\n
1. Â Non-public sessions were conducted after this meeting and the prior one. Â Discussion was apparently regarding acquisition of a new site for Town Hall. Â A Special Town Meeting may be needed to approve that.
\n2. Â Reasons for failure of $4.1 million Town Hall warrant article in 2015 were discussed. Â Opposition e-mail from a builder in Rye, and a letter to the editor opposing the project from the former Chairman of the Town Hall Committee were discussed.
\n3. Â Work session was conducted with representatives of the UNH Survey Center regarding an upcoming survey of Rye residents on Town Hall issue. Â Questions discussed included:
\na. Â The importance to Town residents of preserving historical features of the existing building.
\nb. Â The possibility of demolishing the existing Town Hall.
\nc. Â The feasibility of continuing to use the Rye Schools for elections while school is in session.<\/p>\n
7\/21\/15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 1. Â Recent e-mails between Town Hall Committee members have violated the right-to-know law. Â In the future, discussions between Town Hall Committee members will need to occur during public meetings. 7\/28\/15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 1. Â The survey was essentially finalized. Â A final draft will be circulated by e-mail, with responses only to Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie to maintain compliance with the right-to-know law. Â The final version will be sent to the UNH Survey Center by the Town Hall Committee Chairman by the end of the week. 7\/7\/15 1. Â Non-public sessions were conducted after this meeting and the prior one. Â Discussion was apparently regarding acquisition of a new site for Town Hall. Â A Special Town Meeting may be needed to approve that. 2. Â Reasons for failure of $4.1 million Town Hall warrant article in 2015 were discussed. Â Opposition e-mail from a builder […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-committee-mtgs","category-town-hall-renovations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2508"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2511,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2508\/revisions\/2511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ryecivicleague.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n2. Â Further work session was conducted with UNH Survey Center on resident questionnaire on Town Hall.
\n3. Â Survey results are expected by mid- to late-September.<\/p>\n
\n2. Â There was extensive discussion regarding how to present the tax impact and ascertain residents’ willingness to accept various levels of taxation to pay for Town Hall.
\n3. Â It was revealed that Hutter, the low bidder for the Town Hall project in early 2015, estimated that $950,000 of it’s approximately $3.3 million bid was related to renovation of the existing building, with the remainder relating to the new building. Â The warrant article amount of $4.1 million exceeded the bid amount due to contingencies and costs to be borne by the Town directly, rather than the contractor.
\n4. Â The $4.1 million warrant article in 2015 did not include $350,000 in expenditures (primarily with architects) previously approved by voters. Â The total project cost thus would have been $4.45 million. Â Any revised project is likely to require the expenditure of additional architectural costs.<\/body><\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"