NOTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2015 RYE TOWN HALL COMMITTEE MEETING

Final Revision C – Provided by the Rye Civic League

 

            Present from Committee (clockwise around the table):  Tim Durkin, John Loftus, Jeff Quinn, Selectman Joe Mills (arrived late, at 5:57:30 p.m.), Chairman Paul Goldman, Selectman Craig Musselman, Ed Hayes, Ritchie White, Joe Tucker.

Town staff present in the audience:  Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie.

            Persons present from the public included:  Victor Azzi, Mae Bradshaw, Lori Carbajal, Peter Crawford, Burt Dibble, Mark Josephs, Sam Winebaum.

 

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. You may also click on the bold times in the video description to step directly to a section. Videos on the Town website recorded at the Library (as this was) 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 “Rye Public Library Live Streaming,” then find the meeting by date under “Previous.”

The video starts at 5:30:04 p.m. (0:00 elapsed).

 

Summary

 

1.      The scope of work for the architect under the pending warrant article was agreed to.  Cost estimates and designs are to be generated for five different options.

2.      The fifth option, which would involve spending approximately $500,000 to acquire the parcel just north of the Public Safety Building, may be moot as it may be sold before a decision is reached.

3.      After a Committee member expressed disappointment with the 11th hour identification of structural issues with the Town Hall by the architect, Selectman Musselman acknowledged that a study three years earlier should have identified the issue, but only $5000 of $40,000 voted on Town Hall in 2011 was spent on structural rather than space needs issues.

4.      Members of the public expressing a view were unanimous in faulting the Committee for a lack of space needs and budget parameters, and argued that the Town was unwilling to spend significantly more than $2 million.

5.      A resident argued that the Town Hall would be a tough sale as the Town had been sold a “bill of goods” on the Public Safety Building.

6.      Selectman Musselman stated that all five options are leading to a $2.5 million to $3 million cost, and stated that they would need to work with the architect to get the 8000-9000 sq. ft. building constructed for that.

 

Introduction and minutes (0:22 elapsed)

 

            Chairman Paul Goldman opened the meeting and stated that there were two matters to address:  The report of the subcommittee on the charge for the architect, and the wrap up of the Committee’s work prior to the December 19, 2015 due date. 

            Jeff Quinn pointed out that there had been some confusion when the Committee members had voted on the various alternatives.  He said he had thought that the goal was to get all of the alternatives on the table.  He was perplexed at the opposition to some of the alternatives, he said.  He stated that there was a fair lack of unity. 

            Tim Durkin stated that he wanted to be on the record as opposing the tear down option.

            Ritchie White and Paul Goldman agreed that the lack of unanimity was not a problem.

            The minutes were approved with a minor change of “flush out” to “flesh out.”

 

Subcommittee report (15:54 elapsed)

 

            Editor’s note:  At the December 2, 2015 meeting, a subcommittee of John Loftus, Joe Tucker, Ed Hayes and Craig Musselman was formed to come up with a charge for the architect.  The video of their meeting earlier in the day on December 8, 2015 is accessible from the Town website.

            Joe Tucker reported that the subcommittee was not unanimous on certain points.  He stated that John Loftus had written the draft.

 

(18:04 elapsed)

            Chairman Paul Goldman read the draft. Alternatives were to be evaluated to provide adequate functional space consistent with the space planning concepts presented in the SMP 2014 design, or as alternately seen by the reviewing architect.  The Great Hall would be used for office space. The Recreation and Sewer departments would not be located in the Town Hall building.  For alternatives 1-4, the ability to utilize the existing geothermal wells should be taken into account.  The alternatives are:

1.      Renovate the existing Town Hall keeping the historical fixtures in place, i.e. spiral staircases, tin ceiling and monumental windows, while utilizing the Great Hall for office space.  Construct an addition as necessary to meet the Town’s space needs.  Provide a summary of what would remain after the renovation.

2.      Renovate the existing Town Hall without regard to the historical features and utilize the Great Hall for office space.  Construct an addition as necessary to meet the Town’s space needs.  Provide a summary of what would remain after the renovation.

3.      Tear down the existing Town Hall and build a new structure of 2-3 stories on the existing site, keeping within the architectural context of the Historic District. 

