NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP MEETING
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present at the table (counterclockwise): Joe Tucker Rye resident and builder, Jason LaCombe, SMP Architecture, Mae Bradshaw (arrived late), Town Hall Committee Chairman Paul Goldman, Victor Azzi, Peter Kasnet. . Messrs. Azzi and Kasnet as well as Beth Yeaton (not present) are members of the Working Group. Mae Bradshaw and Paul Goldman are not, but are members of the Town Hall Committee.
Sitting in the audience: Town Administrator Michael Magnant.
Present from the public and sitting in the audience: Peter Crawford, Del Record.
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 begins at 4:02:50 p.m. (0:00 elapsed).
Summary
4. Joe Tucker points out the past lack of accountability for cost overruns.
Introduction of Joe Tucker (0:00 elapsed)
Paul Goldman began the meeting by pointing out that he had been contacted regarding comments that Joe Tucker wanted to make. Mr. Goldman said that he did not want have a private meeting because of the right-to-know law. Peter Kasnet acknowledged that he had contacted Mr. Goldman about this, but had not proposed a private meeting. He said that he felt that the comments that Mr. Tucker had made to him were valid and should be heard by the Committee. Mr. Kasnet introduced Mr. Tucker as a builder in Town, who is very familiar with projects of this magnitude. Victor Azzi stated that a quorum of the three member Working Group, namely he and Peter Kasnet, is present, and that he would like to hear from Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker questions the feasibility of renovating the Town Hall (4:31 elapsed)
Mr. Tucker began by stating that he had been asked to be on the first committee, the Space Needs Committee. Editor’s note: That committee was formed during 2011. He stated that he had agreed to serve on the Committee. After a couple of meetings, he expressed the opinion that the existing Town Hall should be demolished, due to its condition and the cost to renovate it.
The Committee evaluated the proposals that had been received in response to the Town’s RFP and interviewed 3-4. Art Guadano was selected. He did a rendering and some planning, and that was pretty much the end of that Committee’s charge.
Mr. Tucker continued, stating that he was asked to serve on the next Committee but declined as he felt he was speaking to deaf ears and nobody wanted to hear that the building was going to cost too much to renovate.
(7:05 elapsed)
Mr. Tucker then read from his hand-written notes. He stated that he was there as a taxpaying citizen, concerned about the cost of the project, and as a building contractor with 40 years experience in the Town.
(at 7:38 elapsed, Mae Bradshaw is seen on the video arriving)
Mr. Tucker stated that there are four qualified builders that live in Town: Peter Kasnet, for whom he has great respect, Don Cook, Bob Gray and him. His idea was to see if this group of four could develop a consensus. He has experience in these sorts of renovations, and what happens is like pulling a thread on a sweater.
He suggested that they assume that the building is no longer in place. Demolition would cost $25,000 at the most. Then, the cost of building a brand new building could be estimated. It could be an historic reproduction. The new building could be a larger size than the existing one.
To satisfy the historic preservation contingency, some of the salient components could be utilized or put in a museum. He doesn’t have a problem with a Great Hall. If people want that, it could be designed in.
Even if an exoneration is received, a renovated building would need to meet code for liability reasons.
A completely new structure could be very accurately priced. It would be a bear to price out a renovation. Any bidder would have multiple caveats that would prove to come true.
It’s very frustrating that the architects are determining, at the eleventh hour, that structural steel is needed. They designed the building down to the appliances in the kitchen and now are saying another $140,000, $150,000 or $160,000 is needed. And that assumes that there is proper bearing. New piers will probably be needed due to the point loads. That would raise the issue of how to marry that to the stone foundation. At that point, it might be better to lift the building up and pour a completely new foundation.
Mr. Kasnet interjected that he did not disagree with anything that Mr. Tucker was saying.
(15:38 elapsed)
Mr. Tucker then went through what would be required to renovate the building. All of the windows would need to be removed. The siding and trim would need to be removed. The roofing material might need to be removed. All of the interior wall finishes would need to be removed. The place has been bastardized over the years to provide what was needed at the time. The wiring, plumbing and heating would need to be removed.
The stud walls are unlikely to be fair. Sister framing would be needed. Structural steel would be needed. The foundation had apparently been leaking because an elastomeric coating had been added. There is existing concrete flooring. A new building could use radiant heating, but to do this in the existing Town Hall would require jack hammering of the floor.
All that would be left is a skeleton. Any other builder of merit, including Peter Kasnet, Don Cook or Bob Gray would say the same thing, Mr. Tucker said.
The money already spent is a sunk cost. He does not agree that the money has already been spent so they need to go forward, he said
He wants whatever body is responsible to estimate what it would cost to build a new building.
Paul Goldman asked why knowledgeable people hadn’t come forward earlier with this argument. Mr. Tucker responded that he had.
