NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present at the table (counterclockwise): Jason LaCombe, SMP Architecture, Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, Selectman Craig Musselman, Selectman Priscilla Jenness (both left after session upstairs), Chairman Paul Goldman, Victor Azzi, Peter Kasnet, Town Administrator Michael Magnant. Messrs. Musselman, Goldman, Azzi, and Kasnet, Ms. Jenness and Ms. Yeaton are all voting members of the Town Hall Committee. Town Hall Committee members not present were Mae Bradshaw, Peter White and Lucy Neiman. Editor’s note: Thus, 6 of 9 members of the Town Hall Committee and 2 of 3 members of the Board of Selectmen were present, constituting quorums of both public bodies, yet no meeting notice was posted as required by N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (“RSA”) 91-A:2. See the notes of the September 22, 2014 Board of Selectmen meeting where the Selectmen acknowledge the error.
Present from Steffensen Engineering and sitting in the audience: Peter Steffensen (with beard and eye patch), Steve Richard (both left after the session upstairs).
Present from the public and sitting in the audience: Peter Crawford, Alex Herlihy (left after session upstairs).
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. The video is available at https://vimeo.com/106236576/
Summary
3. Four members of the Town Hall Committee select the second option.
Building code requirements and options for compliance (0:00 elapsed)
Jason LaCombe opened the meeting, passed out a document and indicated that two persons from Steffensen Engineering were present. He stated that the structural issues were less serious than he had previously indicated. He explained the building code requirements. There are three levels of code compliance. These are based on the change to the aggregate area of the building, with break points at 30 and 50 percent. The most stringent applies in this case.
In response to a question from Paul Goldman, Mr. LaCombe indicated that there is no grandfathering, there are code requirements that relate to the scope of the project. The are code requirements for gravity loads as well as lateral reinforcement.
There was then a discussion about the possibility of the Town choosing not to comply. Mr. Magnant stated that he understood that they would need to comply with the Building Code. He said that he had talked to the Building Inspector and did not believe that a waiver would be granted. Steve Richard of Steffensen Engineering confirmed that he had had a similar conversation.
(7:32 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe stated that there are three paragraphs in the Building Code applicable to the structural portion of historic buildings. It requires compliance with the section referred to earlier. There is latitude for the code official if not a lot is being done to the building. That would typically involve things like limiting the occupancy due to the limited load which the floor would support.
(11:01 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe then turned to the possible solutions. There are two options presented. Two or three prior to those had been rejected by him and the structural engineers on the Town’s behalf. The options both respect the budget and the historical nature of the building. The options are:
1. An exposed angle brace inside the hall. There would be 4-5 on either side of which 4 would be visible in the hall, but everything else would be buried in the walls. These would be small tubes, four by four or smaller.
(18:12 elapsed)
2. New steel posts to replace the existing wood posts.
Mr. LaCombe explained that the timber posts currently go down to a stud wall, but do not continue to the foundation. This is what was discovered when they cut the wall open. Steve Richard explained that the stud wall was higher on the side of the building adjacent to the parking lot. Mr. LaCombe explained that the siding would be cut off and the wood posts would be removed, after shoring up the building, and replaced with steel columns of the same size that went from the foundation all of the way to the roof beams, with steel channels bolted onto the truss. Re-siding of the building would be appropriate if this option is selected. Some plaster work would be required with both options, but it would be more significant with this one. None of the structural elements would be visible, he said.
(20:15 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe indicated that Frank had done some quick budgets on the cost. Option 1 is just under $67,000 and Option 2 is just under $144,000. Editor’s note: Later in the meeting it became clear that Frank is with Milestone, which has been retained by SMP for the purpose of doing cost estimates. It was also revealed that Milestone intends to bid on the project.
Selectman Musselman stated that he understands that the foundation is slab on grade and that there are not frost walls. He asked whether there would be a new concrete structure going down four or five feet. Steven responded that selective demolition would be used to discover what is there. It might be possible to pin the vertical members to masonry, he said. Editor’s note: Frost walls are extensions of the foundation to a sufficient depth such that the ground below would never freeze. Without frost walls, the foundation may crack.
