NOTES OF JULY 29, 2014 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present from Committee (clockwise around the table): Peter White, Mae Bradshaw, Beth Yeaton, Selectman Craig Musselman, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Paul Goldman, Lucy Neiman, Victor Azzi, Peter Kasnet.
Town staff present in the audience: Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie.
Present from SMP Architecture: Jason LaCombe, Eric Palson
Persons present from the public included: Peter Crawford, Joe Cummins, Steven Borne (arrived at approximately 7:07 p.m. and left early while the group was congregated outside), Cecilia Azzi.
Editor’s
note: For ease in finding particular
sections using the archived video and audio on the Town website, 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. Videos on the Town website may currently be accessed
at www.town.rye.nh.us by clicking on
“Town Hall Streaming” at the bottom left of the screen. Follow the link for “Town Hall Live
Streaming,” then find the meeting by date under “Previous.”
The video starts
at 6:34:27 (0:00 elapsed)
Summary
Election of new Chairman and Vice Chairman
(0:27 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
indicated that Mr. Azzi had expressed a desire to step down as Chairman but
continue as a member of the Committee. A
volunteer had stepped up, solely to facilitate the meetings. Selectman Musselman said that he hoped that
the Committee was on a good track. It is
critical that everyone work for a good consensus. If not, $250,000 will have been wasted.
Editor’s
note: This is the amount that the voters
appropriated through 2014 Warrant Article 8, which passed 932-710, or with 57
percent of the vote. As this amount is
not being financed through issuance of a bond, a simple majority was
sufficient. If the Town Hall is to be
financed with a bond issue, as is invariably the case with capital projects of
this size, the expenditure will need to pass with 60 percent of the vote.
Paul Goldman indicated that he was the
volunteer. Selectman Musselman indicated
that he had also talked with Lucy Neiman about being Vice Chairman.
Mr. Goldman then made
comments, indicating that he believed that they had been on a good track prior
to the last meeting. He did not want the
project to fall apart, so he approached Selectmen Musselman and Jenness to
volunteer. He stated that they had an
excellent committee, with talented and diverse membership. The best architectural firm had been
selected, with an iteration after new information had been received.
Editor’s
note: Originally, the Committee had
voted to select AG Architects, which had done the sample design prior to
rejection by the voters of further funding of the project in 2012. After a 2012 study by the volunteer Space
Needs Committee had arrived at a reduced space need of 10,500 sq. ft., vs.
15,000 sq. ft. estimated by AG, a warrant article providing $60,000 in funding
for the hiring of an architect had passed.
The Town Hall Committee was then formed.
Members Peter White and Victor Azzi of that Committee had voted against
retaining AG at a meeting in 2013.
Following two letters from the public opposing the decision, the
Committee had reversed course and decided to hire SMP.
Explicit decisions are needed so that they
can move on, Mr. Goldman said. The
Committee should be trying to remove roadblocks. If there is substance behind a dissenting
vote, the person should say so.
Beth Yeaton nominated
Mr. Goldman as Chairman. Mae Bradshaw
seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Lucy Neiman then spoke
to echo what Mr. Goldman had said. She
is concerned that there are divisions on the Committee that might affect the
community. Every vote is needed, she
said.
Mae Bradshaw nominated
Lucy Neiman. It appeared that Beth
Yeaton raised her hand to second the nomination.
Following this, Victor
Azzi made comments regarding the contradiction between counting votes and
achieving consensus. It appears that
there is a demand that every vote of every person every time is being insisted
on, he said. This would require a 9-0
decision to move forward. A couple of
meetings ago there was a 2-7 vote and the question had been called while
someone was trying to talk. That is not
consensus. He encouraged everyone to
review the meeting of a month or so ago.
Peter White stated that
3000 voters will be voting on this, and 60 percent would need to approve. He echoed what Mr. Azzi had been saying about
cost and size.
Mr. Goldman agreed with
Mr. White, but stated that it is not only about the voters. It is about the Committee coming up with a
solution and selling it. The voters are
looking for them to come up with something that makes sense.
