ANNOTATED MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2017 RYE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Decision 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, Mae Bradshaw, Peter Crawford, Burt Dibble, Frances Erlebacher, Paul Goldman.
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: 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 4:30:03 p.m. (0:00 elapsed). The audio is off until 4:31:25 p.m. (1:22
elapsed)
Summary
TOWN OF
RYE -BOARD OF SELECTME-BOARD OF SELECTMEN
THURSDAY,
January 5, 2017
4:30
p.m.
Rye
Town Hall
Members
Present: Acting Chair Craig Musselman, Selectmen Priscilla Jenness
Others
Present: Town Administrator Michael Magnant and Asst. Town
Administrator/Finance Director Cynthia Gillespie.
Editor’s note: Before the meeting was called to order,
Selectman Musselman asked whether Selectman Mills would conference into the
meeting. Selectman Mills has repeatedly
stated that he would vote to tear down the Town Hall. The possibility that Selectman Mills might be
conferenced in raised the possibility that, even if Selectman Jenness had voted
no, the vote would have been 2-1 in favor of tearing down the Town Hall.
I. CALL
TO ORDER
Acting
Chair Musselman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(2:04 elapsed)
II.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Town
Hall Options
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that they have been through quite a lot of discussion in
regards to the Town Hall. They have given everyone the opportunity to ask
questions of Hutter in order to understand the proposals on the table. There
was also a meeting where everyone had the opportunity to voice their opinions,
which there were many diverse opinions. To date, the Selectmen have not voiced
their thoughts. The purpose of those meetings was to understand the proposals
and to get input from the residents as to where this should go. The direction
at this point, lies with the Board of Selectmen. There is a deadline of January
6th to post a bond, if the town is going to go with a bond this year. January 17th is the last day that the bond
hearing can be held.
Selectman Jenness stated that she is thinking about the previous
meeting on the 3rd. She continues to feel there is a general agreement in
regards to the site. The Town Hall
should be on the existing site. She feels very strongly about that. She thinks
there is also a general agreement on the square footage that is required at
this point. The agreement is around 8,000sf; given the reduction in space taken
away for the Recreation and Sewer Departments. She thinks that most people that
were at the meeting, and looked at the two proposals from Hutter, in general
liked the concept of the exterior. She didn’t hear anyone come out and say that
they hated what they saw or even criticize it in any big respect. Generally, there were a few things that came
up that she agreed with, in terms of changes to the exterior. She agrees that
there should be a door more towards the middle of the main building. Also, no
matter what happens to the inside, the monumental windows make it what it is.
She noted that there was a question of why there would be an 8ft ceiling on the
first floor with an 18ft ceiling on the second. She commented that this is what
is historical about coming into a building that was built primarily as a
meeting space over a basement. That is a sense that she feels should be retained.
The proportions are there for a reason.
She continued that the Selectmen have received an email from resident
John Loftus with his comments. They have also received a number of other
emails. She noted that no one should come to this process without the ability
to compromise and help move the project forward. If there are 30 people in the
room, there are 30 different ideas. That has been the problem all along. The
town has to reach consensus somehow or this issue will be right back to the
beginning a year from now. somehow or this issue will
be right back to the beginning a year from now.
Selectman
Jenness stated that the question has been made several times about a basement.
She is sort of half way in the middle. She certainly would approve a partial basement.
However, there is also the problem of needing extra strength for the second
floor because of the weight of the files, if the Building Inspector’s Office is
moved upstairs. She does not understand why they could not have a partial
basement for the mechanical parts but also have a slab that would hold the
vault and the files at ground level. There may be a good reason why that is not
possible. She commented that the other night, she heard more people talking
about a replica as opposed to a renovation. In fact, she was surprised to hear
Phil Winslow (Historic District Commission Chair) say he could go either way.
As far as the interior is concerned, she thinks they need an architect that is
given free reign and creativity, with as few restraints as possible, to see
what can actually be done within the building itself. She also thinks that
everyone needs to take a close look at the bottom line. She thinks this ties to her fear going down the line that to move too
hastily is going to actually destroy anything that is trying to be done because
it will be said that it is being done with too much haste. These are her
thoughts following the meeting of the 3rd.
