ANNOTATED MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2017 RYE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Public input on which Town Hall option to select
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present (clockwise around table): Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Selectmen Craig Musselman and Priscilla Jenness, Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie. Not present: Selectman Joseph Mills.
Persons present from the public included: Victor Azzi, Diane Bitter, Steven Borne, Mae Bradshaw, Deb Crapo, Randy Crapo, Peter Crawford, Joe Cummins, Burt Dibble, Frank Drake, Paul Goldman, Jane Holway, Ray Jarvis, John Loftus, Ann Malpass, Joe Tucker, Phil Winslow.
Editor’s Note: These annotated minutes are provided by the
Rye Civic League. They have been
prepared using the PDF version of the draft minutes downloaded from the Town
website on January 28, 2017. Not all of
the text may have been converted properly.
Consult the Town website for the official minutes. All RCL annotations are in Times New Roman
font. The original minutes are in
Courier font. The absence of annotation
does not indicate that the RCL has confirmed that the minutes accurately
reflect what transpired. The time stamps
are in minutes and seconds relative to the start of the RCL video of the
meeting, which is available on the Town website. The draft minutes have not yet been approved
by the Selectmen and are subject to change.
Editor’s
note: The video for this meeting is
available at https://vimeo.com/201527237/. This video is based on what could be
retrieved from a damaged video accessible from the Town website, as well as an
audio recording taken by the RCL for the remainder of the meeting.
The video starts
at approximately 6:31:02.
Summary
4.
It was announced
that the Selectmen would reach a decision at a meeting on January 5.
(0:40 elapsed)
TOWN OF
RYE -BOARD OF SELECTME-BOARD OF SELECTMEN
TUESDAY,
January 3, 2017
6:30
p.m.
Rye
Town Hall
Members
Present: Acting Chair Craig Musselman and Selectman Priscilla Jenness
Others
Present: Town Administrator Michael Magnant and Asst. Town
Administrator/Finance
Director Cynthia Gillespie
I. CALL
TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting
Chair Musselman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
II. TOWN
HALL DISCUSSION/WORK SESSION
Acting Chair Musselman stated they are at a point where the town
has a decision to make on how to proceed with the town hall. The town has
received proposals from Hutter Construction of New Ipswich, New Hampshire, for
two separate projects. One is a renovation of the town hall with a construction
project cost of about 2.9 million dollars. The second proposal is to demolish
the town hall and construct an exterior replica with a proposed construction
price of 3.1 million dollars. He continued that this is year four or five of
considering various alternatives for the town hall. The town is hard pressed to
provide adequate meeting and office space in the town hall. He pointed out that
the town is fortunate that it has not run into legal problems for not being ADA
(Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. There was an issue within the past
year with someone in a wheelchair needing to use the facilities, which are not
handicap accessible. There were recent newspaper articles in the Portsmouth
Herald showing Mr. Magnant outside the building saying “time is short. It is
time to make a decision.”
He
stated that a decision by the Board of Selectmen has to be made shortly as to
what warrant article to place for consideration at town meeting. The scheduled
deadlines are such that a bond hearing has to be noticed on January 6th, for
the hearing to be held on January 17th, which is the last day a hearing can be
held. For the Friday notice, the alternative
that is being proposed has to be noticed.
The Board of Selectmen have not had discussions
on this. There was a meeting held on December 27th at the Library. It was successful in that everyone learned a
lot about the proposals being considered from Hutter. He noted that opinions
about what should be done were held off until this meeting. At the end of this
meeting, the Board of Selectmen needs to decide whether to choose one of the
two pathways for a warrant article or to set up a Selectmen’s Meeting for later
this week. He reiterated that by Friday the bond hearing has to be noticed with
one of the two alternatives. There is also a Board of Selectmen’s Meeting
scheduled
for January 9th, which would be to place the warrant article that has a drop
deadline of January 10th
Acting
Chair Musselman commented that the Selectmen are interested in hearing what the
town’s people think about what direction to move with. There are three
possibilities. A warrant article could be placed for one of the two options
that are currently on the table or it could be decided to go in another
direction. Once a warrant article is
placed, the bond hearing will be held on the 17th and the Deliberative Session
will be held on February 4th. The attendees at the Deliberative Session have
the opportunity to consider changes to the warrant article; however, he does
not think it could be changed from the fundamental direction of the bond
hearing with a valid path for a vote this year. The town wide voting is held in
March.
(8:20 elapsed)
He
noted there are two new pieces of information that have become available at
this meeting, which were not available previously. One is an estimate of soft
costs. The price from the proposer is a construction contract cost. A variety
of different costs need to be added to the construction costs for a total
project cost.
(Mr.