Mr. Goldman requested
that the group go around the room and that members state their willingness to
support the project publicly in spite of a disagreement about some aspect.
Mae Bradshaw stated that they would have
to.
Victor Azzi stated that they need to vote
towards that end, however it would be presumptuous to say now that people would
subscribe to what may be put before the voters in eight months. Schematic design has not even been finished.
Mr. Goldman then called for a vote on Lucy
Neiman’s nomination as Vice Chairman.
All were in favor except that Victor Azzi and Lucy Neiman abstained.
A decision was made to skip approval of the
minutes and catch up at the August 26 meeting.
Presentation of new plan for rectangular building by
Jason LaCombe (42:35 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe of SMP
Architecture stated that they have developed a second plan that also
works. Editor’s note: At the prior
meeting on July 15, 2014, an L-shaped building, providing a total of 12,339 sq.
ft. including the existing Town Hall, was shown. At that meeting, Mr. Azzi suggested that a simpler, rectangular
building would both look better and be less costly. It is a bit larger, but it meets the
function, Mr. LaCombe said. Editor’s note: The design documents passed out at this
meeting show a total of 12,595 sq. ft. He
hopes to get a direction tonight. There
have been further refinements after meeting with Lee Arthur and Beth
Yeaton. A second desk has been added to
the Sewer Department. Editor’s note: Currently Lee Arthur, Recreation Director,
also serves as the Sewer Department.
There are thus no employees in that department currently.
Mr. LaCombe described how the break room had
been eliminated and replaced by a counter, and one of the stairways in the new
building was eliminated. However, the
Selectmen’s Meeting Room now has 75 chairs.
Editor’s note: The “L-shaped” design presented at the prior
meeting had shown 54 chairs, including 5 at the table at the front of the room.
(54:36 elapsed)
Peter White noted the increase in the square
footage by 130 sq. ft. per floor and said that the meeting room of 75 chairs
was large given the average meeting size of 20-30 persons. He asked whether the square footage could be
reduced with a smaller meeting room combined with a corresponding reduction on
the first floor. Editor’s note: The meeting room
on the plan distributed is shown on the second floor. Mr. LaCombe stated that a couple of feet could be taken off of
the length of the building. He asserted
that 75 chairs was the program target.
They can meet a square foot target, but the removal of more than a
couple of feet would sacrifice functionality.
On the other hand, it is not practical to reduce the width. Mae Bradshaw noted that a reduction in the
length would help the appearance.
Peter Kasnet stated that he liked the
design. It would be less costly to
construct. Victor Azzi stated that the
framing would be simplified with a gabled roof.
Mae Bradshaw asked whether the length
couldn’t be further reduced by the equivalent of the space associated with one
of the windows. Mr. LaCombe indicated
that this would not be feasible. He
stated that the increase from the prior version was from 48 to 60 feet.
Peter White asked about the impact on energy
consumption given the increase in the amount of southern exposure. Lucy Neiman interjected that it would make it
worse as the major load has been determined to be cooling, not heating.
Mae Bradshaw asked again why a section could
not be eliminated. Mr. LaCombe asserted
that the offices would be too small to serve the function. Selectman Musselman stated that the Finance
and Town Administrator’s offices could not be shrunk. The Treasurer and Selectmen’s spaces would
need to be shrunk.
Town Administrator Magnant expressed concern
about the Treasurer and Assistant Finance staff person working at a counter for
25-30 hours per week. Selectman
Musselman stated that the Treasurer had always been separated. There appeared to be consensus that other
arrangements would be made for the Treasurer’s office.
(64:31 elapsed)
There was then discussion about the size of
the new rectangular and old L-shaped designs.
The rectangular building is 60 by 48 feet, the L-shaped design is 48 by
66 feet.
In response to a question from Selectman
Musselman as to which design SMP preferred, Mr. Palson was noncommittal. He said that the buildings could be made
equally as good. Both designs need
refinement, he said.
Selectman Musselman stated that he likes the
interior layout of the new plan better, but the exterior design of the other
plan is better.