(11:46 elapsed)
Acting Chair Musselman stated that with respect to the historic
renovation, he has been in favor of this idea for the past four years. Everyone
he has dealt with on committees knows that. He was in favor of the previous
design for 4.1 million. He thought it was a fine design and it was indeed a
historic renovation. The Town Hall would have had the spiral stairs and they
would have been used. They probably would’ve been the primary access to the
Great Hall. The Great Hall would have been preserved with the tin ceilings. The stage
would’ve been closed off by a wall. however, the arch
was still there and it was an open, historic space. He continued that there was
some effort put towards looking at the restoration of windows. They were going
to replace almost all of the wood on the exterior and leave the trim, some of
which may have needed to be addressed.
He commented that he did not think the use of the Great Hall was worth
the money.
He
continued that he had thought when starting this process that a historic
renovation with a bump-out would have worked as reasonably as the previous historic
renovation. He has found himself reviewing proposals, listening to
presentations and listening to comments from the residents. Considering all of
this, moving office space back upstairs in the Great Hall, with a long-term
renovation of a building that is not likely to be redone in many decades, he
now views the project not as a historic renovation. There are many reasons why
it becomes not a historic renovation. In the previous design the spiral
staircases would’ve been visible and useable. In this case, no one is going to
use the stairs because they access office space on the second floor. No one is
going to see the staircases. They are going to be hidden relics, not used. In
regards to the tin ceiling on the second floor, using that space as office space
and having the partitions go up to the ceiling, completely destroys the sense
of what that might have been at one time. That is why a price was requested for
shoring up the second floor so the building inspector could be moved upstairs
and lower partitions could be used. He continued that the stage with a glass
front changes the view of that, even from what it was previously of a stage
with a large hall but with a wall. The proposal included replacing only 20% of
the clapboards and leaving the rest of them on. He is concerned about scraping
and painting the wood because some of it is wet and much of it is dry. He is
not sure it is going to take paint. A price was requested in case it was
decided to replace all the siding. That price is $68,000., which narrows the
cost between the two alternatives. An email back from the contractor said that
taking off all the clapboards could lead to more restoration work on the
underlayment; perhaps, there is more money spent in doing that. He commented
that this is a good argument for taking all the clapboards off and seeing what
is under it if this is going to be a permanent renovation.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that the windows are proposed to be Marvin Windows. He
has 36 Marvin windows in his house. They are top notch windows. From a
distance, they would be fine and could be configured in the way of the
monumental windows. The comment was that there was not enough time to get good
proposals from people to restore the windows. He questions whether restoring
the windows is a 50 year solution. However, with the renovation as it is
proposed, it is Marvin Windows as it stands. It is a fine idea but it is not a
historic renovation. In sum total, what is left inside the building for
historic features, he does not think is of significant value; a hidden
stairwell, stage and questionable partitions that go up to the tin ceilings. He
thinks it is compromised from a historic preservation perspective. He does not
know how to not compromise it without leaving the area on the second floor as a
Great Hall. He thinks it is also compromised from a quality standpoint because
it is a very old building that is being renovated. He reiterated that he was in
favor of a historic renovation for three or four years; however, he does not think
it is a viable way to proceed in the interest of the Rye Taxpayers.
(19:45 elapsed)
He
stated that there are five positive aspects of new construction with a similar
exterior. With respect to space planning, the 8,000sf works. It is efficient
space. Tweaks are needed in design but that process has not yet started between
the owner and architect. He agrees with Selectman Jenness that there should be
a center door. He thinks there should be bathrooms close to the meeting room
upstairs. The Selectmen’s Secretary’s space needs to be bigger. However, there is room within the 8,000sf
envelope to do all of those things and meet the town’s needs. It is a proper
amount of space and should work in the future. He continued that the façade of
the architectural design fits in the context of the town center. He is
surprised that it fits as well as it does. He thinks they did a fine job.
Someone said that they fixed the footprint.
They didn’t fix the footprint. They put a jog in that worked better for
interior space planning and sets the back off a
little, which is still subservient. He thinks it works. There was a vote of the
Heritage Commission that said, option 1 and option 2 building looks
appropriate. The HDC Chair was present at the last meeting. In his opinion, he
thought option 1 or option 2 would be fine.
It is a building that fits within the town center that the residents
could be proud of.