4.      Leave the existing Town Hall for use by others with no initial or future cost to the Town.  Build a new structure of 2-3 stories on the existing site, keeping within the architectural context of the Historic District.  Building mass, parking and traffic flow would be considered.  Property line modifications with the cemetery would be permissible.

5.      Leave the existing Town Hall for use by others with no initial or future cost to the Town.  Build a new structure at the Washington Rd. site next to the Public Safety Building keeping within the architectural context of the Historic District and install landscaping to minimize the visual impacts on the residential neighborhood.

The reviewing architect would help find the best path to meet the needs for the Town offices including ADA requirements, space needs, siting and topographical requirements.  The architect would take an unbiased approach and have full access to existing documentation.  The highest and best use of the land and structure would be determined, with cost differentials for the various alternatives.  Comparisons between the costs of renovation vs. new construction would be made for the benefit of voters. 

            Conceptual floor plans would be prepared for each of the five alternatives.  Front architectural elevations would be prepared for each alternative and digital 3D models would be provided.  Opinions of construction project cost would be provided for all five alternatives.  Meetings with the Town Hall Committee (4 meetings) and the public (2 meetings) would be budgeted. 

            Modifications to one or two of the designs would be made based on input from the Town Hall Committee.  A final report would include tables of the space needs and the floor plans and project cost information with backup.

 

(23:58 elapsed)

            Selectman Musselman made reference to the argument that morning regarding the last sentence in the first two alternatives.  He has concluded that that was silly.  He indicated that he would no longer press that argument. 

            The second point of dissention related to the property line modification.  He thought that a lot line adjustment would be needed for option 4.  Additional town, not Rye Cemetery, land would need to be added.  He suggested a change in that regard.  The cemetery is not affected as there is no effect on the graves, he argued.  In any event, the Town owns the Rye Cemetery, he asserted.

            Editor’s note:  Selectman Mills is observed arriving on the video at 5:57:30 p.m. (27:26 elapsed).

            Jeff Quinn asked a clarifying question about whether the historical features list was exhaustive, and whether the back staircase, stage, belfry or front access door would be kept. 

            John Loftus stated that that alternative would include those.

            There was further discussion about the subcommittee’s work and their disagreements.

 

Amendments to architect’s scope of work (34:59 elapsed)

 

            Selectman Musselman moved to amend the scope of work to clarify the language relating to the property lines and adjustment with the cemetery.  There was no discussion.  All were in favor.

            Ritchie White asked whether the reference in option 4 to the absence of cost to the Town should be clarified to reflect the fact that the Town could always vote to spend money on the existing Town Hall. 

            Selectman Musselman pointed out that there would be legal, lot line adjustment and easement-related costs if the parcel were to be sold.  Some minor expenses would be necessary in those cases. 

            Mr. White pointed out that his comment would also apply to option 5. 

            Selectman Musselman stated that the land acquisition costs would probably need to be estimated and provided to the architect so that they could be added in. 

            There was further discussion indicating that the voters could always change their minds about expending funds on Town Hall in a future year.

            Tim Durkin made a motion to strike the words “initial or future” from the reference to “no cost to the Town” in options 4 and 5.  Selectman Musselman seconded.  All were in favor.

            Tim Durkin made a motion to change “fixtures” to “features” in options 1 and 2.  Selectman Musselman seconded.  All were in favor.

            The motion to accept the document as amended carried unanimously.

 

Mootness of option five (requiring land acquisition) (46:56 elapsed)

 

            Selectman Musselman pointed out that option 5 may be becoming moot.  The situation with the property on Washington Rd. is that the owner passed away in May.  He knew him well as he had sung with him for seven years.  Discussion regarding acquiring the parcel had begun before he passed away.  The matter is now in probate.  If this alternative is to be carried through next Fall, and probably the following Winter, it is likely that the property would have been sold by then.  He stated that his suggestion to the Board of Selectmen would be to either place a warrant article to acquire the property or take the option off of the list.  Otherwise, it would not be fair to the heirs, and the possibility of the Town acquiring the property would interfere with the sale.

            Ritchie White stated that he would be strongly in favor of this, as it would be the last chance to acquire a piece of property in the center of Town.  However, that is not a decision for the Committee, he said. 