There was then extended detailed technical discussion of how the reinforcement was to be constructed.
(39:00 elapsed)
After Selectman Musselman asked whether it was common for buildings of this vintage to have posts that are not continuous, the discussion turned to the history of the building. Mr. LaCombe indicated that they believed that the building had been jacked up, and the lower level had been crawl space at one point. It was raised and a front entrance was built, he speculated. Selectman Jenness asked whether it was possible that the building had been built to the original slope of the hill. Peter Steffensen spoke about limitations of the sawmill in terms of the maximum lengths. The building has been moved, he said, as indicated by the newer materials. Victor Azzi agreed.
Steve Richard spoke about an individual from the Fire Department having been present on one visit with a heat device that permitted them to look through the walls.
Peter Steffensen said that sometimes an honest expression of repairs or modifications is a good idea. There is no solution to the problem using wood. The fact that the structure has remained standing for 175 years is no guarantee. He spoke of mortise and tenon joints which will loosen up through shrinkage. The framing may also split and there is rotting at the bottom of the posts needs to be considered. A very conservative approach is needed. The question is what the restoration is worth.
(45:20 elapsed)
The discussion then turned to the choice between the two options. Paul Goldman asked why Option 1 would be considered. Selectman Musselman stated that the cost difference was not great. Beth Yeaton and Jason LaCombe had a discussion regarding whether the original estimate may already have included some funds for structural repairs. Ms. Yeaton spoke as well about replacing the clapboards, which would save the cost of sandblasting the old clapboards. Doing the steel work would make the decision to replace the clapboards an easy one, she indicated.
(51:30 elapsed)
Peter Kasnet expressed concern about the soffit, fascia and plaster repair costs, which are likely to constitute a “pretty big number,” he said, along with the excavation. Mr. LaCombe indicated that he would ask Frank to see what had been assumed for Option 2 in terms of dollars for finishes. They had talked about the plaster, he said. There would be a “slot” of damage to the interior plaster, he acknowledged. Mr. Kasnet expressed concern about problems that were likely to arise once the building had been opened up. Steve Richard spoke about the possibility of concrete piers being needed to be added for the foundation if the granite rubble is not of sufficient size.
In response to a question from Paul Goldman, Peter Steffensen indicated that some work would need to be done with the bottom of the posts, where some rot had been observed, under either option.
Selectman Musselman asked about the revised overall estimate for the building. Mr. LaCombe indicated that Frank would be starting this the following week. The deadline is the next meeting. Editor’s note: He was apparently referring to the next scheduled meeting of the full Town Hall Committee on September 30, 2014. Selectman Musselman indicated that it might be a good idea for him to focus on the unknowns and provide a range of costs. It was confirmed that Frank is the owner of Milestone, a contractor. Mr. LaCombe stated that he had been hired as a paid consultant. He is also seeking to be pre-qualified to bid on the project, Mr. LaCombe said.
In response to a question from Victor Azzi, there was then discussion about how the posts would be introduced into the building. In response to a question from Peter Kasnet, there was discussion as to whether the steel posts would interfere with either the windows or the window casings.
(59:20 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness asked where the steel members would be. Editor’s note: She was apparently referring to angle braces for Option 1. Mr. LaCombe indicated that there would be four in the Great Hall, starting at the stage and spaced approximately ten feet apart all of the way to the back wall. He indicated that there was possible interference with some of the windows.
Viewing of the Great Hall (60:50 elapsed)
The group then went upstairs to view the Great Hall and the proposed location of the steel members. Selectman Musselman then pointed out his understanding of the locations of the steel members. Selectman Musselman indicated that, after spending a lot of money to renovate the building, what would be left would be the windows, the tin ceiling and the floor beneath them. He said that the steel introduced would not take away from the historic structure, but would just be a modern renovation that shored up the building.