Acting
Chair Musselman pointed out that with new construction there would be fewer or
no construction surprises, better building materials, a longer life, less
maintenance, no long-term surprises or lingering environmental issues. New
construction is better from a lot of perspectives. With respect to cost, it’s
affordable. The delta to the renovation cost will go away by the time it is
done. In the grand scheme of things, the delta that is left is immaterial. Interest rates are low. There has been talk
about financing at less than 2%. The Fed raised the interest rates in December
for the first time in 8 years. Unless there is another recession, the interest
rates are going to go up in all likelihood. This may be the most affordable
option the town has. It is probably the least cost option. The time is now. The
building is a lawsuit waiting to happen. He noted that there was another
incident in regards to handicap access recently.
Someone
came into the office in a wheelchair to do business at the Town Clerk’s Office.
This person’s head was at the counter level and he had to sign paperwork. He
continued that 15 years ago, the courtroom and the benches were quaint. It is
not quaint anymore. The town is long by the time that this problem should’ve
been solved. The town is currently discriminating against disabled people who
go to the Town Hall. These are people who are residents of Rye. If there was
discrimination against anyone for any other reason, he thinks everyone in Rye
would find that reprehensible. It is at this point in time, this day and age,
absolutely ridiculous that the town has a public building accessed by everyone
in Rye and it is not American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. It’s
embarrassing. The existing building is embarrassing from the outside, as it is
from the inside. It is time to solve the problem. It is time to proceed.
He
stated that everyone continues to talk about other alternatives. All of them
have drawbacks. Selectman Jenness
mentioned compromise. Compromise is a part of life. The alternatives have to be
considered and a decision has to be made on how to proceed. He continued that
the Public Safety Building keeps coming up in discussions. The Public Safety
Building does not work. It does not work for security issues. It does not work
for internal use conflicts. It doesn’t work for external access. The town
offices would have to hide behind the fire station and people would have to
walk into the back of the building, with the police and fire sections cornered
off. The safety building has been looked at by many different people. The Fire
Chief and Police Chief have both said, unequivalently when the option first
came up, that it can’t work. It won’t work. It is not feasible. however, it keeps coming up. The Troller
external access. The town offices would have to hide behind the fire
station and people would have to walk into the back of the building, with the police and fire
sections cornered off. The safety
building has been looked at by many different people. The Fire Chief and Police
Chief have both said, unequivalently when the option first came up, that it
can’t work. It won’t work. It is not feasible. however,
it keeps coming up. The Trolley Building keeps coming up. It is too small. The
site does not support anything except a satellite of a building of a couple of
thousand square feet. He noted that he raised the idea of the Rye Junior High. The town has declining student enrollment.
Resident Ray Jarvis stated the other night to watch trends because they can
change. They certainly can change. In ten years, what is assumed now may be
very different. There is possibly 7,000 to 10,000sf of
office space that could be established in the junior high. It is potentially feasible to have an access
road from Lang Road. Parking and access could be such that children and people
accessing town hall don’t mix. however, it is a
fundamental conflict of uses. It is going to be validly controversial for
people who have children at the junior high, as to whether they want them on
the site with adults accessing the building. In the long run, that may well be
an option for some kind of senior center or recreation center. That would be
ten years out at the minimum. He does not think it is feasible in the
foreseeable future.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that on the evening of the 3rd there was a lot of talk
from people who thought the town should wait, fund another design and build a
new building. Almost everyone in the room was moving past renovating the
existing structure. He has listed six reasons why this is not a good course for
the town to take. First, there was thought that the town could seek a better architectural
design. The town could certainly seek a
different one. The town would go through a process; look at different
alternatives, get input from different people and maybe settle on an
alternative for a new building that would fit in this context. He thinks the
best case at the end of that process, is that the town would come up with
something that fits as well as the current proposal from Hutter. The worst case
is that the town would come up with something that people cannot agree on or
does not fit as well as the current proposal.
He does not have any confidence in the town’s ability to start the
design process over again. The town has been through the process. There have
been Town Hall Committees that repeatedly could not agree. There have been Town Hall Committees that
have taken split votes. There have been votes of 11 to 1, with the 1 member who
voted against it writing letters to the editor of the local paper, hoping to
destroy the project. If the town starts over again, will it do better? He does
not have any confidence that it will be done any easier. It would take two to four years to reach a
community consensus again and then the bidding would have to begin. The
question is whether it would be better space. The best case is that it would be
8,000+/-sf, similar to what is proposed. He is not sure that it will be better.
The idea was said that more space is needed. More space is going to cost more
money. Multiple people have been asking why the Town Hall does not have a
basement. Some people want a basement for the addition. The architect pushed
back on that and said it would cost way too much money on the side of the hill.