            Joe Tucker raised the possibility that the property could be acquired by eminent domain.  Selectman Musselman stated that he does not believe that the Town has ever done this and that he cannot imagine it.

 

Feasibility of Parsonage Apartments site for Town Hall (54:52 elapsed)

 

            Selectman Musselman stated that, at the subcommittee meeting that morning, Victor Azzi had made the point that the Library and the Parsonage are located on the same parcel.  The Library land extends well to the back.  On the way to the office he swung by there.  For $40,000 or $50,000, the land could be filled in and the parking lot extended.  However, he also noticed that the front of the Parsonage includes a sign indicating “Second Parsonage, 1810.”  This option might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.  He expressed doubt that the building could be retrofitted as office space.

 

Next steps (59:29 elapsed)

 

            Chairman Goldman read the Committee Charge, which provides for a report by December 19, 2015, and dissolution of the Committee on March 31, 2016.  Selectman Musselman suggested that Mr. Goldman present the Committee’s work at the next Board of Selectmen meeting on December 14. 

            Ritchie White reported that he had watched the video of the Heritage Commission meeting and noted, according to him, the lack of professionalism and the misinformation that the Commission has.  He suggested that the Board of Selectmen use their appointing authority in the future to remedy this.   Editor’s note:  At the prior meeting, Selectman Mills had encouraged the members to watch the video of the November 19, 2015 meeting.  See in particular the comment made at 34:07 elapsed that the Selectmen do not own the Town Hall.

            John Loftus commented that he had also viewed the video and understood that the Heritage Commission was in favor of utilizing the architect Palson.  Editor’s note:  Sheerr McCrystal Palson (“SMP”) was the architect for the 2014 Town Hall design.  Mr. Loftus stated that a fresh architect should be used for this study.  Selectman Musselman disagreed, stating that SMP had done a fine job.  SMP would also know the context, he argued.  Mr. Goldman agreed.

 

Late identification of structural issues (70:14 elapsed)

 

            Joe Tucker expressed disappointment that the structural survey had not been done well in advance of the expenditure of $250,000 to do a complete design of the building.  Not until the 11th hour was it determined that the building would need to be reinforced.  He was also disappointed at their responses to his questions regarding the duct work and HVAC.  He was told that had all been taken into account, but at a subsequent meeting they had agreed that the duct work would not fit.  They also had been unable to separate out the costs of the renovation and the addition, he said.

            Selectman Musselman stated that SMP obtains those figures from contractors. 

            Selectman Musselman agreed that the structural issues had arisen late in the process.  The design had started in April after a lot of conceptual design.  The moment the structural engineer had gotten involved in July the stiffening issue was identified.  He stated that he believes that they were following the normal architectural design process.  He agreed that the firm retained three years earlier had not caught the issue.  It should have been caught at that point.  The firm had done a $5000 study.  It should have been $10,000 or $15,000.  Editor’s note:  AMEC had done this work.  Until recently, the Planning Board used AMEC to review subdivision and site plans prior to voting their approval.  In 2011, the Town passed warrant article 14 for $40,000 which listed the structural study as the first task, and the space needs study only later in the warrant article.  It appears that virtually the entire $40,000 was spent for the space needs study rather than the structural issue.

            There was discussion about the future tasks to be done by the Committee.  Selectman Musselman stated that the Committee would be in place through March 31.  As a group, they cannot lobby, but as individuals they can.

Joe Tucker and Paul Goldman thanked the group for the work.

 

Public recognition (76:35 elapsed)

 

            Ray Jarvis stated that if architectural drawings were going to be obtained, and the purchase of land discussed, that reasonable estimates can and should be made.  There is a point at which the cost would exceed that at which 60 percent of the voters would approve the project.  However, no ballpark estimate has been made.  If he was on the Committee, he would recommend that they look at what the survey had said.  It said 50 percent would not vote for more than $2.5 million.  Yet, 60 percent is needed.  Going over $2 million would be difficult without a change in the atmosphere or new knowledge.            Mr. Jarvis stated that there had been no estimate of the space need.  The meetings could be moved out of the building.  Rec. and Sewer can be moved out.  Storage can be moved out.  The State has a process for doing this and archiving the information.  There is no privacy and there is not enough room.  The architect can make it efficient and it’s probably possible to do very well without very much expansion.  However, he has not heard a word about that.

