it looking like it had always been there suggested that it was a copy. Mr. Palson stated that, from 500 yards away, it would look like it had always been there, but that would not be the case from up close. That would be the balance that they would try to make.
Ms. Merritt stated that Town Hall should be restored to its glory and it should stand out. Mr. Palson stated that he agreed, but they did not want to stir up a bees nest by making it look too different. It would probably be a wood frame, clapboard building of some kind.
Chairman Azzi stated that this is only a design concept, a schematic design, only the first of four major steps. Mr. Palson indicated that the modern tools allow them to show a more detailed “what if” than the physical models available in the past would have permitted.
Ms. Merritt stated that the public is not hearing this, but is seeing the design. They will be voting on the expectation so it needs to look more like a finished product.
Steven Borne asked what the increased infrastructure costs would be from having two buildings, including Internet, heating and maintenance costs. Mr. Palson stated that it would cost more due to the greater total size. He confirmed that the goal would be to have it on the same geothermal system. He acknowledged that the design was not optimal. An optimal design would be a square one to minimize the perimeter.
Mr. Borne asked about the other steps. Mr. Palson acknowledged that they owed an investigation of the other Town buildings and their lifetimes. Mr. Borne asked about reconfiguring the Public Safety Building to provide space to take pressure off of the design constraints on this site. Mr. Palson said that the investigation may show that for the money spent it may not be fruitful.
Paul Goldman stated that it was useful to have a guide as to the square footage. It was useful not to let it be open-ended. However, he personally would not be upset if the square footage is larger if the objectives are accomplished.
Lucy Neiman inquired about whether the second option of an addition would meet the programmatic requirements. Mr. Palson agreed that it would not.
Beth Yeaton referred to Peter White’s comments regarding Recreation being placed in the Trolley Barn and to Steven Borne’s comments. She stated that a lot would need to be spent to use that building for active space, rather than just storage. She referred to the failed septic system, the absence of plumbing, heating and air conditioning. There is also very little parking. To compare dollars to dollars, one needs to look at the whole picture, she said.
Selectman Musselman asked what else the addition did not provide, beyond the absence of space for Recreation. Mr. Palson stated that other departments are all represented to some degree. General spaces were squeezed down. There is one less conference room and less storage space. Peter White interjected that the conference room could be provided at the Trolley Barn.
Chairman Azzi stated that the option with the addition did not satisfy the program and it was not subservient. Mr. Palson stated that it was subservient, but was not his favorite. It does not overwhelm the existing building, he said.
Peter White asked whether there was any storage space on the third floor of the existing building. Mr. Palson stated that there was, and it was usable, but not the most convenient.
Sam Winebaum asked whether, with the single building design, there could be an addition on the northeast corner. Mr. Palson indicated that it could be done. They had assumed that the cross section of the addition would be the same as that of the existing building.
Steven Borne asked whether there could be a basement. Mr. Palson stated that there could be, and it could be used for storage. Mae Bradshaw asked about using it for meeting space as well. Mr. Palson stated that it could be done, but the elevator shaft and stairs would cause much of the space to be lost.
Lucy Neiman raised concerns about the foundation. Mr. Palson stated that the foundation would be going down four feet anyway, and the incremental cost of another five feet would not be great. Editor’s note: Generally, foundations must extend below the frost line to prevent freezing of the ground from damaging the building. In this climate the frost line is several feet below the surface. Mr. Palson expressed concern about putting a place of assembly in a basement with no way out. It would be fine for storage, particularly if there were an elevator, as carts could be transported to the basement using the elevator.
Emphasizing the importance of the Meeting Hall to the voters
Alex Herlihy commented that the hip roof enhances the building. He stated that, on January 28, they would have the final presentation. The auditorium is the central issue. An extraordinary job needs to be done regarding how that space can be used. It is a “crap shoot” as to what the voters will take. There will be other warrant articles asking for money. Most of the voters are not here, he said. He suggested that the people in the room talk to those that they know well.
Anthony Mento stated that the followers on Facebook were increasing. The videos have been viewed 1500 times. It has also been shared by people on their own pages. If concerns are expressed on the website, people can respond. Their firm cannot. A lot of the comments are uninformed.
Priscilla Jenness stated that it was easy to envision use of the upper parking lot. She stated that her eighth grade graduation had occurred in the Meeting Hall and her husband had performed on the stage in “Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates.” It has a lot of history. She recalls a Town Meeting in which Pease was rejected as an Air Force Base. The access to parking from both levels is a great asset.