Mr. Palson stated that the complexity was
greater with the L-shaped design and, since the building would be sitting on a
twelve foot hill, it would be better to have the longer dimension parallel to
the hill so that the digging would not have to extend as far. In that sense the rectangular design is
superior, he said.
Selectman Musselman then suggested that the
building be staked out so that everyone could see where each design would
fit. That led to the group going outside
to investigate.
While outside, Peter
Kasnet used a tape measure that he had with him and trash cans were moved to
show where the L-shaped and rectangular buildings would fit on the site. The group then wandered around talking and
viewing the building from different perspectives.
(90:03 elapsed)
After convening back inside, there was
discussion about deciding between the options.
Mr. LaCombe stated that the consultants had been informed that major
changes might be coming and they had slowed down their work. Paul Goldman asked that the members state
their preferences as to the design.
Mae Bradshaw stated
that she did not want to see twelve feet added to the new building as it would
compete with the existing Town Hall. She
does not want to risk building a competitive structure. Beth Yeaton asked whether her conclusion
would be the same even if the rectangular building cost more. Ms. Bradshaw stated that that conclusion had
not been arrived at. There had only been
general statements so asserting.
Peter White echoed what
Ms. Bradshaw had said. The L-shaped
design has better aesthetics. He is
still concerned about cost and size. He
asked whether the Selectman’s Meeting Room and the storage room below couldn’t
be shrunk. He said that 50 chairs
sounded about right, but 75 sounds like too many.
Beth Yeaton stated that
she liked the rectangular look and would vote for that design.
Selectman Musselman
said that he could go either way. He
reiterated that the L-shaped building fit the site better, but the rectangular
building works better. The fact that the
meeting room is larger is a plus. He
agreed that the rectangular building would cost less to construct.
Selectman Jenness
stated that she was torn as well. There
needs to be functionality that works.
The rectangular building is clean and the way that one moves around is
good. In response to those that
suggested reducing the size of the meeting room, she stated that it was not
that big, and the number of seats for the audience would be reduced if a larger
committee was meeting.
Lucy Neiman stated that
she liked the flow of the rectangle. It
works nicely, she said. She is a little
concerned about the look from the road, but doesn’t think that it is more
dominant. Eliminating the need to dig 20
feet further into the hill would lower the cost, she said.
Victor Azzi stated that
the rectangular building is a big move in the right direction. It is cleaner, more simple and less
costly. The new construction would be
subservient based on its location as it is set back.
Peter Kasnet stated
that he likes the rectangle. It’s more
simple and works well. Seeing hip roofs
from Washington Rd. is not good.
Paul Goldman stated
that he would vote in favor of the rectangle.
On paper it looked bigger, but going out and measuring it indicated that
it is acceptable from the perspective of the parking lot.
Mr. Goldman stated that
all but two of the members had favored the rectangular building or stated that
they could go either way. He said that
he thought that the architects should be given a recommendation to move in that
direction.
Mr. Palson interpreted the decision as being
that the group favored the rectangular design, but indicated that they would
work to make the design less competitive with the existing building.
Goals for the next meeting (112:53 elapsed)
There was then
discussion about the goals for the next meeting. Mr. LaCombe indicated that it was really an
informational meeting, not one in which the public could tell them what they
liked, and they would then change the design.
Mae Bradshaw stated
that she assumed that there would be some opportunity for the public to express
their likes and dislikes.
Mr. LaCombe indicated,
in response to a question from Selectman Musselman, that there would need to be
a helicopter view.
Mr. LaCombe indicated
that, at the public meeting following the upcoming one there would need to be a
budget update.
Due to schedule
conflicts is was decided that the October 28 meeting would be the public
meeting and the October 7 meeting would be a regular committee meeting,
reversing the two.
There was then
discussion about the small work group, which had met twice. The consensus seemed to be that the meetings
were useful and all members should feel free to drop by. There was discussion regarding whether the
next meeting would be August 12 or 14.
Mr. LaCombe indicated
that the hazardous material (i.e. lead paint and asbestors) assessment would be
coming up. Mr. Magnant indicated that he
was working on that. Editor’s note: It appears that this issue was not part of
the contract with SMP.