Peter Steffensen indicated that they had provided such a visible structure in one project even though the building was on the National Register. It had been felt that the most cost effective solution had been the better one, even though it was obvious.
In response to questions from Paul Goldman and Michael Magnant, Peter Steffensen indicated that Option 2 would have more of a “rippling effect,” opening up a can of worms. Selectman Musselman asked whether Option 2 would be, in the long room, structurally better because of the replacement of posts. Mr.
Steffensen indicated that the two options were “probably equal” in terms of structural soundness for the next 100 years.
Paul Goldman asked why, leaving aesthetics aside, Option 1 would not be strongly considered because it was half of the cost and structurally equivalent. Beth Yeaton, playing “devils advocate,” as she referred to her comment, indicated that opening up the building would be better as they might find some things that should be fixed rather than ignored. Mr. Goldman appeared to agree, and pointed out the savings in ongoing maintenance associated with new clapboards. He added that approximately $70,000 was minimal relative to the overall cost.
Mr. LaCombe indicated that, if Option 2 is selected, there should be a higher contingency as there is “no going back” once bond financing is approved. He warned of “scope creep” that the Committee might elect to approve, in terms of re-siding and re-trimming the building. Those might be good decisions, but they have a budget impact, he said.
(69:48 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman asked whether re-siding of the building is included in the current cost estimate. Mr. LaCombe indicated that only scraping and repainting is included in the current estimate.
Selectman Musselman suggested appropriate painting might permit the steel structure to blend in and not be as obtrusive. Selectman Jenness appeared to agree, indicating that she had been to one building and had not noticed elements that were not part of the original. Editor’s note: This reference was possibly to a project that Mr. Steffensen had referred to earlier as having been involved with. That had an exposed reinforcement structure.
Paul Goldman asked whether the options could be said to be structurally equal, given the opportunity to find problems.
Mr. Magnant asked about insulation. Mr. LaCombe indicated that, if re-siding is considered, better insulation could be considered. Mr. Magnant indicated that spray foaming the building could make the energy savings much higher. Mr. LaCombe indicated that the cooling load was the driver for the systems. Victor Azzi indicated that it could make a big difference given that the plan was only to provide greater insulation for the windows. Mr. LaCombe disagreed, stating that the plan had been to blow in cellulose, however there would be gaps if that is done.
(64:20 elapsed)
Mr. Goldman asked the engineers which option they would recommend. Mr. Steffensen indicated that either option would solve the structural problem. It was a matter of cost, and what they could live with aesthetically, he said. Mr. LaCombe stated that architecturally, their preference was to have it all concealed. However, the braces would architecturally be acceptable, though probably not to everyone. He warned of “false historicism,” however.
Alex Herlihy added that the addition of the eight angle braces would not take away from the historic space.
Beth Yeaton expressed disappointment that Mae Bradshaw was not present. She expressed concern that the Historic District Commission (“HDC”) might turn out to be opposed and talk down the project. There was then discussion about the HDC having authority only over the outside of the building, but the Heritage Commission having the interior within its purview. Editor’s note: Ms. Bradshaw is a member of the HDC and Chairman of the Heritage Commission.
Alex Herlihy added that cost wise, neither option is a “deal breaker.” Paul Goldman added that the $70,000 difference might have a quick payback if new clapboards are installed and scraping eliminated. Mr. LaCombe indicated, however that the difference would be more than $70,000 if that is done.
Selectman Musselman asked about the cost of the re-siding. Mr. LaCombe indicated that this had not yet been estimated.
Mr. Goldman stated that the $140,000 is not a deal breaker unless it creeps up to “decades of thousands of dollars” above that.
Mr. LaCombe stated that re-siding and additional insulation is possible under either option, but, in either case, the cost is above and beyond what has been estimated.
In response to a comment from Paul Goldman, Peter Kasnet agreed that there would be energy savings and reduced maintenance costs associated with re-siding and re-insulating the building.
Victor Azzi indicated that a menu of items is needed with costs for each, including a list of other things that could be done to the building.