            If he was buying a house he would first determine how much space was needed and how much money was available.  He would not go to an architect without that information.  The Selectmen are going to have to do that, but it could have come from this Committee. 

            Mr. Goldman responded, saying that, every year there had been a new version of the committee.  There has been a lot of space needs work done.  There is a lot of meeting room and storage needs analysis.  There have been three or four studies.  He stated that it might be necessary for the architect to average the studies.   

            Mr. Jarvis stated that the people doing the work have not been present.  He noted the absence of the Police Chief and the Fire Chief.  He noted the absence of archiving and scanning and the papers falling out of the windows. 

            Mr. Goldman stated that the space needs had been built from the bottom up.

            Selectman Musselman agreed with Mr. Goldman on the space needs, but acknowledged that Mr. Jarvis had a good point on the cost.

            Mr. Jarvis said “you’re going to have a tough time, because this town, in my opinion, was sold a bill of goods on the Public Safety Building.  We were told there would be all kinds of space open and blah, blah, blah.  And, whatever number of years it’s been, I’ve been at one meeting there and it’s a good place to meet.”           

 

(88:14 elapsed)

            Peter Crawford stated that he agreed with almost everything Mr. Jarvis had said.  He stated that he had been making a lot of these points in prior meetings, so would not repeat them. 

            He stated that there had been three studies done.  The first was by AG.  They came up with 15,000 sq. ft.  The second was the 2012 Space Needs Committee, which came up with 10,500 sq. ft.  Then there is the SMP design, which ended up being 12,500 sq. ft.  He stated that there was a problem with averaging the studies.  The 15,000 AG design went down to a big defeat in 2012.  It got less than 40 percent of the vote on a $135,000 warrant article to continue.  That should be rejected out of hand.

            The SMP design also did not achieve 40 percent of the vote.  Mr. Crawford questioned whether the Town was behind that.  What the Town is behind is the 10,500 sq. ft. and what they were told at the 2013 Deliberative Session.  The Town voted with almost a 60 percent positive vote to provide another $60,000 to continue.  That report has been ignored.  Part of that report was that the meeting room in the basement of the Public Safety Building should be opened up.  The estimated cost to do that is approximately $50,000.  It is a room that is bigger than this one.  Editor’s note:  The meeting was occurring in the conference room on the bottom level of the Library. That wasn’t done, and that is one of the reasons that the SMP design was 12,500 sq. ft.  There needed to be a big Selectmen’s meeting room.  That could have been smaller if some of the bigger meetings could have been moved to the Public Safety Building, he said. 

            Unfortunately, Mr. Crawford said, this Committee is off track.  If it turns out to be 9000 sq. ft., which is the kind of number that he is hearing, there is a problem.  The two options that involve renovating the Town Hall would take the building from 6000 sq. ft. to 9000 sq. ft.  That is not a bumpout, which was the great idea that Mr. Goldman had earlier in the Committee’s life.  The Committee had moved away from that.  Seven thousand square feet would probably be OK.  That would be an addition of about 1000 sq. ft.  That could be sold to the people who are sensitive to the architectural integrity.

            Back in 2013, Mr. Crawford said, the warrant article that the Town voted for had two options.  One was to extend the Town Hall a maximum of 1/3 of its existing length.  The Selectmen decided at that point that 1/3 was what would be architecturally acceptable, given input from the Heritage Commission.  That would be about 8000 sq. ft. when 1/3 is added to the 6000 sq. ft.  He does not see how 9000 sq. ft. would fit into the existing building. 

            So, Mr. Crawford said, the first two options may not fly on that basis.  The final option may not fly because the building would have been sold.  That would leave the Town with two options:  building on the same site, which would be good if the traffic can be handled, and then tearing it down, which got to only 15 percent in the survey.  If the people are not given the square footage at the Deliberative Session the options would be very constrained.

 

(92:16 elapsed)

            Ray Jarvis asked whether parameters could be given to the architect as to cost and square footage.  If the architect is given carte blanche the tail would be wagging the dog.  It would be like going to a physician or a dentist.  The next thing one knew he would have an artificial hip and a new ear. 

            Mr. Goldman stated that the intent was to make available to the architect the prior work of the space needs studies.  Mr. Jarvis said that the tail would still be wagging the dog. 