The same question was asked of Hutter. They have said that putting the
mechanicals downstairs is going to cost more money than putting it in a small
room on the main floor. The architects and contractors have all been saying
that for the planning space needs, a basement would likely cost more money and
would not be necessary. There has been the suggestion, at least ten times in
the last two years, that a three-story building be built instead of a two-story
building. Eric Hastings from Hutter saw the minutes of the previous meetings
and wrote back and said “by the way, you had discussion from someone in the
audience about a three story building. A three story building will cost more on
a lesser footprint because the elevator has to reach all three stories”. There
is an idea that a three story building will be cheaper because it is a smaller
footprint. The people who do construction work are saying that it is going to
cost more, not less.
He
noted that circulating through email is the idea that one of the residents in
town, whose heart is in the right place, would take over the design of the
building by donating his time. He would consider doing this with modular
construction techniques; pre-manufactured building components. With all due
respect, that is a flawed concept from multiple perspectives. In New Hampshire,
a building of this sort has to be designed by a registered architect and
licensed engineers of at least four different disciplines; electrical,
mechanical, structural and civil. The person suggesting this idea cannot do
that. It is not lawful. Architects are
trained through a rigorous education process and long experience to do the
designing of buildings. Public buildings can’t be designed by someone other
than a registered architect. This idea and saying it can be built cheaper with
modular construction, is going throughout the community. It is not viable. This
is in the same category as the Public Safety Building. It can’t legally fly and
can’t proceed.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that people are saying that the project can be done in
the two million dollar range. Construction costs have been inflating higher than
the rate of inflation for years.
Construction costs are going up about a rate of four to five percent per
year. Interest rates are increasing. If
the town could find another architect that would be willing to work with the
town, after the debacle from last time, go through a process that takes two to
four years, design a building and come to a consensus on how a less costly
building will look, the town would be into more money by that time. He does not think
starting over, from any number of perspectives, is a viable path for the town
at this point. He thinks it is time for
the town to proceed with a viable, efficient,
attractive alternative, which they now have on the table; new construction with
a similar exterior. He cannot see much downside to it, other than it has a
price tag of 3.3 million and change; but that is what it is going to cost to do
this project. He thinks the Selectmen should place a warrant article to proceed
in that direction. He understands that there will be people who are upset and
want to retain the circular stairways. Maybe those could be auctioned off and
reused in a building where they will be effective. He knows there are people
who think there should be multiple bids. There are not multiple bids. It
could’ve been opened up to all contractors but proposals would be received that
were not focused. The town was asking a lot of a contractor in the period of
time that was given. He reiterated that he thinks the Selectmen should proceed
with a warrant article for new construction with a similar exterior.
(42:08 elapsed)
Referring
to the plan, Selectman Jenness asked what degree of change can be made. Not to
the interior, as it is her understanding that the interior is not that set but
to the exterior. For example, the placement and the style of the door is not acceptable. To what degree can outside changes be
made? There is a factor of time.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that there have been comments from people in the last
month about adding windows in three locations. Those would probably be an added
cost. He asked Hutter whether or not moving the spaces around, with the same
number of square feet and partitions, can be done without cost implications. The answer was
probably. With the numbers, there is a $145,000 project contingency, which goes
more towards design changes with new construction. In his opinion, it would all
go toward design changes with new construction. Some people have asked if there
is going to be a foundation problem. He does not think there will be an issue.
He thinks there is probably a rather high and dry foundation setting with good
bearing capacity. The $145,000 is more than sufficient for whatever changes
will be made, except if it is made larger. He does not think it is wise to make
it larger. He thinks the proposal works.
Mae
Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Road, stated the Heritage Commission sent a letter asking
about the monumental windows and specifically about adding windows for a more
balanced appearance. She asked if it would be possible to have the original
monumental windows, with secure storms, incorporated into the new plan, if the
town was able to receive grants.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that this question was posed to Hutter. Their answer
was that they would be willing in the design process to consider that. They did not have firm price proposals back
from people who restore windows at the time they made their proposal. He noted
that there would not be much time to consider that. With Hutter’s schedule,
ifthe town wanted to proceed, those decisions would
need to be made around a May timeframe.
With Hutter’s schedule, if the town wanted to proceed, those decisions
would need to be made around a May timeframe.
Ms.