Magnant passed out copies of that information to the public in attendance.)
Acting
Chair Musselman stated the estimate for soft costs is a total of $296,000. In
round numbers, it is about $300,000. The addition to the construction cost
includes exterior signage, interior directories, video monitoring linked to the
Police Department, security and door access system, furniture, fixtures and
equipment, video/audio equipment, teledata equipment, mobile office space for
when the town hall is under construction, a modest amount of money for
landscaping, independent testing and inspections, propane gas tank, project
management, system commissioning, permits and a construction contingency in the
amount of 5% of the bid price. He continued that Mr. Magnant has asked two
questions of Hutter since the last meeting.
One was what it would take to shore up the second floor of the existing
building such that the building department and the remaining files, once most
of the files are digitized, could be put upstairs so there could be low office
partitions with the tin ceiling open to view. The current historic renovation
proposal has finance and administration upstairs with partitions all the way up
to the ceiling.
The tin
ceiling is not really visible. It is visible in the hallway and inside
individual offices, which seems to detract from historic renovation for some
people. It was also learned at the last meeting that the proposal includes
$15,000 to replace the existing cedar siding as needed. He noted that he was
concerned because the last proposal was to take all the siding off and replace
with new cedar clapboards and use an allowance for replacing of trim as
necessary. A proposal was received today from Hutter that if the town decided to
replace all the clapboards, rather than 20%, it would be $68,000. If it is
decided to include those two options, about $5,000 to $20,000 would need to be
added for shoring up the second floor and $68,000 for the clapboards. This
would add about $90,000 to the historic renovation.
He
continued the $145,000 contingency, in addition to all the known costs, is an
amount of money that is for surprises that might be found. There is some
concern that underneath the floor slab there might be unacceptable material.
What is more common in these projects is owner directed changes. Hutter has
certain materials that are being used for walls, counter tops and flooring.
Often times, there is a need and desire to use something different. All of
these costs would fall under the contingency that is being carried. In total
this is amounting to about 10% soft costs over and above the construction
project cost.
Selectman
Jenness stated that it seems to her they ought to be discussing primarily the
exterior instead of spending a lot of time on where rooms and spaces would be
shifted inside. The people who most need to be involved in that are the people
who work in those spaces and the adjusting will come later. She continued the
space has been brought down as small as it can be made. There were even
questions at the last meeting on whether the space was big enough. The
Recreation and Sewer Departments are no longer with the building and the space
has been rethought completely. She stated that in thinking back on the previous
meeting, there was a question asked that was not debated or considered
before. The question was, what is the anticipated life of the building if it is a
renovation and what is it if it is a new construction? She does not know if
there was a definitive answer but it might make a difference to some people.
Acting
Chair Musselman opened to the public for discussion.
Frank
Drake, 5 South Road, stated that he was reviewing some of the minutes from
previous meetings and Ray Jarvis had asked about the lifetime expectancy of the
building. It was 50 years for rehab and 100 years for the new addition to the
rehab. It was 100 years for the new building.
Deb
Crapo, 8 Big Rock Road, stated she was on the school board when the junior high
and elementary schools were done over. The project was voted through on the
first vote because the old part was completely renovated and additions were
built. The project was built bigger with an idea of what was needed in the
future, which is what she would like to see here. She would like to see it open
to designing it in a New England style. She continued that all the things that
are worth saving should be taken out. If the staircases are going to be in a
closet in the building, they should be as a showpiece in the new building. She
thinks the building should be taken down, with everything that is valued
historically taken out, because this is just “putting lipstick on a pig”. She
stated there is a real problem with the rec. There is no place for a big
meeting in the existing town hall. She thinks that rec should be worked back
into the equation, otherwise, a new recreation area
will have to be built. If the schools have diminished students, the town should
be able to move offices over to the schools during construction. The cost of
renting temporary space will come down.
She does not think this has been thought through enough. She asked if
this is substantially different from the previous proposals.
(28:42 elapsed)
Melvin
Low, 650 Washington Road, stated he tried to come in with an open mind. In looking at the plan from the previous
year, the stage was supposed to be saved; however, in front of the stage there
was no room for a big meeting. He is leaning towards tearing it down and going
with all new. He continued that when he first moved to town the church burnt
down. A replica of the church was built with more space added. No one got
excited about it. He was for the renovation of the town hall until he heard a
steel frame had to be put inside. A 5% contingency for renovation is tough.
