Bradford Town Hall Restoration Oversight Committee (THROC)
23 June 2016
Meeting called to order at 1730 hours with Chair Harry Wright, Brackett Scheffy, Selectman Jim Bibbo, Michele Halsted present. (Marcia Keller absent)
Members of public present: David Halsted, Sandy Paul, Will Kranz (joined THROC at 1741 hours), Marlene Freyler
Minutes: Motion to approve minutes with one amendment: Halsted requested insertion of the clause, “Michele Halsted, speaking for herself, proposed a motion for the 1/3 basement….” Amended minutes approved unanimously.
Resignation: Claire James resigned due to numerous commitments. Brackett Scheffy observed this was a major loss to the committee. Halsted noted that Claire affirmed her steadfast support for Town Hall Restoration and, characteristic of her magnanimity, agreed to be consulted for insights from time to time. The committee unanimously expressed regret for this major loss.
Will Kranz advised that he had sent a private note to THROC Wright asking how to join THROC. He said he could contribute with his experience as a mechanical engineer. Members agreed to accept Kranz as a full member of THROC. Once seated, Kranz asked for a list or description of what LCHIP would support. LCHIP sought details on finishes, any revised floor plans and scope, as well as an update on the ADA entrance. This list of LCHIP data is contained in the 2014 LCHIP application and LCHIP letter on file with the town and members may have this in their archives.
Chairman Wright opened structured discussions by outlining four options, sharing input received from members as well as action/research required to support:
- Leave the Town Hall Restoration project unchanged from March 2015; Complete the full foundation and first floor; second floor functional but unfinished.
- Phased approach to last year’s project scope: Complete the basement/full foundation only, and proceed in incremental steps afterward by warrant article.
- Return to Monahon’s original 2012 plan of a partial basement (in the rear 1/3 of the building only) and removing walls in the first floor meeting area to open the area to the original (old) building space.
- Leave basement unchanged – clean, vent, and properly drain existing utility room.
Wright shared a note from Marcia Keller summarized herewith:
“ No matter which course is taken, we should engage a general contractor to guide us. Discussion with Selectmen on this would be advisable. In Option 1 we have a good plan, well thought out and revised through several years of comment and input from town employees and others. Option 3 (the 1/3 partial foundation) could be made to work.
We should do everything possible to preserve the LCHIP grant both for the funds involved and to be able to seek future grants from whatever sources available.
It is important to insulate the walls – essential to the energy efficiency we have stressed as part of the overall project. Existing basement is a disaster, and Bradford needs secure archival storage.”
Halsted, Kranz and Bibbo advocated for Option 3: Returning to the original Monahon plan for the 1/3 foundation (Option 3) with the reasoning that this is most affordable and feasible. Option 3 represents a significant departure and thus shows the committee has listened carefully to voters. Option 3 is a “no surprise” option. Option 3 does nothing more than what is needed. Work could be done on an accelerated timeline to retain the LCHIP Grant, preserve historic integrity, and decent dry storage for historic records and mechanicals. Major cost savings would be achieved by eliminating need to install sprinklers in the basement–as crawlspace area does not count in municipal fire code calculations–as well as skipping the jacking up of the building, excavating and installation of a full foundation. I-beams could be installed to distribute excess weight on cement, if needed for the partial foundation. THROC Chair Wright mentioned the possibility of no basement at all.
Chair Wright and Bibbo reviewed CDFA L5, EDA and CDFA grants for Town Hall theater as a regional asset, and possible tax credits. Bibbo pointed out that theater grants required community matches. Thus any Town Hall warrant article must incorporate base functionality for the theater, such as Limited Use Limited Access (LULA) and fundamentals for theater sprinklers.
Brackett Scheffy asked if the Selectmen were willing to put Town Hall Restoration Project on the Warrant. THROC member and Selectman Bibbo responded that no formal decision had been made yet, adding that he supported putting this on the warrant for Town Meeting 2017. Selectman Bibbo added that retention of the $105,000 LCHIP Grant was important to the Board of Selectmen. A formal vote by the Board of Selectmen was needed to approve major amendments in the restoration plan. Selectman Bibbo commented that it would be a travesty for the Town to reject the $105,000 LCHIP grant. A letter from donor to the project and former committee member Audrey Sylvester echoing this position was read aloud (appended).