            Selectman Musselman stated that all five of the alternatives are trying to get to a $2.5 to $3 million price range.  All are configured to try and do that.  “The trouble is that we’re not sure whether our eight or nine thousand net, eight thousand, net square feet is doable for X dollars, and I think we perhaps have competing issues there and it’s something we’re going to have to work out with the architect.”

            Mr. Jarvis proposed reducing the space needs by moving meetings out of Town Hall.  The Sewer and Rec. departments had already been moved out.  At the State level after a certain number of years the paperwork may be archived at the Public Safety Building.  All of this can bring the need from 8500 sq. ft. to 7000 sq. ft.  That’s the bump out which was originally proposed by somebody on the Committee.  If that is given to the architect there would be a functional design that would be great to work in.  Just get microphones, please, he said.

            John Loftus pointed out that restricting the design would increase the cost elsewhere.  Mr. Crawford had pointed out the 2012 Space Needs Committee study, he said.  Mr. Loftus pointed out that he had gone through that and it appeared that the space had been slashed room by room by 10-20 percent with no reason.  Only the AG study provided good reasons, he said. 

            Mr. Loftus pointed out that one of the problems with the Town Hall is that it is built on a slab so there is no space for storage and mechanical rooms are upstairs. 

            Joe Tucker would not comment on the space needs, but cautioned the community about providing both a space need and a budget.  They would lower the quality of the materials, he argued.  One would get what one paid for, and nothing more.  The mistake at the Public Safety Building, where inferior products and people doing the work had been used, should not be repeated, he argued.

            Mr. Loftus stated that the normal grade construction cost around here is about $170 per square foot.

           

(101:41 elapsed)

            Sam Winebaum concurred with Messrs. Jarvis and Crawford.  If a number, or at least a range, is not put on the dollars and the square footage based on real space needs, not wish lists, it’s going to creep.  It’s crept every single time, up and up and up.  We’re meeting in a room that can accommodate 30-50 people.  Although he has not been in the bunker at the Public Safety Building they say it is a fine meeting room.  If the architect knows to hit the target, which he believes is $2 million and 7000-8000 sq. ft., perhaps a bit less, it is going to creep.  They should know about other options that exist to meet the need.  Some of them may not be ideal.  Maybe the papers will need to be lugged from one place to another.  That might be the price to pay for a large meeting.  Mr. Winebaum stated that he did not believe it would fly much above $2 million.  If larger meetings can be taken out of the existing building it probably would fit in the existing building.  If the square footage is reduced, then the quality of the materials can be increased.  The tin ceiling and the windows upstairs are precious.  It can be a beautiful building.  It is kind of chopped up now, he said.

           

(106:00 elapsed)

            Mark Josephs referred to the possible acquisition of land near the Public Safety Building and stated that he sees the creep of Town offices in a historic center of Town and encouraged that it to be kept under control. 

            Lori Carbajal stated that, while the building could be built to be consistent with the Historic District, one would end up with blacktop and traffic just north of the Safety Building.  The number discussed was $500,000, but there is a Fire Station next door, so she disagrees with the value being discussed.  A quick drive by indicates that it needs work. 

            Ms. Carbajal discussed the possibility of giving land away for one dollar to the Housing Partnership.  Editor’s note:  The sale of the Parsonage Apartments, adjacent to the Library, was discussed as a possible warrant article at the December 14, 2015 Board of Selectmen meeting, but the warrant article was rejected at the December 28, 2015 meeting in favor of additional study.  See the notes of those meetings.  She suggested that the building could take advantage of Town parking across the street at the church and expanded parking at the Library and it would not infringe on the neighborhood.  That location would also pull the center of town away from the current center.

            When looking at the financial statements of the Housing Partnership for 2013, which she found online, she discovered that there were only two full-time employees, but 33 volunteers and three part-time employees.  The salaries were just under $500,000.  While the Town does not want to be a landlord, a good management company would manage the building for ten percent of gross.  Alternatively, the housing could be moved out by White Birch.  It is a great location as it is central. 

            With regard to keeping the grand nature of the Town Hall, she would be in favor of that, although she is not certain that it can be done for a reasonable amount.

 

Adjournment (112:00 elapsed)

           

            Whereupon the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:22 p.m.