Alex Herlihy stated that a lot of the space could be filled up if there were a major event in the auditorium. He asked how that would work with the Church. The response was that people could park in the back.
Discussion of which design(s) would have cost estimates done
Mr. Herlihy asked whether estimates of the construction cost would be available for the citizens when they vote. Chairman Azzi stated that they would be.
Mae Bradshaw asked whether there would be figures for both options. She stated that the fear is that the voters would conclude that it was less expensive to select the single building option and forego restoration of the Meeting Hall.
Selectman Musselman stated that there was a danger of identifying two different costs, separated by perhaps $800,000, when one does one thing and the other does something different. The debate would then be whether the one not satisfying the programmatic need would be acceptable, given the price. That would not be the debate that the community should be having, he said. They should decide which should be tossed out. It would be a different matter if they both did the same thing.
Lucy Neiman asked whether they had the ability to make that decision. The consensus seemed to be that they could.
Mae Bradshaw stated that another option would be to not present the cost. She stated that it might not be best for the Committee to decide whether it should be one building or two.
Beth Yeaton stated that that was their charge. Chairman Azzi stated that it was part of their responsibility to get an estimated cost.
Selectman Musselman said that costing was not part of the requirement, a schematic design was. He read from the warrant article: “and the preparation of two schematic designs and cost estimates, each configured to fully satisfy identified Town Hall space needs.” He stated that the addition has been truncated to respect the existing building and doesn’t provide the programmatic needs.
Mae Bradshaw stated that that gets back to Peter White’s comments and how the addition can be made to satisfy those needs.
Peter White summarized how this could be done. He stated that there could be three stories on the addition and the Trolley Barn could be used as space for Recreation. That gets you back to 12,600 or 12,700 sq. ft., he said. Now there is the same amount of space. Functionality may not be the same, he acknowledged.
Beth Yeaton stated that only one option would be on the warrant article. There would not be two. That was what the Committee was to decide.
Peter Crawford referred to the language in the warrant article referring to “the preparation of two schematic designs and cost estimates.” He stated that that means that there must be two cost estimates and they both must be apples to apples as they both must fully satisfy the programmatic requirements. Otherwise the warrant article requirements have not been met, he said.
Mr. Palson stated that it was impossible. Within the constraints given, there is not a solution that fully satisfies the requirements. There is no optimal solution that meets all of the requirements, he said. Selectman Musselman interjected “we tried.” Mr. Palson said that the box was too small. “You can’t legislate it to fit in the box,” he said. If you want apples to apples you have to throw out the constraint.
Sam Winebaum indicated that there had been discussion about the Trolley Barn. He asked whether the Facilities Master Plan wasn’t supposed to help make things apples to apples. There may be programs, such as Recreation, that are not contained in the addition or separate building.
Chairman Azzi stated that he did not believe that the Town Hall project could wait for the Facilities Master Plan to start the Town Hall design. Mr. Winebaum indicated that that was not what he was saying. Rather it was that the Facilities Master Plan might identify a space that could fit programmatic needs so that it would not need to be considered in the addition or new building.
Chairman Azzi stated that this and previous committees had looked at every building in Town, including the salt shed. The Facilities Master Plan is needed in case there is a need because of requirements that might arise several years in the future, he indicated.
Mae Bradshaw asked what would happen if someone stood up at the Deliberative Session, or whatever session it is when the public shows up, and asks why all of the programmatic needs cannot be taken care of upstairs in the Great Hall and why that would need to be restored instead of used as office space.
Mr. Palson stated that the project would then become adding an elevator to what is there already.
Chairman Azzi referred to the work that Alex Herlihy and others were doing to demonstrate the uses of the Great Hall.
Mae Bradshaw stated that she was not sure that people would want to spend $3 million to make that happen.
Lucy Neiman and Alex Herlihy discussed ways in which the message of the use of the Great Hall could be conveyed.
Jason LaCombe argued that functionally it would not make sense to continue to use the Great Hall. Mr. Palson stated that, rather than spend $300,000 or $400,000 on something halfway it would be better for the Town to hang on to the money it had and wait until another day than to build a half baked solution.
Lucy Neiman asked whether the Town hadn’t already passed the preserving of the Great Hall in the warrant article. Selectman Musselman added “and its curvilinear staircases.” Editor’s note: They are correct. See 2013 Warrant Article 4.
Mr. Goldman said that restoring the Great Hall or Meeting Hall was a really good thing and that they ought to have it. It was also necessary that the programmatic needs be satisfied. He questioned whether they should be revisiting the objectives rather than coming together and making sure that the objectives are rock solid. The group should not continue debating, but should sell what is decided is best for the Town.
