NOTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 RYE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Draft Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present (clockwise around table): Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Selectmen Musselman and Jenness, Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie. Not present: Selectman Mills.
Also present and sitting in the audience: Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy, Police Chief Kevin Walsh, Interim Fire Chief Tom Lambert, Assessor Scott Marsh (with Municipal Resources, contract assessing firm), Building Inspector Peter Rowell.
Persons present from the public included: Victor Azzi, Steven Borne, Mae Bradshaw, Lori Carbajal, Peter Crawford, Frank Drake, Frances Erlebacher, Kathy Goldman, Kathy Goldman, Paul Goldman, Daryl Kent, Sally King, John Loftus, Mark Schlieper, Karen Stewart, James Tegeder, Phil Winslow.
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 6:30:11 p.m. (0:00 elapsed).
Summary
4.
The Selectmen did not react to a
suggestion from the Rye Civic League that they provide the Facilities Master
Plan contemplated by 2013 Article 4 and also use NH Listens and Plan NH to look
at all of our needs and buildings (Transfer Station, Recreation, space in
Public Safety Building and schools), conduct a Charrette, and achieve community
consensus to avoid unsuccessful votes in the future. Click here
for the letter and here
for information on our facilities.
Announcement of meeting end time (0:50 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
stated that the plan is that meeting will be finished no later than 8:50 p.m.
so that nobody has to choose between watching the debate and listening to this
meeting. Editor’s note: The first
presidential debate occurred that evening, starting at 9:00 p.m.
Public comment: roundabout at
Foyes Corner (1:23 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that there are
agenda items on Town Hall. Anyone who
wishes to speak during the discussion of those items will be given the
opportunity to do so.
Mark Schlieper, Frontier St., stated that he
had spoken with the Selectmen on election day about the Foyes Corner
roundabout. Towards the end of the
summer that was covered with weeds, but those have been cut down since he spoke
with them. It is a gateway to Rye. He
suggested improving the roundabout with a centerpiece, a granite post or low
lying spruce.
Mr. Magnant stated that
they had received some complaints about the weeds. At the time of the project, DOT informed the
town that they would not take care of the lawn within the project area, however
the town could cut the grass in its discretion.
He had DPW cut the grass. Mr.
Magnant stated that he had been in touch with DPW and that the adjacent
restaurant has expressed an interest in having their landscaper take care of
the roundabout vegetation. He just sent
them a copy of the State requirements.
Selectman Musselman
stated that a public sculpture is a great idea.
There should not be grass that will grow high.
Frances Drenzik, 35 Frontier,
stated that the weeds in the roundabout were a safety issue. As neighbors, they are willing to do what it
takes to keep the roundabout attractive.
Mr. Magnant said that
he had not discussed art with DOT. They
would allow low growing shrubs, but not signs.
Consent Agenda Jenness Beach Bath House (8:48 elapsed)
The only item on the
Consent Agenda is a letter from the Oceanscape Condominium Association
regarding the Bath House. The motion to
place the letter on file carried unanimously.
Minutes (9:24 elapsed)
The minutes of the
September 12, 2016 meeting were unanimously approved with numerous
changes.
Conservation Commission Acquisition of 0
Ocean Blvd. (13:28 elapsed)
Conservation Commission
Chairman Sally King described the acquisition.
The assessed valuation is $28,400 and the land is being acquired for
$13,400. This involves a tidal creek in
the Parsons Creek Watershed. Editor’s note: Although not noted on the agenda, the
property is just north of the Surf Shack store at 1191 Ocean Blvd., near the
intersection of Ocean Blvd. and Wallis Rd.
There is no house number, as is the practice for lots without
structures. It is tax map 19.4 lot 56. According to the town’s GIS system, the
property is owned by Frances Kost and Sheppard Bernadette of Portsmouth, NH.
Town Administrator Magnant noted that the “a
through q” document has been available. Editor’s note: This refers to a Selectmen’s list of data
requirements agreed to in 2014 in connection with the warrant article for a $3
million conservation bond.
The motion to approve the acquisition of the
property carried unanimously.
Additional properties with holding tanks
identified (16:09 elapsed)
Building Inspector
Peter Rowell passed out a memorandum on the pump out ordinance. He stated that the ordinance is moving
along. The number of reports submitted
are up to approximately 250 since it went into effect this summer, and these
are arriving on almost a daily basis, he said.
They are finding a
number of holding tanks that I did not realize were there, Mr. Rowell
said. There are now seven known holding
tanks in the watershed area alone. A lot
of them were approved in the 80s: as
early as 1983 and as late as 1996. He
stated that he had been matching up the hauling reports as they come in. The DES approvals required quarterly or
annual reports on the amount of effluent transported out of the holding tanks,
he said. Editor’s note: “DES” refers to
the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Mr. Rowell stated that he is finding that
what is being hauled out is quite a bit less than the amount of water being
purchased from the Water District, sometimes by a factor of three or four. Editor’s
note: The unstated implication is that
the remainder is leaking into the watershed. He has been in touch with DES. They do not track the pumping reports. Their latest response has been that it is the
Health Officer’s responsibility. He
inquired as to how the tanks might be tested to see if they are leaking. They have no protocol for testing the
tanks. Some water can be used for car
washing and lawn watering. He is trying
to come up with information on what an exorbitant amount would be. A lot of the approvals require reports to the
State. However, those have not been provided,
so now their approvals are invalid, he argued.