John
Loftus, 108 Straw’s Point, stated he thinks this approach is way too fast and
another year should be taken to look at everything. He is not in favor of
keeping the existing building. He knows it is very emotional for a lot of
people. He does not think building a replica is a good idea because it
constrains the architect completely on layout, floor plan and usage. He
continued that he did a quick price on this last year, with a three story
building. It was $145 to $175 per square foot. Using $208 it would be 1.6. The
building would be designed for what the town needs. It would be new with a full
cellar. The cost of the roofing would be less and the foundation would be less
because of the smaller footprint. Opening up the existing building, is going to
be like opening up Pandora’s Box. In order to save the heritage windows, the
tin ceilings and the staircases, it is not using the town hall to its most
efficient use. The people who really pay the price are the people who work in
town hall.
Selectman
Jenness asked if one of the three floors is considered to be the basement.
Mr.
Loftus explained it would be a basement and three floors. It would pretty much
sit inside the existing building envelope.
Francis
(inaudible) Erlebacher, 44 Brackett Road, stated she would like to keep the stairs.
There are several ways to keep them and it is not putting them in a closet. Her
understanding is if the wall can be made fireproof there is no reason to cover
them up at all. She continued that she feels like all of this is being rushed
to get to the warrant. That is the wrong way to do it. There should be time to
talk about the different options. She has talked to many people in town who
will not vote for anything until something is done with the fire station. The
retrofitting proposal for the fire station second floor was 1.1 to 1.3 million
dollars for 6259 square feet of space. The proposal said that was much too
expensive and it would be a waste of money. That is $208 per square foot. The
big issue was the load but now there is not a worry about the load because the
files are going to be digitized. The proposal said it was fine for offices. In
looking at this proposal, it is 7900 square feet for 2.8 million, which is $354
per square foot. She commented the fire station should be looked at again.
Julie
Tucker, Washington Road, asked how it would work if Hutter starts to renovate
and it is found that it is going to cost more than expected.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that the warrant article will be for a fixed amount of
money. It is incumbent on the town and the contractor to work together to
finish the construction contract with the funds that are available. The risk is
there may be a need to cut back on furnishings or finishes; however, it would
be known rather early in the project most of those unknowns. There is no
question with renovation there is more risk of unknowns.
(38:33 elapsed)
Victor
Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd., stated he has been involved in this project in some way
or another for four or five years. He tried to reserve opinion on whether
restoration and rehabilitation was the way to go or replacement with something
new. It was about a week ago, it came to him that there is surely one way to
go. The first option to restore, rehabilitate and expand was a
modest and logical goal at one point. The details given by Hutter’s estimator showed
the historic windows would not be saved, the stairs would be in a closet, the Proscenium
Arch and the
stage would be partitioned off and the tin ceiling would be largely unseen. He
continued the foundation is in trouble. The grades of the site do not work well
with access to the second floor as planned with the upper parking lot. The size
of the addition is not subservient to the current massing and size of the building.
He does not know that this would be a good way to go, particularly considering
the condition of the building. The building has been abused, butchered, ignored
and not maintained over the years. It is going to be expensive and entail a lot
of surprises.
On the
other hand, a replica building could be built but at what benefit if conditions
are placed on the building that it has to be the same length, width, height,
character and look of the existing building. He asked what would be the benefit
if it does not have all the architectural artifacts that many people think are
worth saving. If those things cannot be saved and incorporated into a new
building, it would not make sense to any architectural historian. He continued
the building would have the same siting flaws. The building is right up against
the parking lot and the hill, which puts it at a height that does not serve the
upper parking lot. He stated the program is known to be some 8,000 square feet. The general location, uses and adjacencies
are known through planning and designing buildings. He asked why they don’t
decide on a certain building for the site, what the size and the budget would
be, and search for and hire an architect to design that building from scratch using all
the information that has been collected.
This third approach is the approach he would like the town to consider, with
a real architect, working on a real design, with a competitive bidding with
legitimate competitive bids from three general contracts, while right now the
approach has been whittled down to a single source. That is unhealthy for any institution,
particularly a public institution using public money.
(45:24 elapsed)
Barbara
O’Brien, 630 Washington Road, stated she would like to compliment the architect
on the exterior of the building. The drawings are very attractive and she likes
them very much. As far as the interior, the people who work in the building
should decide if it is sufficient for their work. She commented that she liked
the suggestion at the previous meeting of having the two meeting rooms back to
back to have a larger space when needed. She is concerned about keeping the tin
ceilings. For a pleasant working environment, the best acoustics are needed. In
addition, they will look out of place in the modern interior. Regarding the circular staircases, they can’t
be used because of building code, won’t be seen and a useable staircase is
needed at that end of the building to allow workers and townspeople access to
the upper floor. Regarding cost, she would wager that it will cost as much to
renovate as it will to build new in the long run. “New” equates longevity.
“Renovating” means repainting and repairing in five to ten years. She commented
a basement makes a lot of sense and even the attic. In order to look forward to
the future, that space needs to be considered. Consequently, she is in support
of a new building.