Mr. Kasnet indicated that the steel framing would result in very little being left. That was the “icing on the cake” for him, he said.
(21:10 elapsed)
Victor Azzi began by stating that the discussion should occur with the full Committee. This could be the start of a number of further discussions, or perhaps no discussions. He was a member of all but the first Committee. The historic preservation was always taken as a given.
Mr. Azzi continued, saying that the thing that has caused him to give this a lot more thought was the revelation about a month ago, after the structural engineers finally got involved, that there were serious problems adhering with the structural codes. For him, adherence to the codes was always a given. Then it becomes an issue of how the building might be stiffened and strengthened and how that could be done while still honoring the character of the structure.
Del Record questions whether preservation was part of the Committee’s charge (26:45 elapsed)
Del Record, speaking from the audience, asked Mr. Azzi whether he had a charge from the Selectmen stating that preserving the historical nature of the building was part of the focus. After further discussion, Mr. Magnant stated that there was a charge and it did include preserving the historic nature of the building.
Mr. Goldman stated that this should not be beaten to death tonight. Some very serious input has been provided, but, until the next Committee meeting the Working Group should continue with its current direction. The structural engineering and architectural design should continue on the existing path, he said.
Mr. Azzi then referred to the 2014 warrant article, and read the language referring to renovation of the existing Town Hall.
Mr. Tucker indicated that a critical aspect was the feasibility. The Committee could say let’s do it, but they would look at each other and say they were saving five percent of the building, and it’s going to cost us fifty percent more, and what a great job we’ve done.
Mr. Goldman said that the people may say that whatever it takes should be spent to preserve the building. But that should be a conscious decision. The issues might have been put “out of sight and out of mind,” prior to the revelation of the structural issues. Now, the Committee has a responsibility to make a decision based on what they now know.
Mae Bradshaw argues that the townspeople would not permit demolition (36:30 elapsed)
Mae Bradshaw stated that she could not conceive of the Committee ever voting to tear down the existing Town Hall. Mr. Tucker responded that the Committee does not necessarily represent the townspeople. Ms. Bradshaw stated that the citizens would not want to see the centerpiece of the Town taken down. There would be major, major resistance to that, she said. Mr. Tucker responded that she may be right, but she may be wrong. He thinks that she is wrong, he said.
Mr. Tucker continued, saying that:
(37:21 elapsed)
“…what I’ve seen in the past in this Town, where decisions are made, we’ve gone forward, then you find out there’s cost overruns, there’s costs that nobody ever anticipated. Boom, boom, boom. Everybody’s wringing their hands, saying, aw geez, how did that stupid thing happen, but there’s no culpability, there’s nobody that’s been responsible for pointing the finger at that person, that has any skin in the game, that anything transpired because of those decisions. You know. Somebody might say geez, Joe Tucker came up with this thing, he told us what to do, he was on the Committee, what a jerk he is. Okay, I’m a jerk. We just spent an extra million bucks, I’m a jerk. I don’t have to take and pay anybody out of my pocket for those decisions that I’ve made. I would hate to see that happen, but I can tell you this will happen. I can tell you. Ninety-nine percent sure.”
What should happen is that the townspeople should decide between the options with cost estimates for each. There are ways to preserve the artifacts, he said.
Ms. Bradshaw stated that a new warrant article would be needed to allow a choice to tear the building down.
The discussion then turned to HVAC issues. Mr. LaCombe indicated that they had looked into the HVAC issues and there are solutions to what they have to do.
Architect Jason LaCombe disputes that the structural problems were identified at the eleventh hour (43:19 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe stated that he wanted to set the record straight. The structural reinforcement issue is not a surprise and did not come at the eleventh hour. They have been working on the project less than four months. A structural analysis in 2010 had found issues with the building not meeting code. Editor’s note: There was a report done by AMEC, dated February 8, 2011 that addressed the attic and the foundation, but not the walls. The report estimated that the cost to reinforce the attic structure was $76,763.66, excluding design costs. It concluded that the foundation, though having cracks in places, appeared sound. 2011 Warrant Article 14, which passed 610-455, provided $40,000 for the “hiring of an architectural consultant/engineering consultant for a structural study of the Rye Town Hall 1839 building prior to consideration of any significant capital upgrades. It went on to provide for a study of space needs and rehabilitation/expansion alternatives in comparison to new construction alternatives.
Mr. LaCombe went on to acknowledge that he did not emphasize the seriousness of the issue at the Committee meeting, as he felt that everyone already knew that there would need to be upgrades to the building. They have solved the problem and have presented a solution at the earliest possible time. It is a viable engineering solution and they firmly believe that it is within the budget.