He is looking into forcing the property owners to have a new system
designed. Some of the new systems may
fit on smaller lots, he said.
Four or five systems in
failure have been identified. It is a
slow process to get the property owners to move along. One homeowner has stepped up to the plate
after doing renovations but not yet having installed the planned septic system,
he said.
There is a contract
with Jones and Beach, funded by a grant, to do inspections. So far only one has been done. He attended with them. It was on Park Ridge and there is a small
tank that has been there for 70 years.
The woman who owns it has also been there for 70 years as well. She knows there is a problem. When there is heavy use they have it pumped
out quite regularly. There is an
adjacent stone dry well. It is a small
lot with high ledge, he said.
On Oceanview, there is
an owner who wants to tear down and rebuild on a 70 by 70 foot lot. He wanted to install a new septic system, but
they found out there is another leach field on that same lot serving a lot
across the street. This is a 70 by 70
foot lot that is getting the septic loading from two parcels. The home is near Appledore. It is a very pretty area but there are 40
homes on 10 acres, all with septic systems.
There have been three tear downs and rebuilds with updated systems. Most are going to pre-treatment systems, he said.
There are some flooding
issues in the area. When the new FIRM
maps come out, the whole of Wallis Sands is going to a VE Zone. Editor’s
note: FIRM stands for Flood Insurance
Rate Map. The Federal Register
states that sewage in such areas should be moved offsite if possible. If not, the system must be completely
contained so that nothing gets out of the system into the flood waters. He stated that he is talking about the ocean
side of the Wallis Sands dune. There are
probably 60-70 homes in a bad spot as far as flooding is concerned, he
said.
Town Administrator
Magnant stated that he had talked to Mr. Rowell and had been copied on some of
the e-mails from Mr. Rowell to the State.
Mr. Rowell has been frustrated over the issue of the holding tanks, he
said. In layman’s terms, DES is
permitting and licensing these tanks and requiring reports through their
regulations, but the regulations were changed to provide that the reports were
to go to the town, not them. They then
say that they do not have the staff to police what is going on and they expect
the town to help out and do it. Mr.
Rowell is straight out right now, but this could be a real issue. It is important enough that he wanted the
Board of Selectmen to be aware. It is
almost like another unfunded mandate where they are shoving it down on us to do
the work, Mr. Magnant said.
Selectman Musselman
stated that the town’s requirements should be more stringent than the State’s
in the Parsons’ Creek Watershed. That
should be discussed in more detail at the next meeting of the Parsons’ Creek Watershed
Committee. The Committee is coming up
with three ordinances now, but an additional one is needed. There needs to be an ordinance dealing with
state-permitted holding tanks to ensure that all waste water is being contained
and all of it is being pumped out. The
teeth would be that, if this is not occurring, the property owner could be
required to install a system. DES does
not seem to be willing to go back on their prior approvals years ago. There is data that some homes are using
60,000 gallons per year and pump out 8000 gallons of water. That is not a holding tank. That is a leach field that is pumped three or
four times a year.
Selectman Jenness asked
whose teeth Selectman Musselman was referring to. Selectman Musselman said that he was
referring to local teeth.
Selectman Musselman
stated that tonight’s information shows that the pumpout ordinance is
working. He asked whether the town had
already known about any of the holding tanks.
Mr. Rowell responded that two were known, but the other five were
not. Selectman Musselman added that five
failed septic systems had also been found and noted that, when they started in
April, Mr. Rowell did not know the locations of any failed systems. Mr. Rowell responded that he had suspected
some locations.
Selectman Musselman
said that there are now 12 systems that are being focused on and he is sure
that there are more to come.
Selectman Musselman
asked whether the State could provide a full list of permitted holding
tanks. Mr. Rowell responded that he had
asked, but they do not keep track of them.
“That’s just unbelievable,” Selectman Musselman said.
Mr. Rowell stated the
State also approves the advanced treatment systems which require
maintenance. They don’t have a list of
where those have been installed in town.
They do not monitor the maintenance on them either. Mr. Magnant stated that Mr. Rowell ends up
following up on those. Mr. Rowell said that
he has an arrangement with one company whereby he gets a report of the systems
that did not get inspected. That has
worked out pretty well, he said.
Selectman Musselman
asked whether the town has the teeth in the ordinance to go after the holding
tanks that are not being fully pumped out.
Mr. Rowell responded that it may be possible to do that through the
Health Officer. He said that the
overflow may be running out the bottom into the water table as some are very
close to the marsh. A lot of leach
fields are close to the water table as well and do not break out, but rather
run into the water table or the associated wetlands.
The watershed needs to
be cleaned up, Mr. Rowell said. Everyone
wants to do that, but the town will not be successful continuing to use the
existing ordinance and State laws. There
need to be better treatment systems in the Watershed. He is proposing an RFP to have companies
evaluate the Town’s ordinance and come up with a cost to have a more complete
look at the watershed. He stated that he
does not believe that the ordinance should be changed if the best systems are
not being installed. The Planning Board
is already requiring advanced treatment systems in the Aquifer Protection
District. He would like responses to the
RFP by the middle of November.