(48:00 elapsed)
Mae
Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Road, stated she served on the Town Hall Committee and
serves on the Heritage Commission. She went through the process of applying to
the Preservation Alliance for the ‘Seven to Save’ for the building. The State
believed the building was worth saving. They had copies of the engineering
study to determine what condition the building was in. They examined the
building themselves. The State understood that there were some foundation
issues but those have been addressed in the proposal. The point of looking at a
third alternative is very dangerous as a possibility. The town has already
expressed, in a very detailed survey, voted that 69% wanted to renovate. The
survey showed that 57% did not want it torn down. She continued the time to do
this is now. The town has been studying
this for the last six years. Over $350,000 has been spent studying this and
designing new plans. The time is now. The interest rates are going up. A
lot of bonds have been
The bond has been paid off. For this
town, this is the time to do it. If the town goes back to the table to study
it, the interest rates are going to be up and there will be no workers
available to build the building because of infrastructure changes all over the
country. Hutter is very familiar with
the project. They worked on it last year and have tweaked it again this year.
Now is the time.
In
addition, the building is historic and this is being stewards of the town’s own
history so future generations can have the experience of the building. The
thought of a replica offends my sensibilities, she said.
The thought of tearing the building down is against what the survey
showed the people really want. In terms of renovation versus tear down, there
will be grant money available to do some of the work that is part of the plan.
If the building is torn down, obviously, none of that will be available.
(51:00 elapsed)
Dianne
Bitter, 875 Central Road, stated she applauds the construction company that
came up with the plan. She thinks they were given “mission impossible”. With
what they were given to work with and what they were required to do, they came
up with a decent plan; however, it is not good in the long run, is
not
a good design and is not feasible. She continued that she thought about this
for a long time after the last meeting. When she looks at the proposal she
asks, “where is the community? Where are the people
and the townsmen on this plan?” They are not there. There is no town meeting
room. That is what the town needs. She
is in favor of tearing the building down and starting over.
(53:08 elapsed)
Frank
Drake, 5 South Road, Rye Beach, New Hampshire 03871, asked if the project costs
include the setup of a temporary town government operating system, with
trailers. Editor’s
note: Mr. Drake emphasized his zip code
of 03871 as he spoke. That is the zip
code of Rye Beach, which has its own Post Office.
Acting
Chair Musselman confirmed. It includes modular office spaces, which are assumed
to be in the parking lot.
Mr.
Drake continued that the survey said 69%, or something like that, and there was
a low 30% that thought it would be better to tear the building down and do an
efficiently laid out appropriately designed 1835 type structure. He is in favor
of that 100%. He said that he does not know how to
handle the 69 percent that Mae and others keep throwing out. He said that he thought that a pretty good
approach had been taken..
If the pick is going to be between the two proposals, in his opinion it
should be the tear down. At least get the “biggest bang for the buck” in terms
of longevity.
He
fails to see the obsession with the spiral staircases and the tin ceiling. The town hall has not been the center of
anything, but car registrations and Selectmen’s meetings, for a long time. He
thinks it is efficient to use the schools for bigger meetings. It makes good
sense. He would like to see the building built from scratch. The worst case
would be a replica. The best case would be a brand new design.
(57:36 elapsed)
Burt
Dibble, 106 Harbor Road, stated he is going to take the position of being in
favor or a third option. This is a
situation that is really important to every citizen of the town. Most of the
faces at this meeting, are faces that have risen to
consider this subject lots of times. His concern is that $350,000 has already
been spent thinking about the project and it hasn’t moved forward. There is tremendous diversity and strong
feeling. He makes no apology in taking a preservation interest in the history
of the town. It is a town because of the people. The citizens have said three
things. The first is that they will do a 2 million dollar project but will not
do a 3 or 3.5 million dollar project. If that proposal is brought to them again
it will be voted down. The second consideration is that the town’s people have
basically said they like the town hall. They want it on the existing site and
they pretty much want the building they have. The third consideration is the
reasons why the project is being done have not been talked about. The real
reason the project is being done is because there is a real ADA compliant issue.
There are also some potential code issues about the building, although
he has never heard word one about any violations. He thinks this should be part of
the consideration when thinking about what to do. He is concerned about the
comment made about the life of the building. There are certainly plenty of
buildings that are 100 years older than the existing town hall that are doing
just fine. The building is 167 years old and is doing great. No one has alleged that there is any problem
with the future of the building in terms of what can be done with it.