Selection of Option 2 (no exposed reinforcement) (82:30 elapsed)
After Selectman Musselman indicated he needed to leave, a break was taken and the meeting reconvened some time later in the courtroom.
Beth Yeaton then brought up the issue of an emergency generator. Mr. LaCombe indicated that no thought had yet been given to that.
Paul Goldman indicated that the structural discussion should continue. It was then determined that one of the options should be selected. Victor Azzi indicated that, individually or collectively, it should be possible to estimate the cost differentials.
Peter Kasnet indicated that, while Option 2 is more expensive, other issues in addition to the structural one are solved. Mr. Azzi agreed, referring to options to do additional things.
Mr. LaCombe indicated that they are proceeding with design even as the cost estimates are still being done. He warned about a change in the direction down the road if Steffensen needs to reengineer the structural design.
Mr. Azzi indicated that he was ready to make a decision and noted that they had had a quorum. Editor’s note: Selectmen Musselman and Jenness had by this point left the meeting. Mr. Goldman counted four voting members present. Editor’s note: Members Peter White, Lucy Neiman, and Mae Bradshaw were not present for any part of the meeting. The total membership of the Town Hall Committee is nine meaning that five members constitute a quorum.
(87:00 elapsed)
Beth Yeaton indicated that once an option has been selected, cost estimates should be presented only for that option, to avoid a problem. A menu of options, once disclosed to the general public, would be a problem, she said.
Victor Azzi indicated that the four of them should develop a position and share it with the others on September 30. He can’t imagine that uninformed people could overturn the consensus developed at that morning.
Beth Yeaton indicated that she knew the direction that Selectman Musselman wanted to go, but was less certain about the position of Selectman Jenness. She asked whether they should be called.
(90:38 elapsed)
Paul Goldman suggested that those present reach a consensus first. He stated that he was in favor of Option 2. Neither amount of money is a deal breaker in the overall scheme of things. Option 2 would permit them to find out everything they need to know and there would be cost savings. Even if the $70,000 difference rises some, he believes that Option 2 should be selected.
(91:59 elapsed)
Victor Azzi agreed. It is a better solution in all respects. It preserves the historic character, is better structurally and opens up opportunities to do a better job insulating the building.
(93:40 elapsed)
Peter Kasnet agreed. Once the building has been torn apart the insulation and siding can be done. Wires can be more easily run. The maintenance and operating costs would be lower.
(93:45 elapsed)
Beth Yeaton agreed, stating that she does not like unknowns and wants to have the building opened up. A good look should be taken and things done properly. She does not like the idea of the tubes marring the view of the ceiling. She agrees with what the other three had said.
(94:46 elapsed)
Michael Magnant stated that, while he does not have a vote, he agrees wholeheartedly with what had been said. He emphasized the energy savings arising out of improved insulation.
Peter Kasnet indicated that the cost would “creep,” but that the Town would be getting something for the additional funds.
Mr. LaCombe raised the issue of re-trimming as well as re-siding the building.
Victor Azzi asked who the names of the structural engineers. Mr. LaCombe responded that they were Peter Steffensen and Steve Richard, both with Steffensen Engineering. Mr. LaCombe stated that SMP had been working with them since 1995. Peter is a PE, Steve is not, he said. Editor’s note: “PE” is an apparent reference to “Professional Engineer.” Steve does the field investigations, Mr. LaCombe said.
Emergency generator (95:55 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe, turning to Beth Yeaton, indicated that it would still be helpful to get the opinions of the two selectmen, but the results could be e-mailed to him.
The discussion then returned to the emergency generator. Mr. Kasnet expressed concern about the budget and suggested that wiring only be provided. Mr. LaCombe suggested installing a transfer switch and sizing the generator.
In response to a question from Victor Azzi, it was confirmed that an outside, pad mounted generator was being contemplated. He suggested that it be shown on the plans and an underground conduit and transfer switch be provided.