Selectman Musselman
suggested that this could be done under the grant next year. Last year there was a proposal suggested in
November to spend $80,000 to tailor design systems for the homes with poor
on-site conditions in the Parsons Creek Watershed. They have since found out that you can’t even
go on the properties. It ought to be funded,
limited to systems within a certain number of feet of tidal marshes. The request would be to review the available
systems for those that would do a better job in the critical areas. He suggested that the town wait until it
knows that the grant money is available.
Mr. Rowell stated that
Town Attorney Donovan had done work for the Committee, and concluded that, as
long as the ordinance did not contradict the State statute or water down the
ordinance it would probably “fly.”
Selectman Musselman suggested
that this be presented to the Parsons Creek Committee.
Mr. Magnant stated that
there is a conference call with DES in the upcoming week and they could inquire
about the availability of grant funds at that time.
Selectmen Jenness and
Musselman noted that there were at least three typos in Mr. Rowell’s proposed
RFP.
343 Parsons Rd. enforcement action (34:27 elapsed)
Mr. Magnant inquired
about this agenda item. Mr. Rowell
stated that that was related to a shed that had been there for a few years and
that had been pointed out by the Conservation Commission. Two permits for the shed have been denied,
one on each side of the lot. The
property owner has hired an attorney and I am working with him, Mr. Rowell
said. It does not need to be moved to enforcement
yet, he said.
1419 Ocean Blvd. increase in assessment (35:26 elapsed)
Scott Marsh, assessor
(with Municipal Resources, contract assessor) came up to sit at the table. He stated that the gentleman had come in
because his assessment had changed in 2015.
Editor’s note: According to the town’s GIS system, this
property is owned by Burdett Realty LLC, c/o Vincent A. Wenners, Jr. The property owner told Mr. Marsh that he had
been granted an abatement in 2012, Mr. Marsh said. The property owner wanted his assessment to
go back to that level, but I told him that the time to file for an abatement
had expired, Mr. Marsh said. He was
supposed to come back with information showing that his assessment was out of line,
but did not. The Board does have authority
to grant an abatement notwithstanding the lack of a timely request, Mr. Marsh
said.
Selectman Musselman
asked why the assessment had increased between 2014 and 2015. Mr. Marsh at first stated that he did not
know, and then said that it appeared that certain factors had been
adjusted. The property was assessed in
2011 at $698,000, he said. During the
last revaluation in 2012, it was increased to $882,000. Following his filing for an abatement, the
assessment was reduced to $456,000. Now
it is back at $693,000. It seems to be
in line with his neighbors now. Mr.
Marsh stated that he was not sure where the $456,000 figure came from. The $693,000 does not seem to be out of line,
based on preliminary information. The
property owner does have the ability to file for an abatement this year after
he gets his fall tax bill.
Selectman Musselman
moved to place the letter on file. All
were in favor.
Proposed Town Hall design build procurement
(38:17 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
began by pulling out of a plastic bag two pieces of Town Hall that had fallen
off. He said that, while some had
encouraged painting of the building, that would cost $30,000 to $40,000 and
“stuff” that one way or the other is going to be gone would be painted, he
said.
The condition of the
building is intolerable and it is an eyesore, he said. There has been difficulty reaching a
community consensus. In August the first
handicapped access came up when furniture had to be moved to provide access to
the bathroom for a person in a wheelchair.
In any event the bathroom door is not wide enough. The town is one complaint away from a major
problem, he said.
Last year, the
committee could not reach a consensus.
Some on the committee wanted to renovate the building while others were
adamant that it be demolished so that a new building could be constructed. Editor’s
note: The 2015-2016 Town Hall Committee
was formed following the defeat of 2015 Warrant Article 5, 575-887, receiving
only 39.3 percent “yes” votes. Because
it was a bond issue, 60 percent approval was required. That Warrant Article would have appropriated
$4.1 million for renovation of the existing Town Hall and construction of a
connected addition. A total of $350,000
had already been appropriated in 2011, 2013 and 2014 by various warrant
articles for studies and designs. Only the 2013 warrant article surpassed the
60 percent approval level, but because none of the 2011-2014 warrant articles
involved bonds, only a 50 percent was required.
Some additional money in the operating budget (not included in the
$350,000) was spent on a new roof, a geothermal heating and cooling system, and
electrical work during this time frame, however the exterior has been allowed
to deteriorate further. The 2015-2016
Town Hall Committee was formed by, and given its charge by, the Board of
Selectmen, and Selectmen Musselman and Mills served on that Committee, while
Selectman Jenness, who had been on every Town Hall Committee since 2011, was
not.
The UNH survey results
are available online, Selectman Musselman said.
It shows that the $4 million warrant article last time was too much, he
said.
(46:43 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that a majority
of survey respondents prefer renovation, although a distinct minority are in
favor of demolishing the Town Hall and building a new one. To solve the problem a 60 percent vote for a
bond is needed. The hour is late. Processes that start now and take 2-3 years
are intolerable, he asserted.