Another point to make is a number of well regarded citizens sat on the
Parsonage Committee. They said what is really needed is a charrette to help the
town citizens understand what they really want. It is his belief, to take a
project of this size without more by-in from the citizenry, is not a desirable
way to go. He thinks trying to get 60% of the voters in the town to approve a
bond is an unachievable goal. That proposal has been turned down several times. He thinks it would be politically strategic
to try and do a plan that didn’t require bonding. Then only a 50 percent vote would be
required. He
believes that somewhere in the range of $500,000 the outside of the building
could be fixed and the
building made
ADA compliant. Hutter has said that fixing the outside is
a $60,000 project. If there is not a doable plan that is
acceptable to the voters, the town will be in March where it is today, with no
authorization to do anything. He thinks it is important to consider a third
option.
(64:04 elapsed)
Mike
Steinberg, 17 Sea Glass Lane, stated the first decision that has to be made is
whether the building should be old or new. Personally, he thinks it should go
new. He thinks a building needs to be built that is going to last a long
time. New construction is going to last
a lot longer. He thinks that the building could be 10,000 square feet, with a
New England look, for $250 per square foot.
He suggested putting people together that understand construction and
have them come back with a plan. Dover
built a very solid police station for $325.
The $400 per square foot is unreasonable.
Build some space that is going to have some potential for growth. He
indicated that 8000 sq. ft. is not enough and that there should be a basement.
The town has one shot and it should be done right.
(66:28 elapsed)
Peter
Crawford, 171 Brackett Road, stated that a 3.2 million dollar warrant article,
or 3.4 to do the new build, works out to be $400 per square foot. A few years
ago, the Town Hall Committee came up with $200 per square foot. This is twice
the price. In looking at the 4.1 million that was voted down two
years ago,
that was 12,500 square feet at $328 per square foot. The cost per square foot
has gone way up and the town is getting a lot less. We are not getting a Great Hall, a
geothermal system with new wells that would eliminate the need for fossil
fuels. This one would need backup fossil
fuel burners. Siding is being lost, but
could be added on for $60,000. There are
a lot of different things that were in the $4.1 million that was voted down
that are not in this proposal. The value to the town’s
people is a lot less and only $900,000
is
being saved. It is a much smaller building without room for rec, sewer and great
hall. He thinks the thing to do is choose option 3, which is not to do a bond
issue this year and hire an architect.
There
seems to be debate in town on whether to tear down or renovate. One warrant
article could be done to get people to make that choice. There could be another
warrant article to hire an architect. Maybe there could be some fixing up done
of the building. Small enough so only a 50% vote would be needed and there
would be a chance for it to pass. He does not think there is any chance a whole
building is going to be done this year. There is no chance of getting $3.2 million
or $3.4 million voted this year. There
is no buy in yet. He pointed out the charrette hasn’t been done
yet. There needs to be an overall plan. What is going to happen with the Junior
High? How about the Parsonage? How about the Old Police Station? How about the Public Safety Building? A lot of people are saying in this town that they are not going to
vote for anything until they find out what is going on with the Public Safety
Building and there is some use made of it. He would go with a warrant article
to find out if the citizens want to tear the building down or renovate and get
an architect and perhaps get some other things done.to look at some other ideas.
(70:01 elapsed)
Steven
Borne, 431 Wallis Road, stated he supports doing neither at this point until
there is a plan. He said that, in 2011, $40,000 was spent
to determine whether the building was worth saving.
What are the town’s total facility needs? What are the town’s buildings?
The whole process should be walked through. He pointed out that there hasn’t
been anything done with the old police station. That asset could be utilized.
There are five bedrooms on the second floor of the Public Safety Building that
could be moved above the apparatus bay. There is a fire chief’s and deputy
chief’s office that is unutilized. There is a dispatch room that is not being
used. In 2011, the Rye Elementary had 327 students. The School Board budget is saying that in 2020 both
schools combined will only have 40 more students than that. There is all that
room at the schools. What is the priority of the town? New Hampshire Listens is
a group whose purpose is to help towns figure this out and come up with a game
plan. If it is a well thought out plan, the votes will be there. Most people in
town want to do things of value that make sense. Until that it done, the town
is going to continue to muddle through this. The employees of the town need
better. They deserve better working conditions than what they have right now.
(72:20 elapsed)
Ray
Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, stated he feels it is a mistake to put too much
gravity and too much credibility in some of the assumptions that have been
made, such as, the school saying there is going to be a certain number of
students three years from now. When someone hitches their wagon to a trend it is guessing. Any
national or statewide significant change can change a trend. He continued there
was a survey of the voters. He has two concerns. First, his guess is that most
voters do not have in-depth knowledge of the pros and cons and what has gone on
in the past. When 69% vote a certain way, he doubts that more than 4 or 5% of
that group has actually been to a meeting to listen to the arguments. He is not
big on surveys. Especially, if the survey has hidden
assumptions.