Alex Herlihy stated that there were around 140 people at the last Deliberative Session, which is a lot more than are in this room. They would have no problem knowing all 1400 on the voting list.
Lucy Neiman asked about the cost and the bonding. Selectman Musselman stated that there was a handout that would show the amount of debt service dropping out for the Town and how that helps limit the impact on taxes. Someone asked whether that included Conservation. Editor’s note: There is a proposal for a $3 million bond issue to purchase of Conservation land. Steven Borne added that there was also a
Central Water Treatment Plant. Selectman Musselman stated that there were other things coming, but the reduction in the debt load is very significant. You couldn’t have a better time, he said.
Jason LaCombe stated that they are trying to get an emotional connection with the Hall. Facebook is one tool. He suggested posting a half a dozen 30 second videos to connect with townspeople and show what it was and what it could be.
Paul Goldman suggested that the Great Hall be positioned as a gift to the townspeople.
Alex Herlihy asked what the Fire Department’s determination of the seating capacity was. Mr. Azzi stated that the architects had determined that it was 241 seats. That’s fantastic, that’s amazing, said Mr. Herlihy.
Lucy Neiman suggested that an appeal be made to the Senior Citizens as they’re the ones that come to the Deliberative Session.
Chairman Azzi asked whether the Committee should now convene to address its business. The others were welcome to stay, he said.
There was a break and a number of people left at this point.
Committee Discussion: Selection of two building design and a single cost estimate
(at this point only Mae Bradshaw, Peter Crawford, Lee Arthur, the Architects, the Committeee, Kim Reed, Mike Magnant and Cindy Gillespie remained)
Beth Yeaton made a motion to defer consideration of the minutes until the next meeting.
Jason LaCombe suggested that the meeting the following Thursday be canceled as there would be issues with some of the architects attending. The discussion indicated that the next meeting after that was to be December 17.
Jason LaCombe stated that they wanted to schedule time to look at other buildings, and they also wanted to wrap up the drawings so that a construction estimate could be put together.
Chairman Azzi asked when information would be needed by the Selectmen. Selectman Musselman stated that the design cost would be needed for the warrant article by January 8, 9 or 10, whenever that needs to be filed. A decision would need to be made as to whether to go for construction funding this year. He stated that he did not believe that that would be wise based on the state of the process. It would be fine to include some costs for a construction manager to hone the construction cost estimate next fall. Chairman Azzi agreed. Money should be requested to complete the design process. Selectman Musselman added “in its entirety.”
Mr. Palson stated that it could be bid prior to the vote. Selectman Musselman stated that he would prefer that. Chairman Azzi agreed, stating that the design process would be completed and the bids would be available a year from now.
Selectman Musselman stated that cost estimates are needed at this point, but for discussion as they head to the warrant article, not for the warrant article. Chairman Azzi and Selectman Musselman stated that this would be a preliminary number only.
Mr. Goldman asked whether anything needed to be done to ensure that the Committee was of one mind.
Selectman Musselman stated that there were three options with respect to the warrant article and the cost estimates:
- Cost out both estimates as they stand. He does not believe that is a good idea;
- Develop the building extension so that it fully satisfies the needs, somehow; or
- As a committee, determine that they tried to develop the alternative but it could not respect the existing building and satisfy all needs so there was no construction estimate that could be prepared. In that case there would be only one cost estimate requested.
Mr. Palson stated that the two building design is technically an addition, given the connector, so it actually satisfies the requirements of both an addition and a separate building.
Mae Bradshaw stated that the warrant article was clear that they are looking for two options.
Peter Crawford stated that they did not want to present two options because the extension would be less costly. Selectman Musselman disagreed that that was the reason. Rather it was because it did not meet the programmatic needs, and is not responsive to the warrant article, he said.
Mr. Palson suggested the link be taken out and that design could be the separate building.
Beth Yeaton stated that the design with the underground connection would not be seen as an addition, but rather as a separate building.
Peter White read from the warrant article:
“The first schematic design shall include an addition to the existing Town Hall building that respects the historic integrity of the existing building… The second schematic design shall include a separate, new town office building which also respects the historical integrity of the existing building, to be located on the same parcel, to the east of the existing Town Hall building.”
Mr. Goldman stated that one of the alternatives does not meet the programmatic requirements. They did what was asked in terms of limiting the length of the addition. It doesn’t work.