The process being
proposed arises out of an idea by Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy last
July or August, he said. Selectman
Musselman said that he, Mr. McCarthy, Paul Goldman and Mike Magnant had met
with contractors and the architect from the prior project. There have also been discussions with other
architects in the region, he said.
The proposed process is
to get proposals for both an historic renovation and new construction for the
least amount of space satisfying the town’s needs based on previously done
programming, he said.
Selectman Musselman
referred to the three page document that he had passed out. Editor’s
note: The document is available at http://www.ryecivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/THspaceAnalysisForDesignBuild092616.pdf.
The previous design is 10,940 sq. ft. without the walkway between the
buildings, he said. However, the
conclusion is that no Meeting Hall (i.e. Great Hall) is needed. Those 2850 sq. ft. upstairs can be used for
office space. The Recreation and Sewer
Departments have moved out. If the two
stairwells in the corner are not included (as he said this, Selectman Musselman
pointed towards the front of the building, where the curvilinear stairs are
located), what is needed, with those subtracted off, is 6880 sq. ft. Editor’s
note: The three reductions, according to
the document passed out by Selectman Musselman, from the 10,940 sq. ft. are
2850 sq. ft. for the upstairs of the existing building, 680 sq. ft. for the
Recreation and Sewer Departments, and 330 sq. ft. for the downstairs
stairs/vestibule. In fact, there is an
arithmetic error in his calculation. The
correct total is 7080 sq. ft.
A redesign will arrive at a different number
as the gross to net will change, he said. Editor’s note: Net square feet excludes the thickness of
exterior and interior walls and “circulation” space for hallways, lobbies,
stairwells and elevators. Gross square
feet includes all space to the outer edge of the exterior walls. About 7000 sq. ft. is needed to
accommodate the office space needs identified through a rather exhaustive
design process. The existing space is
5700 sq. ft., leaving 1180 sq. ft. that won’t fit in the footprint of this
building. The length of an addition out
back would be 20 feet. If the spiral
staircases in the corners are kept, about a 31 foot addition would be needed. These figures would change based on the
architect’s space layout, he said.
Under either a
renovation or new construction, the bottom floor would become Town Clerk,
Assessor and Finance and Administration.
The existing second floor, with the tin ceiling exposed, would be
Building Inspector and Planning, which may be getting larger this year as there
is a need for more staff. The second
floor over the new addition would likely be meeting space, a little bit larger
than this room. That accommodates all of
our needs and it is a whole lot less square footage than the previous design,
he said.
Referring to the second
page, Selectman Musselman stated that it shows a 20 foot extension and a 30
foot extension (the widths shown are 30 feet in both cases). Editor’s
note: With two floors, this would
provide 1200 sq. ft. in the first case and 1800 sq. ft. in the second
case. The proposed addition is not
out of scale with the rest of the building.
Previously, the Heritage Commission had given some thought to this
issue. Thirty feet is just short of the
tree on the bank out back, he said.
(54:39 elapsed)
Referring to the third
page, Selectman Musselman said that design/build proposals would be
sought. Previously an architect had done
the plans and specifications which was put out to a vetted list of contractors
which bid based on those plans and specifications. Design/build combines those two
processes. You contract with a builder
that in turn contracts with an architect and the town works with the architect
on the design. There is a contract for a
fixed price for the design/build addition, he said.
Bidders would bid on
both a historic renovation with an approximately 30 by 30 foot addition to the
rear of the building. The tin ceiling
would be retained. The ceiling would be
high, but there would be an adjacent conference room that would be enclosed but
the office spaces and work areas would be similar to the existing second floor
structure. One or both spiral (i.e.
curvilinear) staircases would be retained.
The exterior design would be per the previous SMP historic renovation
design. The details remain to be worked
out, but they are thinking that the floor would be replaced, as well as the
foundation wall. The exterior view would
be that of the previous design. A firm
price would be requested, he said.
The other bid would be
for replica of the existing Town Hall with the same footprint, expansion and
the same space layout. Both meet our
needs. The new Town Hall would be a
spitting image of the existing Town Hall in terms of dimensions and the size
and location of windows. The same space
and layout would be obtained in each case and there would be prices for each,
he said.
The interior would be
all new construction, with no replication.
There would be no tin ceilings or spiral staircases, he said.
Both alternatives would
include a new septic system, at grade pedestrian access from the upper parking
lot and limited landscaping improvements.
Last time there was $30,000 of landscaping in the bid. That could be done year two or three, he
said.
The previous SMP design
would serve as the standard of design and finish unless noted otherwise by the
proposing contractor. No frills interior
details would be encouraged. Previously,
$214,000 of the $3.2 million bid was for lighting fixtures. Editor’s
note: There were a number of costs to be
borne by the Town rather than the building contractor, as well as a
contingency, that were added to the bid to arrive at the $4.1 million warrant
article amount. The fixtures were
nicely selected but not necessarily what was needed for a spartan Rye Town
Hall, he said.
SMP (i.e. the previous
architect) has orally agreed to cooperate with reuse of the previous documents,
including providing CAD files. SMP would
be free to choose a team to be on. The
Town has no funds and no hiring of an architect could be entertained at this
point, he said.