Paul
Goldman, 1190 Washington Road, stated that taking the two alternatives, and
adding in the soft costs, the delta between the projects is roughly a couple of
hundred thousand. He thinks the architect drawing looks really nice. He would
be proud to see that in the town center. To him the delta of 200k is an
insurance policy, with new construction, to not face the risks of renovating
the building. Given the two alternatives,
he would choose the new construction. There has been an interesting idea
brought up about getting an architect to look at the new space needs and come
up with a good configuration of the building on the site, which might give a
little more freedom in design, layout and work space. He continued that he
asked at the last meeting about the longevity of new construction versus
renovation. The other question had to do
with work space and growth potential for employees in the town hall. What he
came away with from the last meeting was that the configuration would satisfy
the needs of the employees in the town hall to do the town’s business for the
next 50 to 100 years. If that is true, what is wrong with that configuration?
On the two items that are before the public to make comments on, he would pick
the new construction. If there is a possibility of looking at a third approach
that may be an alternative; however, he is concerned about the timing of all of
this. He is concerned about compliance issues and this could drag on and on. If
he had to put a line in the sand, he would go with new construction.
(79:45 elapsed)
Jane
Holway, Washington Road, stated she works in the town hall and it is not easy.
There is really no space and getting up the stairs is hard to do. She thinks
the existing building has to go. The church burnt to the ground in 1959 and was
rebuilt with an exterior replica. The builders did a very good job of,
making
the church look like it has been there for 300 years. Let’s start fresh and
make the building what it is supposed to be, which is an
office space.
Mike
Flannigan, 252 Washington Road, stated he has lived in old houses with old
barns for 74 years. He adamantly opposes renovation. It has to be new
construction.
Renee
Giffroy, 39 Colburn, stated she is concerned with option 1 and 2 for the reason
that there was only one bidder. The question is “why”? Until that is answered,
she would not feel comfortable going with A or B. In terms of why the voters
voted the way they did, she voted that way because old to her means something
different than new. When she sees new, it is the kind of new that has been
going on in Portsmouth, where by the time it is done it does not look historic
anymore and the character that is significant is lost. She thinks that is what
most people are fearful of. She does not think the options have been sold or
marketed to the people to the extent that they understand what they are being
asked to vote for. She does not think it should be dragged on; however, she does
not feel she has the clarity to make a decision on a broad old versus new. How
does the other town space fit into what is trying to be done here? She
continued that she certainly sees the benefit of new, in terms of cost and
knowing what the town is getting into up front. However, she really stresses
the need to save the character, architectural elements and things that are
going to make the building feel and act like it was. That is part of what the
people are trying to protect.
(85:15 elapsed)
Phil
Winslow, 100 Harbor Road, stated that in 1968 the town voted in a Historic
District Commission. The responsibility of the Historic District Commission is
to maintain the architect and historic character of the center of the Town of
Rye. He thinks that both the first and second proposals,
tear down versus rehab, support the historic character. It would be nice to
have the internal historic items to be maintained; the tin ceiling and spiral
staircase. If it is the sense of the Selectmen and the voters that the
building should be torn down, hHe would support proposal 1 or 2. He continued there is a sense of
urgency here. The Finance Director has been talking to bankers and there is a
possibility of a 1.8% ten year bond, which would cost $54,000 to float a bond
of 3 million dollars. He noted that two bonds are going to be completed this
year. One is a conservation bond for $97,375 that is being paid each year.
Going into 2018, the town will be saving $97,375 per year. The second bond is
the Rye School District Bond of $295,400. A portion of that, $92,000., is being
supported by the State. In adding the benefit of $97,000 from conservation and
$200,000 from the school district, the town has $300,000 that could be used to
bond either one of the projects without increasing the taxes the town will pay.
The time is right to make a decision financially. Let’s make a fiscally
conservative decision and let’s maintain the character of the Town of Rye.
Deb
Crapo, Big Rock Road, stated she has been in real estate for 39 years. She
drives clients by the town hall. She has to say she is not proud of the
building. There is no one that she drives by the building that doesn’t point
out the building and ask what it is. She does not want to apologize for the
town hall. She is not proud of it; however, she is very proud of everything
that has happened in it. She thinks they can keep that history. There are pictures and there can be a wall
that shows the history. She continued that Wentworth by the Sea worked for
years to rebuild. It is beautiful now. She noted that the building would not
pass inspection. There is asbestos, mold, mildew and no sprinkler system. This
is subjecting everyone who works here to that. She continued that she would
like to see this go to the hands of a local builder. She would like to see that
encouraged. Also, their hands should not be tied to replicating the existing
building. She would like to see that encouraged. Also, their hands should not
be tied to replicating the existing building.