He is shocked that the teardown issue is coming up this late in the game. They were hired on the basis that the existing Town Hall would be preserved, including historic preservation of the hall, the stage and the staircases. The Committee should absolutely get together and discuss this. It would be possible to pursue two parallel tracks, but it is late in the game to be doing so.
After further discussion and in response to a question from Mr. Tucker, Mr. LaCombe stated that, to do a conceptual design to look at the new building option and its cost, would probably cost in the $25,000 to $35,000 range.
Mr. Tucker said that if the cost estimate came in 30 percent less, that would be a viable solution that should be considered. Mr. LaCombe expressed doubt that it would be that much less.
Mr. Kasnet stated that even when another site was considered, and when the upstairs at the Fire Station was considered, the renovation of the existing Town Hall was always a part of the plan. That may not have been the right decision. But the discussion always estimated that the renovation costs would be equal to or greater than those for new construction. Mr. Azzi agreed.
Mr. Tucker calls the plans “silliness” (56:30 elapsed)
Mr. Tucker responded to an earlier comment by Mr. Goldman indicating that the Committee would need to determine whether the structural engineer or he were the most credible. He stated that he is not a lone ranger. The way to determine credibility would be for the four builders referred to earlier to weigh in.
Little would be left of the antiquity, he said. He asked whether the concrete floor, the studs and the rafters are part of the antiquity. That is all that is being saved, he said. The balusters, the stairs, the windows, the siding, the ceilings, and walls would all be gone, he argued.
Mae Bradshaw disagreed, saying that the windows, the stage and spiral staircases are being saved.
Mr. Tucker responded saying “I would vote against that. Silliness. Silliness. All right. And, I would pound a drum on that.”
Mae Bradshaw stated that the Committee had already voted to preserve the Town Hall. Mr. Tucker responded that the Committee does not necessarily represent the Town’s vote.
Paul Goldman stated that the Committee was on a path based on the charge that they had been given. They should remain on that path, however there could be an alternative warrant article if someone so chose. Then, the voters could decide. They do not have the authority to say that the building should be demolished. They are executing to the charge that they had been given.
(62:40 elapsed)
Jason LaCombe stated that he did not disagree with anything that Mr. Tucker had said regarding what would happen with the building. There are going to be some found conditions that are going to result in a lot of demolition. The entire space that they are sitting in will be demolished. Editor’s note: He was apparently referring to the downstairs, excluding the front stairwell. All of this is 1960s era. There are ways to plan for the unforeseen from a financial perspective. They have cut holes and investigated the building to the maximum extent possible without full-scale demolition. Mr. LaCombe asked whether Mr. Tucker would support the project if a price, with no “going back to the well with the voters,” was accompanied by a commitment by the builder to do it for that price.
Mr. Tucker questioned whether any builder would be willing to do that. He does not think that they can provide the builder with all of the data. When they start taking things apart, things will be found that neither they nor the builder had any way of knowing about.
Mr. Kasnet suggested two warrant articles, one to preserve the building, another to tear it down and rebuild. The problem is putting a number on the latter.
Mae Bradshaw stated that, under either alternative the square footage would be the same. She asked whether the cost could be computed on that basis.
Mr. LaCombe stated, with a new building the decision might be made to omit the Great Hall and the stairs. Mr. Azzi pointed out that a building, starting with a clean sheet of paper ,would be a more efficient building with fewer square feet.
Mr. Tucker expressed concern with the windows and whether they might be beyond repair. Ms. Bradshaw disagreed that this was the case.
Mr. Azzi suggested that they proceed with the agenda and invite Mr. Tucker to come back on the 30th.
(Joe Tucker and Del Record then left)
Cost estimates and other items on the original agenda items (62:50 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe then pointed to the drawings that they had done, and indicated that the cost estimation was being done based on those. The Planning Board meeting has been set for October 14 at 7:00 p.m. This is for the site plan approval, he said.
The estimate will be based on re-siding the building, but scraping and painting the trim.
The discussion then turned to the pre-qualification process and how long it would take to come up with a short list from the eleven possible bidders. The plan is to have 3-5 pre-qualified bidders, Mr. LaCombe said. Mr. Magnant stated that he, Selectman Musselman, Messrs. Azzi and Kasnet, and Mr. LaCombe would be involved in this process. It was agreed that this group would meet at 3:00 p.m. on September 30.
(79:21 elapsed)
Mr. LaCombe pointed out that there was an e-mail from Yeaton Associates regarding the generator in the packages of the subcommittee members. Nothing has been sized yet as Yeaton is still doing the electrical engineering.
Mr. Goldman asked what he should do with regard to the input from Mr. Tucker. It was agreed that this would simply be an agenda topic.
The discussion then turned to the finishes for cost estimation purposes. It is important not to start with the least expensive, Mr. LaCombe said.