The RFP would be issued
to the previous vetted bidders: Hutter,
Meridian and Dew. He suggested that
Milestone be added. They were a fourth
bidder that bowed out, but was vetted by the whole committee last time, he
said. Editor’s note: Hutter was the
low bidder last time, and their bid was several hundred thousand dollars
less than the others.
If the decision is made
to proceed, Selectman Musselman would draft the design/build RFP, he said. They would work with the Public Works
Director, the Town Administrator and the previous Town Hall Committee member to
put that together. Editor’s note: That is an
apparent reference to Paul Goldman who was Chairman of the Town Hall Committee
at the end of the 2014-2015 process as well as Chairman of a successor
2015-2016 Town Hall Committee that proposed 2016 Warrant Article 11. That warrant article was to provide $60,000
for an architect to study and estimate the costs of five different options for
Town Hall but was rejected by voters, 856-703.
There would be a presentation to the public
on October 10, he said. Editor’s note: That is the Monday on which the Selectmen
would ordinarily meet, however Selectman Musselman probably meant October 12,
as the 10th is Columbus Day and a Selectmen’s meeting has already
been scheduled for the 12th.
Proposals would be due December 8, prior to the first Selectmen’s
meeting in December. Between then and
January, we, as a community, would decide on whether to proceed with neither
proposal, a warrant article for the historic renovation, or a warrant article
for a new Town Hall. There would be firm
prices on both, he said.
There was a lot of
discussion last year to get estimates for new vs. renovation. The warrant article to do that was voted
down. If the estimate had come in, there
probably would have been disagreement about the estimates and allegations of
bias. These prices would come from
contractors, he said.
Selectman Musselman
said that he hoped that this would give those on each side of this question
(i.e. whether to renovate or build new) a sense that their side is being
treated fairly. I don’t care which we
do, but I am firmly convinced that we need to do something. If we continue to discuss this as a town
there will not be resolution and there will not be a 60 percent bond vote. We need to move, he said. He gave Selectman Jenness, Mr. McCarthy, Mr.
Magnant and Paul Goldman to speak first.
(65:00 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness
echoed what Selectman Musselman said. We
have got to do something, she said.
Committee after committee had put their whole hearts into it and a sixty
percent vote cannot be achieved with what has been done so far. The UNH Survey made it clear that people want
the Town Hall to be here, in this spot.
A large number favored renovation and a vocal number of people prefer to
start from scratch. A considerable
amount of time was spent vetting the people we have worked with. A lot is invested in this property
already. The geothermal system has been
started. There are people who are
willing to take what has been done already and come up with something that will
hopefully be in a dollar range that 60 percent can agree with. That seemed to be the straw that broke the
last camel. She said that she would be
interested in hearing what people think about this.
Dennis McCarthy stated
that Selectman Musselman had summed it up well and he had nothing to add,
except that the design/build process offers a lot to the town, particularly
with the short time frame, if the goal is to avoid the loss of another
year.
Paul Goldman stated
that, with the perspective of having been on several iterations of Town Hall
Committees, “we are stuck.” While
convergence was not achieved, a lot was learned about what would and would not
work, eliminating things that might otherwise need to be explored with regard
to other locations and other facilities around town. The two major factions have to do with cost
and the fact that this is a historic building.
What better way to move the process forward than to get concrete figures
from contractors, he said.
Mike Magnant had
nothing to add.
Selectman Musselman
added that he expected that the “all in project price” would come in between $2
million and $3 million. Town Hall would
need to be moved into an office building someplace for 10 months or so. Four proposals may not be received. Contractors who have already put a lot into
this are being asked to go to the well again.
There is a distinct possibility that only one or two out of the four might
bid. It could be opened to the public
but then there would not be the vetting that had already been gone
through. The four are all outstanding
firms. They don’t get paid for this
process if it gets voted down in March, he said.
(72:34 elapsed)
Frank Drake asked
whether bidders were to bid on both options.
Selectman Musselman said yes.
Otherwise, they would read the survey and pick renovation, he asserted. Frank Drake responded, saying that that would
be foolish as it would be too expensive and we won’t vote for it. Selectman Musselman said that, without both
prices the input needed to make a community decision would not be
obtained. Mr. Drake said that he sees
the logic of apples to apples, but he thinks that the third option of the same
site and a new architecturally relevant design might have been the least
expensive option. Selectman Musselman
said that the cost would not be far off.
Victor Azzi stated that
this is a good avenue to pursue. He
stated that he has done a number of buildings with design/build very
successfully. Usually some things are
fixed and other things remain to be decided.
If the program is set, often the teams are asked to provide a certain
number of square feet within a certain budget and show what can be delivered
within, say, $2.5 million. Selectman
Musselman said that that is an option but someone must choose the number. Mr. Azzi stated that the square footage,
either in terms of net assignable square footage or gross square footage could
be spelled out. Those may still be
opportunities to tie things down here, he said.
Mr. Azzi asked whether
each of the firms would be working with SMP or with an architectural firm of
their choice. Selectman Musselman stated
that he had that exact discussion with SMP.