(92:34
elapsed)
Rob
Low, 79 Old Beach Road, stated the building has stood the test of time. Paint
the building, make sure the roof does not leak and call it a day. Do not do
anything else to it. The idea of expansion is not going to be a cost effective
approach. The cost of $400 to $500 per square foot is ridiculous.
Mr. Loftus eluded to the fact that a building
could be put up for $180 to $200 per square foot and that is a viable price.
Secondly, the Public Safety Building has over 6,000 feet of developable
space. The Trolley Barn has 2600 sq. ft. All the offices could be relocated
to the Public Safety Building and the trolley building. Keep it under a million
dollars and it will pass.
Ray
Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, stated the difference in cost is less than .08 on
the dollar between renovating, with a much shorter life, and building.
John
Loftus, 108 Straw’s Point, stated that a lot of people who looked at the survey
really didn’t understand the extent of the renovation. One thing the survey was
good for was that it showed that people wanted to keep the town hall in this
location. The last Town Hall Committee looked at all the different options of
the trolley building and the police department. They all didn’t work for a
number of reasons. In order to split the
departments, each building would have to be ADA compliant. For example, the
Public Safety Building would need an elevator and there would still be a need
for an elevator at the existing building. There were issues with hazmat
contamination and arrests at the police department. He is not in favor of
tearing down historical buildings; however, he is with this building for a
number of reasons. The more important thing is the site of the town hall. That
is what the survey said, “keep the town hall on this
site”.
(97:05 elapsed)
Peter
Crawford, 171 Brackett Road, commented that Mr. Loftus and Mr. Azzi have said
tear the building down but have an architect design something better, not a
replica. It does not make sense to build a replica. He said that he had not heard anyone say
that it made sense to build a replica. It
was the right thing to do to get the bid for the replica, because then you’re
comparing apples to apples. If the tear down option
ultimately ends up being the way to go, the town has got to bring in an
architect to redesign a good building. That means that option 2 is off the
table. That leaves option 1 and 3 but there is still a lot of debate about the
renovation. The survey shows the people want to renovate; however, the people
at this meeting may be more in favor of tear down. An architect needs to be brought in to
figure out how to do this right, whether it is tear
down and rebuild or renovate. Put it on
the ballot and have people choose whether to tear down
or renovate, and put that issue to bed.
(99:03 elapsed)
Paul
Goldman, 1190 Washington Road, stated he would like to know if what has been
presented is really unsatisfactory for conducting town business. He has not
heard that. He would like to know from the employees who work in the town hall.
Selectman
Jenness explained the proposed division of space is not hard and fast.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted the space needs to be adjusted within that footprint.
Town
Administrator Michael Magnant pointed out the plans were
circulated amongst town staff. There were a few minor comments about
programming.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted there are changes that have to happen to the floor plan.
The Selectmen Secretary’s office is too small. It needs public access. There
are a couple of other modifications regarding partition walls.
Mr.
Goldman stated that five years ago the space needs study was based on what the
town employees need to do their work now and in the future efficiently. From
what he is hearing, this configuration will work for the town employees without
a lot of adjustments.
Acting
Chair Musselman pointed out the exterior also works.
Brad
Pierce, 39 Colburn Road, commented he would not vote for any of the proposals
if they came up for a warrant article right now based on what he has heard at
this meeting.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated there has been a lot of talk about dollars per square
foot. It is his observation, that people are mixing dollars per square foot.
Most people are talking about dollars per square foot that a contractor will
bid generally on new construction. This project is carrying a fair amount of
money in design and environmental rehabilitation for both the tear down and
rehabilitation. They are paying under this for the design of the facility. In
most cases, a construction cost in dollars per square foot, is something that
has been designed and funded by someone else. This contractor is carrying with
a team a design for either of the two alternatives. Taking the design build
cost, dividing it by square feet and comparing it to what someone thinks a bid
cost should be on new construction, is comparing apples to oranges. He noted
that an email was received by the Town Administrator from Hutter that said they
are carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is driving up the cost per
square foot. The contractor is carrying design, architects and engineers of
five different disciplines. He is carrying demolition. In that demolition is
environmental rehabilitation. The email stated that it was not $400 to $500 for
construction. It was in the low $300’s. The representative from Hutter pointed
out that the last time this was bid they were very aggressive. They were 20%
below the competition. They believe they have been as aggressive here. This is
a reasonable bid proposal.
Victor
Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd., commented that Hutter is a good company. He has done
three design build jobs with the company. He has 30 years in the business with
institutional design and construction.