Peter White responded that it could work with a three story addition and the use of the Trolley Barn. Mr. Goldman responded, “they’re doing the design Peter, they’re doing the design.”
Selectman Musselman stated that the architects had told them repeatedly that they would not be likely to locate meeting and office space in the basement.
Jason LaCombe stated that it would meet the square footage goal, but would not be functional.
Mr. Palson stated that the estimator could be asked to add a basement and tell them what the cost was.
There were comments about the basement and the cost of shoring up the building that would bring the cost closers together. Selectman Musselman added a comment about a second means of egress.
Lucy Neiman stated that it would still not meet the need.
Paul Goldman stated that they were jerking the architect around by not being clearly focused. Selectman Musselman indicated that he agreed.
Chairman Azzi asked where the second option with an equal space referred to by the warrant article was.
Selectman Musselman stated that they would need to be explain that they failed to come up with a functional alternative after doing two schematic designs. He is in favor of deciding on the second building and costing that out. Adding a basement would still not be functionally adequate, he said.
Beth Yeaton stated that they had all agreed to take the fork in the road.
Chairman Azzi agreed, and stated that the decision had been made a number of times.
Selectman Jenness suggested that there be a motion and a formal vote on the issue.
Paul Goldman moved that they accept the functional plan as presented, “plan A.”
Lucy Neiman seconded the motion.
All were in favor except Peter White, who voted against, making the vote 8-1.
Committee discussion of cost estimate process and next steps
Jason LaCombe stated that the plan would be sent off in order to start putting together a construction budget. There would also need to be discussion about additional costs to add up to a full project cost, including A&E, legal, furniture, equipment, and moving expenses. Peter White added grading.
Selectman Jenness asked whether the plan would include phasing so that operations at the Town Hall could continue during construction. Jason LaCombe stated that the new building would be built, then people would be moved over and then the existing building would be renovated.
Selectman Musselman asked about the Energy Committee’s suggestion that the building be designed as “net zero.” He asked whether there could be a sense of that cost now. Mr. LaCombe stated that “net zero” is an evil web. A very inefficient building could be built with a “ton of PV” plastered on it, and arrive at net zero. Editor’s note: Net zero refers to a building that has no net energy consumption over the course of a year. That is typically achieved through a very efficient building combined with the net transfer of energy into the power grid at some times of the year. The reference to PV is apparently to photovoltaic solar panels. The goal would be to design an energy efficient building and then see if it could be converted to net zero, Mr. LaCombe said. Selectman Musselman stated that he thought that the architects should be hearing that they wanted to go a long way in that direction. The question is how far. Mr. LaCombe stated that that would impact the budget. More would be paid up front, but that would be balanced by life cycle costs.
Selectman Musselman stated that they were part way there with the geothermal system. Mr. LaCombe stated that, if the air infiltration were minimized, given what he understands is excess capacity in the geothermal wells, the modifications to the wells might be of minimal cost.
Mr. LaCombe stated that he was unsure whether net zero could be budgeted at this point. Selectman Musselman suggested that it be kept on the table. But, not a lot of time should be spent costing it, he said.
Lucy Neiman stated that they wanted as energy efficient as they could afford to build.
Chairman Azzi asked when the cost estimates could be done. Mr. LaCombe stated that they would not be done for the 17th, but could be available in January. Selectman Musselman stated that there should be cost estimates by the January 9 meeting. That appeared to be agreed.
Chairman Azzi asked whether there would be progress on the Facilities Master Plan. Mr. LaCombe stated that there would be, but nothing was needed from the Committee yet.
Peter White stated that the Public Safety Building had a subterranean conference room, and that the prior Committee had determined that public access could be provided, without compromising security, by shifting firewalls and doors. Chairman Azzi expressed agreement.
Beth Yeaton stated that is the emergency management center and is isolated. That is not a public meeting room, she said. Mr. White responded that that was not what was determined by the last Committee.
Lucy Neiman stated that they had heard that there were grants that precluded this. Chairman Azzi stated that he did not believe that that was the case.
Mr. Palson stated that it has to do with the style of management. Some towns say that they are quiet towns, and the public may use the area. If there is an emergency, everyone is thrown out.
Chairman Azzi stated that he knows the access as it is now and as it could be. It could be accessible to the public. But that is for another day. It is not within the Committee’s charge.
Selectman Musselman made a motion to cancel the meeting on December 5, which motion carried unanimously. Chairman Azzi stated that the next meeting would be on Tuesday the 17th. The minutes would be considered at that time.
Adjournment
The motion to adjourn carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:46 p.m.