SMP only be comfortable being on one of the teams. Contractors would only be comfortable working
with SMP if they are on one team because there is a lot of back and forth
between the contractor and the architect during the proposal process and
contractors would not want SMP sharing their ideas with the others. SMP has relationships with Meridian, Hutter
and Milestone, but not much working relationship with Dew. The contractor that works with SMP will have
the benefit of SMP’s knowledge of the building, which is an issue, but there
was no other way to structure it, he said.
(78:04 elapsed)
John Loftus stated that
the spiral (i.e. curvilinear) staircases should be limited to emergency
use. Selectman Musselman said “if
that.” Selectman Musselman stated that
the stairs are not of functional value, but necessitate a larger extension in
the back, which increases the cost.
However, there would be so much of a reaction that it wasn’t worth the
argument. In the replica, they are gone,
as is the tin ceiling. Dennis’ sense was
to leave one of them, my sense was to leave both, he said. The space in the middle would be used for
bathrooms, as was the case with the previous design.
Mr. Loftus stated that
the architectural aesthetics would be disrupted by the addition.
Mr. Loftus asked
whether there would be a new foundation and cellar under the new build
option. Selectman Musselman said that
there would be a new foundation but not a new cellar as that would unfairly
burden the new construction alternative. He said that the previous design had $350,000
in site work. A lot of that was taking
the hill down and constructing the new building. A frost wall and insulated slab are being
proposed, he said.
Mr. Loftus asked why a
building would be built with an eight foot ceiling on the first floor, but a 19
foot ceiling on the second floor.
Selectman Musselman said that it would not be 19 feet. The ceiling of the replica would be right
above the top of the windows, something like 12 feet high, he said.
Mr. Loftus said that
things would be overlooked by going through the design/build process so quickly
and it would not be the best design. He
stated that he had 20 years experience with this.
(82:52 elapsed)
Peter Crawford stated
the he thinks that this is a positive step and that he likes the square
footage. This is the sort of thing that
I have been suggesting for quite a while, he said. It is how the Town Hall Committee started its
discussion last year, with a bump out the back, he said. Selectman Musselman said “yep… we never got
there.” Mr. Crawford continued, saying
that the committee had diverged into needing more space in the 10,000, 11,000,
12,000 square foot range. He asked how
Selectman Musselman arrived at the numbers, because, he said, his number on the
old design is more like 12,500 sq. ft., not 10,000 sq. ft.
Selectman Musselman
said that he based his number on inside, not outside, dimensions and excluded
the walkway between the two buildings.
Mr. Crawford said that that is about 400 sq. ft. Selectman Musselman said that it his take off
of the detailed architectural drawings, inside dimensions only. Mr. Crawford asked whether the space need of
6880 sq. ft. included the interior walls.
Selectman Musselman confirmed.
Selectman Musselman
said that the figures are approximate.
The architect would lay things out.
The space needs except for Recreation, Sewer and the Great Hall need to
be accommodated. The 30 by 30 foot
extension is an estimate. It could be 30
by 25 or 30 by 35 feet. “We’re not
pinning down X square feet. We are
pinning down the space needs identified through the previous design, less what
we no longer need, and telling them to bump it out in the back and make it
about a 30 foot extension…” At Mr.
Crawford’s request, Selectman Musselman confirmed that the figure is not net
square feet or net assignable square feet, but rather “gross inside square
feet.” Mr. Crawford stated that he could
not come up with more than 500 sq. ft. for the area of the exterior walls.
Mr. Crawford stated
that his point stands as he does not understand how Selectman Musselman got
from 12,500 sq. ft. to 10,940 sq. ft. and is concerned that, during the
process, someone would discover that a mistake was made and that it is not
possible to proceed in this direction.
He said that he is all for the square footage.
Selectman Musselman
said that the architect would be required to submit a detailed floor plan and
at least a southern elevation. Mr.
Crawford asked whether there would be at least a schematic design. Selectman Musselman responded “absolutely.”
(87:11 elapsed)
Daryl Kent asked
whether the builders be responsible for site work and whether voting would be
accommodated. Selectman Musselman said
that the contractors would need to do the site work. This is a whole lot simpler than the previous
design. Voting would remain at the
elementary school. Only one or two
parking spaces would be lost and grade access from the upper parking lot would
be gained. Only an overlay of asphalt
might be needed for the lower parking lot, he said.
Mae Bradshaw asked
whether an elevator was contemplated in the new, expanded space. Selectman Musselman said that there will be
an elevator but the architect would determine where it is. Last time there was an elevator and a lift to
deal with differential floor elevations.
The floor of the stage could be taken down to avoid the
differential. That will be left to the
design/build contractor. Ms. Bradshaw
asked whether it was being assumed that the stage would be eliminated. Selectman Musselman said that he did not know
whether the proscenium arch would need to be taken down. He said that it was a good question and he
did not know the answer.
Ms. Bradshaw said that,
two Town Hall committees ago, the stairs were to be used of for ingress and
egress. She said that she did not know
why that did not remain possible. It
would be an extra egress, she said.
Selectman Musselman said that it would probably not be a main
egress. The alcove at the front of the
building would probably be used for office space as it is currently. The main door would not be an entrance. If there is to be an entrance at the front to
go up to Building Inspection, the bump out would need to go further. A lot of floor space would be used for
that. That is an initial thought, it is
up to the architect, he said. He
explained that most departments need private space, except the Building
Inspector, which is the reason that that department would go on the second
floor.