What is important in a design build is having multiple proposers for
architect. A good architect can get
together
with a good contractor, put together a design proposal, to be presented to the
owner in a competitive process. In this case, the town did not get a full
proposal. The details are not known. The town did not get to meet the
architect. In regards to the life of a
new building versus an old building, it should not make a difference. A new
building will not last any longer than a repaired building. This should be an institutional quality building that will last 100 years.
Burt
Dibble, 106 Harbor Road, noted the longer the project has been stalled the more
expensive it has gotten. If it is postponed again it will get even more
expensive. It is critically important to present something to the voters that
they will vote for. Failure to pass a warrant article in March means no money
next year and that will increase the cost of the project. It is incumbent on
the town leadership to propose a warrant article the voters will reasonably
accept.
Finance
Director, Cyndi Gillespie, stated she has heard a number of people say that
having only one bidder makes them nervous. In the five to six years of tired
history on this project, there has been three architects work for the town.
There have been four contractors who have bid on the project.
Mel
Low, Washington Road, complimented the Selectmen for bringing the project to
the end. He continued this has been going on for five years. There has been one
committee after another studying this and it has gone nowhere. He compliments
the Selectmen for bringing forward the two alternatives.
Mae
Bradshaw, Harbor Road, stated she has had the privilege of serving on the
Historic District Commission and the Heritage Commission. Part of the joy is
every year when a solicitation is sent out to save the town hall, lots of money
is received. There is a fund right now that is over $15,000 for these
solicitations. This has been raised by the little appeal to “save town
hall”. She wants everyone to understand
that to some people this is very important to the town.
Peter
Crawford, Brackett Road, stated that one way to maybe get this to pass is to
get grants and donations to bring the cost down to 2 million dollars, which the
voters are willing to pay.
Joe
Cummins, Washington Road, commented the survey was intrusive and he did not
fill it out.
Paul
Goldman commented there is a sense of urgency behind all of this. The town
needs to get on with something.
Barbara
O’Brien, 630 Washington Road, stated the idea of donations crossed her mind
too. It is a very good idea. She asked how they can get this to the town’s
people.
Acting
Chair Musselman replied this is a very good question. One of the issues is that
once the warrant article is placed the Selectmen, nor
the town staff, can “sell” anything. The Selectmen can explain and educate. however, they cannot do anything that looks like it is being
“sold”. The options for what can be done to educate people are limited.
Generally, it is limited to newsletters and mailings. The role is not to get
people to vote for a warrant article. The Selectmen are always walking a fine
line in how they can communicate.
Frank
Drake stated the only reason to bring in an architect would be to say “design
us an 1830’s appearing structure with 8,000 square feet”. The people who want
to preserve town hall are not going to vote for that. The only way to go
forward is to pick one of the options. He really hopes the Selectmen will pick
the tear down.
(128:08 elapsed)
Acting Chair Musselman called for a straw poll vote:
Warrant
Article for the historic renovation of the building under the proposal -2
.
Warrant
Article for the demolition and construction of a new building proposal –
12
.
Do
neither -12
After discussion, Acting Chair Musselman stated a decision is not
going to be made at this meeting. He thanked everyone for the discussion. There
was a lot of good ideas on all sides. A Board of
Selectmen’s Meeting will be scheduled for January 5th to decide what to do for
Friday. Everything that everyone has said will be taken under advisement.
Selectman
Jenness commented that someone compared a renovation of Wentworth by the Sea,
the hotel, and the town hall, which makes very little sense. Her grandfather
was a foreman on a major portion of the Wentworth and she is familiar with the
architecture. The town hall does not compare with it. The town hall building began life as a
box. A two-story box. What is
looked at as iconic is mainly the spiral staircases that lead to the attic and
the cupola. They were not part of the
first town hall, which was built rather quickly. There are two additions on the
back. One was because of the introduction of indoor plumbing. Nothing was in
the building in the way of plumbing and electrical when the town hall was built.
Everything that has gone in has had to have something done that boroughed
through its timbers and sidewalls, which were not insulated with anything other
than rubble. People need to remember where the building has been and what is
being restored. and the town hall, which makes very
little sense.
III.
OTHER BUSINESS
At 9:00
p.m. Priscilla Jenness made a motion to go into Non-Public Session per RSA 91-A:3, II (a)
Personnel.
Seconded by Craig Musselman. Roll Call: Musselman –
Yes,
Jenness –
Yes
At 9:30
p.m., the Board came out of Non-Public Session.
Motion by Priscilla Jenness to seal the minutes of the Non-Public
Session.
Seconded by Craig
Musselman.
All in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Priscilla Jenness to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Seconded by Craig
Musselman. All in favor.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Dyana
F. Ledger (annotations made by Rye Civic League)