There was discussion about marketing the
project.
There was a discussion
about the number of bidders that could be expected. Estimates ranged from 4 to 8.
Discussion of parking lot in front of building and energy issues
Eric Palson indicated that they had planned
to have parking spaces in front of the new building. He suggested that there be a tree in place of
one of the parking spaces to break up the front of the building visually and
also to provide shade during the summer with a deciduous tree.
(145:07 elapsed)
Victor Azzi agreed and suggested that more
than one parking spot be devoted to trees.
It would make it a more friendly, welcoming place. It is best that visitors not be forced to
walk between cars to get from a parking space to the front door of any
building. He suggested that the entire
row could be taken away. People can park
up the hill or elsewhere in the lot, he said.
Lucy Neiman returned to the energy
discussion from the prior meeting. She
questioned whether it was appropriate to set the requirements based on the
hottest day and the highest occupancy.
Mr. LaCombe indicated that there was an opportunity for further
discussion although he considered the decision on using the geothermal system
to have been made. He agreed, that it is
not worth spending a fortune for a situation that might occur only once every
ten years.
Peter White thanked Victor Azzi for his year
and a half of leadership.
Discussion of Selectmen’s Meeting Room size and
process (155:47 elapsed)
Paul Goldman asked
whether there were comments from the public.
Peter Crawford indicated that he liked the design and the direction. He was pleased that Peter White and Lucy
Neiman had expressed concerns about the cost.
A number of meetings earlier he had raised the issue of a comparison
between the program that had been arrived at, by department, and the actual
square footage of the design, by department.
He had thought that there was agreement that this would be provided, but
it still hasn’t been.
Mr. Crawford expressed
concern that the conference room has expanded from 45 seats to 75 seats since
the last meeting. He summarized the
discussions over the past few years.
Originally, it was decided that the Great Hall could be used for
meetings, avoiding the need to replace the courtroom. The resulting plan provided for 10,500 sq.
ft., plus or minus 10 percent. The
current plan is for something more than 12,000 sq. ft., a major difference is
that approximately 800 sq. ft. are now provided for the replacement
courtroom. If a room accommodating 45
people would suffice, then perhaps it could be 300 sq. ft. smaller, saving
about $100,000.
At a minimum, the
Committee should study the size of the meeting room that is needed. The decision appears to have been rolled into
that selecting the rectangular building.
Selectman Musselman
responded, stating that the current courtroom accommodates 42 persons, and is
way too small. He asserted that the
program provided for 75 persons very early on.
He asserted that the room would be of insufficient size for times like
when dog issues are discussed.
Mr. Crawford responded
that the Great Hall could be used for those meetings. He also stated that he did not recall a
decision on the capacity of 75 persons ever having been made by the Committee,
although he does recall a comment that a room similar in size to the courtroom,
or slightly larger, was needed for acoustic reasons.
Victor Azzi indicated
that the latest design provides for only five persons at the committee
table. A larger committee would
necessitate the removal of chairs for the audience.
Paul Goldman stated
that he doubted that the voters would reject the Town Hall because one room is
too big. Mr. Crawford stated that they
would reject it because the cost is too high, and the bigger the building the
more it would cost. The size of the
court room is one of a number of things that could add to the cost.
Mr. Goldman asserted
that two rows of seats would be lost when larger committees meet. Mr. Crawford responded that that would reduce
the audience seating capacity to 52, compared to 32 in the current court room. He asked again about the data and when the
Committee had decided that 75 was the right number.
Comments about time spent on new design (171:08)
Joe Cummins, another
member of the public, asked how long the rectangular design had taken. Mr. LaCombe had responded that it had taken 5
days. That led to a discussion about
whether Mr. LaCombe’s comment that it had taken more than the half a day
estimated by Mr. Azzi had been inappropriate.
Mr. Azzi indicated that he had envisioned a mark up with tracing
paper. Much more than that had been
done, he said.
Adjournment (175:45 elapsed)
Whereupon the meeting
adjourned.