(91:53 elapsed)
Victor Azzi said that one of the purposes of
design/build is to have competing teams in order to be able to utilize all of
their experiences and abilities to do something that the owner may not have
thought about. You do not want too many
constraints, he said. They should decide
about the stairs, he said. You should
tell them what you would like to consider and what not, he said.
Mr. Azzi questioned the
extent to which a facsimile building would be relevant because the creativity
of the design/build team would be constrained.
Having a bump out of a brand new building does not make sense and would
not make sense to a lot of the creative people who would be competing. He asked what would be done with the volume
of space above the second floor ceiling, which would be just above the top of
the windows, except to heat it. That
must be four or five feet of empty space, he said.
Selectman Musselman
said that they had toyed with a different design for the new build option, but
that would require the architect to design two different things in the time
frame and would require the contractor to detail the costs of two different
things. In discussions with contractors
to date, they had initially said that they would provide a bid for the
renovation. We said we need both. The idea of doing a replica is to ensure that
a proposal is obtained for new construction as they have the same footprint and
internal layout. They can do a bid on
that much more easily. Our interest as
the Board of Selectmen is to get a 60 percent bond vote and get this thing
done. With new construction, our best
pitch is that it would have the same visual image as what exists. Then, everyone might come together. They might no bid the new construction option
and bid only the option that they believe would go through, he said.
(99:56 elapsed)
Karen Stewart referred to responses in the
Town Hall Survey indicating that efficiency and sustainability are important to
people in the town. She asked if
consideration was being given to those.
Selectman Musselman
said that they had not detailed that yet, but that his thought is that they
would specify that the existing geothermal system be part of the new design,
but not expanded. The existing system,
once the building has been insulated, and given the small size of the
extension, may be able to handle all but extreme whether, he said. This is already an energy efficient
system. It might be less expensive to
scrap that system and put in a fossil fuel boiler, but that does not make any
sense given the $240,000 grant from the federal government to put in the
geothermal system. The previous design
had additional geothermal wells being installed at significant cost. I think we would tell the contractor to avoid
that. There was previously a decent
design for the insulation that we would probably go with, he said.
Phil Winslow asked
about the timeline after December 8, and how it gets to the warrant article
stage.
Selectman Musselman
said that he did not know. There are two
ways that warrant articles are put together.
The first is a Selectmen-proposed warrant article which is reviewed by
the Budget Committee. The Selectmen
would need to decide, between December 8 and sometime in January, between one
warrant article for one of the alternatives or two warrant articles so that
voters could decide which they want.
That is fraught with problems as half might vote for one and half for
the other and neither would pass. The
Selectmen would need to decide quickly as citizens can submit warrant articles,
and if the process is gone through, there can be citizen-petitioned bond
warrant articles. There may be an
interesting Deliberative Session. The
Deliberative Session could make any change that they want, including changing
one alternative to the other.
(104:25 elapsed)
Lori Carbajal asked why
there couldn’t be a separate vote on the design to be chosen. Selectman Musselman said that is because the
final vote is in March. Ms. Carbajal
asked about a Special Town Meeting.
Selectman Musselman said that that would require the Court to be
petitioned and require that it be an emergency.
There has not been an emergency related to Town Hall, although
petitioning for a Special Town Meeting has been considered, he said.
Mae Bradshaw asked
whether the estimates could be broken down into projects so that grants could
be sought. Selectman Musselman said that
he did not believe that that level of detail would be possible prior to October
10. However, that information could be
sought after December 8.
Paul Goldman said that,
once the information comes back, there may be either a huge difference between
the alternatives or a small one. The
guidance may almost be self evident, he said.
Peter Crawford
suggested a way that the warrant articles could be structured to avoid
problems. Selectman Musselman said that
whether it would work would depend on the prices and asserted that there are
still dangers.
Mae Bradshaw said that
the survey results indicate that 60-80 percent want to keep this building and its
historic aspects. If it has been decided
that the budget is $2.5 million, why couldn’t bids be sought for that amount to
do what was feasible within the budget to renovate the building, she asked.
Selectman Musselman and
Ms. Bradshaw agreed that, if $.5 million could be saved, some votes would
change, although Ms. Bradshaw said that her vote would not change. That is the question, Selectman Musselman
said.
John Loftus said that
he agrees with Mr. Azzi. Mr. Loftus
asserted that he has been in architectural design for 20 years and published in
47 countries. He asserted that the
windows go with the interior ceiling.
This is a haste makes waste approach, he said. Builders don’t care as much as architects
about the aesthetics, which is one of the problems with design build. Going for an exact replica is not the way to
go. It could be a lot better. Unless there is ledge, the cost of digging a
foundation is comparable to the insulated slab and frost wall being
proposed. The building could also be moved
and the so that the traffic flow would be improved, he said.