They are planning commercial grade carpet tiling, Mr. LaCombe said. It costs a little more so it provides sufficient money in the budget. The lobbies would be stone tile of some sort to see where the budget comes in. The selection could be changed if it comes in too high. The mechanical and storage rooms would be left as concrete. The hallways and back break room area would be sheet vinyl. The conference rooms would be carpeted. The meeting hall, stairs and stage would be accommodated by refinishing the existing wood floors. They are keeping their fingers crossed that the conditions will be acceptable. That is one of the contingencies.
From a budgeting perspective this gives them room to move in order to shave costs.
There are two sets of drawings upstairs. He encouraged those present to go through them.
The walls would be commercial grade drywall.
In response to a question from Mr. Azzi, Mr. LaCombe confirmed that the bidders will not be bidding based on the drawings as they currently exist. These are for estimating the costs only, he said.
(84:10 elapsed)
The discussion then turned to the Great Hall (Meeting Hall). Mr. LaCombe stated that it is actually hard board over plaster. Mr. Kasnet asked whether that was because the plaster is all cracked. Mr. LaCombe stated that that was a safe assumption. The hard board was put up to keep the plaster from falling in, he said.
The discussion then turned to whether plaster or board would be used for the stairwell and the Great Hall. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she did not believe that plaster could be justified from a cost standpoint. Mr. LaCombe indicated that real split lath and real plaster were assumed for budgeting purposes. However, it would not be uncommon to use drywall and skim coat plaster. Mr. LaCombe and Mr. Kasnet agreed that real plaster is very expensive and there are very few people who can do it.
Mr. Kasnet suggested drywall with a very good tape job due to the large expanses of wall. It will look great to the average person, he said.
In response to a question from Mr. Azzi, Mr. LaCombe indicated that the wainscoting appeared to be original, and that it was recessed.
Ms. Bradshaw indicated that drywall would be acceptable from her perspective, although she could not speak for the other members of the Historic District Commission and the Heritage Commission.
(101:00 elapsed)
The discussion then turned to the format of the total budget, which is what existed on January 10. The intention is that office furniture would be relocated and reused. That, the phone, computer and security systems would be outside the contractor’s bid to avoid a markup, but would remain part of the project cost.
The budget includes a ten percent owner’s contingency, Mr. LaCombe said. Mr. Kasnet stated that it should now be fifteen percent. Mr. LaCombe stated that it usually goes down as more detail is obtained. The two agreed that this is up for debate. Mr. LaCombe stated that there will be unknowns. They are doing the best they can to plan for them. He thinks, however, that they can get a good bid. With a municipal project, being over budget is not an option, Mr. LaCombe said.
Mr. LaCombe indicated that Milestone will be coming back on September 30 with a new estimate based on the additional information received.
(Mr. Goldman is observed on the video leaving at 107:00 elapsed)
There was discussion as to whether the $10,000 in builders risk insurance would be needed.
Part of the bid requirement will be that the existing Town Hall must be kept functioning during construction, Mr. LaCombe said. Following completion of the new building everyone would be moved over, using conference rooms to accommodate overflow.
Mr. LaCombe stated that the budget currently does not include a Clerk of the Works as was done for the Public Safety Building. Mr. Azzi stated that there should one. Mr. Kasnet stated that the Clerk of the Works would look at the bills to determine whether or not the associated work had been done. Mr. LaCombe stated that his firm would be doing that as well as part of their CA fee.
Commissioning has been removed from the budget. That is making sure that all of the equipment is working correctly, Mr. LaCombe said. That is unnecessary, Mr. Azzi said, as the project is not that complicated.
There was then discussion about the need for a Construction Manager.
Mr. LaCombe stated that the cost estimate would be updated for discussion on September 30, with the exception of the owner’s items. He believes that the project cost estimate, as it stands today, will be less than it was before. There will be five or six alternates. These include triple glazing the windows, additional bathrooms in the belfry, tearing out the slab and insulating underneath.
Mr. Azzi pointed out that new footings may be needed once the steel columns are introduced. That may lead to the question of taking out the rest of the concrete, he said. Mr. LaCombe indicated that it wouldn’t be difficult to bring in a skid steer and scoop the slab out. Mr. Kasnet agreed that there should be an estimate of what that would cost.
There was then discussion about the septic system. Mr. LaCombe stated that the prior estimate assumed use of the existing system, while a new system is now being provided for, along with new mechanical systems and a new heating system. The design is done, but not approved by the State yet, Mr. LaCombe said. It will be on the other side of the wall. It is further from the road, adjacent to which the existing system is believed to be. That system would be abandoned.
There was then discussion about marketing and the Facebook page.
Whereupon the meeting ended at approximately 6:07 p.m.