Victor Azzi and Peter Kasnet suggested that the generator support only essential services. Peter Kasnet raised the issue of powering the computers. Beth Yeaton indicated that she was unsure about battery backup for the computers. Mr. Kasnet warned of a seven second delay before the generator would kick in, necessitating a battery backup.
Beth Yeaton asked about the geothermal pumps. That led to discussion about the backup boiler. Mr. LaCombe indicated that the proposed propane boiler would be tied into the geothermal system, so the system would need to be run in the event of a power outage.
There was discussion about the catastrophic effect of a power outage during the winter. Mr. Azzi indicated that the building would need to be kept above freezing. He suggested that this could be accomplished by putting one zone on the generator. Mr. Kasnet indicated that the building could be kept at 40 degrees. He stated that any house that his company had done with geothermal had had a backup. They had not attempted to provide for running the geothermal system in the event of a power outage. Otherwise the generator would have cost too much.
A decision was made to defer discussion of the furniture, however Mr. LaCombe indicated that he would e-mail a list to Ms. Yeatorn.
Options to be priced: windows, re-siding, belfry bathrooms, plastering (107:15 elapsed)
There was then discussion about the alternates which would be priced separately. These included triple glazing for the windows vs. double glazing. The base budget includes rehabbing the monumental windows upstairs and moving the sashes. He is aware that Mae Bradshaw wants to do storm windows. However, the plan is to take the sashes out, refinish them, rout them out and put insulated glass in them. The weights would be removed and the weight pockets filled with insulation. A spring retractor would be installed so that windows remain operational. Weather stripping would be added. All of this is not inexpensive but it keeps the windows historic. It enhances the thermal performance and is the way to go, he said. An alternate for full replacement would be priced out, however. It may be a little lower cost, but would not preserve the historic nature, he said.
An option would be presented for completely removing the existing slab, insulating it and providing a vapor barrier. The price would be broken out. This would not extend to the area of the historic stairs, which they do not want to alter.
Re-siding would also be estimated.
An alternate would be provide for bathrooms in the belfry.
For the building, the intention is to provide real plaster with split laths everywhere the plaster is interrupted. The alternate would be drywall and skim coat plaster. Almost no one can tell the difference, he said. The Great Hall would be repainted. There was then discussion about the locations of plaster repairs and the salvaging of the wood wainscoting.
Schedule for future meetings (114:10 elapsed)
The discussion then turned to the schedule and the next meeting of the full Committee on September 30. A decision was made for the working group to meet from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 18 at Town Hall. The plan was to go through drawings at that meeting.
Mr. LaCombe then mentioned a Committee meeting on October 7. There is a meeting on October 28 and a public session on November 4 on the schedule, Mr. LaCombe said.
They are working for 95 percent documents on November 25, putting the project out to bid on December 8, with bids due on January 5, Mr. LaCombe said. This provides four full weeks but Christmas and New Years intervene.
Ms. Yeaton pointed out that November 4 is election day. She would not be able to attend a meeting on that day, she said. Voting is over at 7:00 p.m. so voting should not interfere with people coming to the public meeting, she said. Mr. Magnant pointed out that the Selectmen needed to continue to be involved with the election after the polls closed. Ms. Yeaton stated that she needed all three to be present at the polls. A decision was made to move the public meeting to October 28. Chairman Goldman indicated that he would send out an e-mail after confirming the meeting location.
Bidding process discussion (127:10 elapsed)
There was then discussion about the RFQ. Mr. Magnant suggested that Victor Azzi, Peter Kasnet, Craig Musselman and the DPW Director be involved in reviewing. The deadline is tomorrow, he said. Mr. LaCombe stated that Milestone indicated that they were going to submit. Editor’s note: Although unclear, it appeared that this involved the prequalification process. Mr. LaCombe indicated that some bidders had expressed concern about holding their bid prices for 90 days when the typical is 15 to 30 days. Editor’s note: This apparently is to keep the bids open until after the election.
Adjournment (130:28 elapsed)
Whereupon the meeting concluded.