Bradshaw asked if this is something the Selectmen are willing to consider.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated the he is willing to consider it, as long as its viable
and there are long term windows in the end. The Selectmen would want to talk to
the restorer and make sure they feel comfortable.
Selectman
Jenness stated that her feeling has been that in the spirit of compromise, if
the exterior can be retained to the best of its ability, then something has to
be given up as far as division of interior space. Maybe the town will garner more support this
way. She commented that things are becoming pretty desperate as far as safety.
When the building was originally constructed, there was no electricity, no
inside plumbing or technology. All of that has been added. The building can’t
help but have borings through its timbers and beams.
Ms.
Bradshaw asked if the word “demolition” would be part of the warrant article.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that the warrant article takes on a life from
here. The notice for the bond hearing
will go out on January 6th and the warrant article will be posted on the
warrant, which has a deadline of January 23rd. The wording of the warrant
article will be worked on before it is posted on the 23rd. The warrant article
wording can be changed at the Deliberative Session; however, it cannot be
changed to a different project. He noted that the Town Moderator and Town
Counsel will be at the Deliberative Session and will opine if the change is a
substantial change that changes the meaning of the warrant article. The town
will also not be able to change the fundamental meaning of the bond hearing
discussion.
Victor
Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd., asked if there will be an opportunity for someone, who
represents the town’s interest, to look at the details of the plans. He asked
who will make the decisions on how the interior floor plan should be laid out
and what materials will be used.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that they have proposed to include an architect
representative for the town to help administer the design build contract. There
will be some involvement by town staff. As the project moves through
construction, it will move through the decision making structure through the
Town Administrator and to the Board of Selectmen.
Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie
referred to a cost in 2005 of $40,000 to have the paint blow torched off the
Town Hall and the building painted. That
led to a discussion about lead paint.
Selectman Musselman said that there was still lead paint on the
building.
Ms.
Bradshaw asked if there has been any consideration on placing a warrant article
for the $68,000 that it would take to scrape and paint the building in case
this warrant article does not pass.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted the $68,000 was for replacing siding. He is not sure what
the cost would be for painting and the warrant article has to be placed soon.
His concern on having this as a backup warrant article is that people would say
“OK, paint it,” and
vote for it and not the other one, thinking it would take care of the issue. To
him, that is not acceptable.
Town Administrator Magnant said that
insulation would need to be looked into if the building is to be painted. They do not know what is in the walls for
insulation.
(62:36 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman said that there had
been a question about what the motion was, which was about to die for the lack
of a second. Selectman Jenness said that
it would get a second.
Selectman Musselman then outlined the
motion, which Selectman Jenness made.
Motion
by Priscilla Jenness to post a notice for a bond hearing to be held on January
17th for consideration of a bond article in the amount of $3,386,752 for the
purpose of constructing a new town hall, with a similar exterior, consistent
with the proposal for new construction submitted by Hutter Construction,
Corporation, on December 8, 2016, as would be modified in the subsequent design
process. Seconded by Craig Musselman.
Selectman
Jenness stated that a statement of facts should be drafted that can be
distributed widely. The problem continues to be that very few people come to
meetings to discuss the project and many people vote without being a part of
that discussion. That has hurt along the way. She is not sure how they can
fought. This is the age of information. There has to be some way to let people
know what this project consists of.
Burt Dibble said that the Town had voted
against a $4.1 million project for 12,000 sq. ft. He said that he is alarmed by the notion that
the Town is going to say that they have 8000 sq. ft. for $3.4 million, and ask
why they would want to vote for that.
The public relations effort to get the previous Town Hall approved was
not satisfactory. To get this project
approved in accordance with Selectman Jenness’s observations would take a very
aggressive public relations undertaking that the Selectmen cannot do. Even then, he doubts that they will be able
to get the public to approve the project.
Selectman Musselman said “no doubt.” He
said our job is to provide leadership.
Some people do not think that they are providing leadership. We are, if we vote this up. We haven’t taken a vote yet, he said. Selectman Musselman called for a vote. Selectman Jenness softly said “aye,” followed
by Selectman Musselman, who also said aye.
Vote:
2-0
All in
favor.
III.
OTHER BUSINESS
.
Bond Hearing
to be held on January 17th, 6:30 p.m., Rye Town Hall
ADJOURNMENT
Motion
by Priscilla Jenness to adjourn at 5:40 p.m. Seconded by Craig Musselman. All
in favor.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Dyana
F. Ledger (annotations made by Rye Civic League)