(113:31 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
stated that the alternative is to do a warrant article to hire an architect and
a design/build manager to detail the second alternative. He raised his voice and said:
“Quite frankly, John, I don’t believe that your idea,
that you’ve been talking about for a year and a half, of building a different
building here is going to fly. I don’t
think we’re ever going to get a Deliberative Session to pass it through and I
don’t believe you’re ever going to get 2000 people on March 8th, or
whenever it is, to vote yes. I think
you’re completely misguided in that regard. The other approach is to appropriate
money, take another year, appoint another committee of people with both
perspectives from this community and have them focus on a design build RFP so
you can get your individual input in on a new construction building that you
think is better and then, late in the year, next year, go out for design/build
proposals with your better idea for the new building.”
Editor’s note: The turnout in
2014 was 1733, in 2015, 1539 and in 2016, 1614. The
turnout for each of the years 2009-2013 was lower than any of the years
2014-2016.
Mr. Loftus disagreed that it was only his
idea. He stated that there are a lot of
people sharing his sentiment, including builders.
Selectman Musselman
responded, saying:
“I don’t hear them in the community. There are a handful of people here,
John. Three or four I hear from. All the time.
I don’t disagree with you that new construction is better. I don’t know that it’s cheaper for the same
amount of space. We’ll find that
out. It’s certainly better, but I don’t
think there’s a consensus, conceivably feasible in this community, to demolish
this building and build something that looks different, that you like, or that
three or four of you like.”
Mr. Loftus said that he
wanted to get the best product for the dollar spent. That’s not the direction that you are
heading. You are going in the direction
of getting it done now, he said.
Daryl Kent said that
parameters need to be set in terms of the shape and size of the building in
order to compare the bids. He suggested
that there may be creative solutions to the problem of the windows and ceiling
on the second floor.
Peter Crawford said
that he hears what is being said about not having an optimal solution but the
town has no money this year. This option
gets estimates by December that decisions can be based on. The Selectmen may decide that this was too
rushed and decide to wait another
year. They may decide to have a warrant
article that says that the cost of a new building is X, the cost of a renovation
is Y, which do you prefer? Any warrant
article might also be amended to that at the Deliberative Session, he
said.
Selectman Musselman
said that everyone might decide that they want a new structure rather than a
renovated one, but they want it designed in a particular way. That could be negotiated with the selected contractor. There are all kinds of options to get from
where we are in December to something that would fly, but a basic decision as
to whether to renovate or build new is needed.
This is the only way that I can think of to get the community to make
that decision, he said.
Frank Drake said that
he agreed. Apples to apples and see what
happens, he said, and walked out.
(119:32 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman
said that there are two decisions to be made.
The first is the approval of the procurement process. Selectman Jenness so moved. All were in favor. The second was entering into the arrangement
with SMP for the reuse of documents.
Selectman Jenness so moved. All
were in favor.
Selectman Musselman
thanked everyone for a good discussion.
Overhead door quotes (120:19 elapsed)
Public Works Director
Dennis McCarthy addressed. He said that
the Selectmen should have before them a matrix of bids to replace the
uninsulated garage doors with insulated ones.
Those two bays are now being heated with a waste oil burner. It would be more cost effective to have
insulated doors. The likely low bidder
has not yet responded, so they will likely go with Seacoast Overhead Door at $5744. There was discussion about the bids being for
different types of doors. No vote was
needed, he said.
Date for Deliberative Session (123:03 elapsed)
The motion to set the
Deliberative Session for Saturday, February 4, 2017, with a snow date of
Saturday, February 11, 2017 carried unanimously.
Memo from Rye Civic League on Town
Facilities Master Plan and NH Listens (124:08 elapsed)
Steven Borne of the
Civic League addressed. He said that a
Facilities Master Plan had been voted for in 2013, with the idea of what do we
need to do with the buildings and the question of what we can afford to
do. Everything should be put on the
table and there should be a discussion.
New Hampshire Listens is a group that helps communities work through
things that they are having trouble getting consensus on. They have been doing that for years. We don’t know that the Transfer Station and
the Recreation Buildings aren’t more important to voters. We don’t know how
much space there is going to be in the school buildings, with declining
enrollment. The information needs to be
in one place so that we can have a public discussion of what the options are,
the priorities and the need for space.
There should be an understanding of what we can afford every year, and
there should be a Charrette. Then there
would be consensus after the community talked it through, not just looking at
Town Hall in a vacuum. There would be
buy in. There would be a much better
chance of getting things passed. We’ve
been at this since 2011 with Town Hall.
Things get voted down and we’re back to square one. If we continue to do what we’re doing, we’ll
continue to stutter and stall and have things voted down, he said.
Selectman Musselman
thanked Mr. Borne.
Mr. Borne said that the
SMP Plan is a document with a couple of recommendations that fell short of the
voters’ expectations for a Facilities Master Plan.
Governors Task Force on Cancer Clusters (128:05 elapsed)
Town Administrator
Magnant stated that there had been a meeting of the Task Force and DES would be
sending out post cards to about 90 Rye residents as well as North Hampton
residents. They are doing a private well
survey. They do not believe that there
is any health threat. They already did
this in Greenland. They do not have
names and addresses of private wells, which is why they are sending out the
post cards. It will go down Washington
Rd. to Birch and down Lafayette Rd., he said.
Adjournment (130:01 elapsed)
Whereupon the meeting
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.