Kranz wanted to understand what had to be done for the town to get the LCHIP grant. RHC had raised the 50% match required. However, Bradford would be challenged to meet LCHIP timelines if the full foundation was going to be installed. The December 2016 LCHIP deadline loomed, with a possible six-month extension to be requested from LCHIP Executive Director Dijit Taylor to take the town through Town Meeting 2017. After Town Meeting, a maximum one-year extension could be requested of LCHIP’s Board, contingent upon the town’s commitment and progress.
One drawback to Option 1 (the full foundation option) was that much needed work such as a chamber septic system would be delayed until after 20-ton cement trucks rolled over the parking lot for foundation work. Bibbo related that the plan was for the building to be lifted in the spring and put down in the fall. It was suggested that the given full-foundation timeline and budget estimate might be ambitious and unrealistic, given that a further interval would be required for the building to settle before undertaking LCHIP approved work. As a cautionary note, voters were not ready for a multi-year timeline. Discontent could be expected: whether project funds were fully spent without anything to show, whether money was appropriated and not spent or whether more money was needed. Bibbo added that many he had spoken with thought that reducing the size of the basement and eliminating the sprinkler system would yield huge savings. Harry Wright observed that buildings lasted longer and were more economical to heat with full basements; another added a full foundation would expand square footage for the future, but a 1/3 foundation and slab could still carry out beyond the rotting stilts (in the southwest corner of the building) and provide space for secure storage of town archives and the sprinkler pump. Bibbo estimated the cost of a full basement as $400,000. Based on chats with contractors, Halsted suggested construction of a 20×40 shed would be cheaper.
–The question: What would a 1/3 foundation cost?
Scheffy said these discussions underscored his concern to get a General Contractor (GC) involved in the project sooner rather than later. Productivity of meetings was hobbled by the lack of expertise underpinning suggestions such as the 1/3 foundation or possibility of moving walls to enlarge the first floor meeting room. Paying for a GC (rather than relying on volunteers) meant that that the town could set forth expectations and pay for an outlay of some time now, while we have the work.
Scheffy summarized that the consensus was that THROC did not plan to recommend attempting the full foundation. (No vote was taken.) Bibbo mentioned that since the Cistern was going to be installed outside the full foundation fitting it into the 1/3 foundation was not an issue. Highlighted was the importance of knowing what the 1/3 foundation cost. Discussion ensued about presenting the 1/3 foundation option to voters on the warrant with the possibility of an amendment from the floor. A floor amendment before the vote on the bond required merely a simple majority. THROC members concluded that this approach would sow confusion, however.
As an engineer, Kranz asked if test bore holes had been performed to determine whether ledge was present beneath Town Hall. Test bores had been dug, but not where the full foundation would be excavated. A simple test hole rig is 10-20’ high and does not slant. Kranz asked why Halsted recommended shelving Community Forums. The response was that we had passed the phase where these were productive. Volunteers also had shelled out handsome sums from their own pockets to cover Forum expenses. Tours of Town Hall would be more useful.
Discussion ensued about requirements for Fire Suppression for the full foundation because of the increase in square footage. A question was raised about the justification for the full foundation, especially since the cistern would be located elsewhere. A 1/3 basement would add significant square footage to the building, sufficient to house mechanicals and provide secure dry storage for Town archives. Chairman Wright observed that such a poured slab could be carried out beyond the rotting stilts to accommodate the new first floor room and would accommodate a sprinkler pump and added storage in economical fashion..
THROC Chairman Wright observed that THROC members seemed to be leaning toward the 1/3 foundation. This would eliminate the requirement for a basement sprinkler which was dependent on the addition of the 2,500 square foot basement. Crawlspaces do not count as space where municipal sprinkler systems are concerned.
Chairman Wright observed that the “functional but unfinished” theater would have to be sprinkled for any occupancy. Halsted urged that whatever option was presented before the voters should lay the groundwork for fire suppression to support the theater, as fundraising had been undertaken to save the building and restore of the theater, and this would be key to resumption of fundraising and grants.
Bibbo discussed a requirement for the bond to be worded in such a way as to provide a match for the EDA grant. Discussion ensued over question of the high cost of a full basement. Bibbo added that Selectman Harris had done studies on the heating system. Serious reservations about the proposed timeline and unknowns about the cost were expressed, along with the observation that a multi-year project that did not show results would cause voter backlash. A surprise at Newbury Meeting House added hundreds of thousands to the project. The perception was that the full foundation was added to the project because some wanted it rather than because it was needed. Unimpeachable justification is needed if this is to be pursued.
Scheffy said that THROC previously had agreed on a scope that includes a full foundation. This underscored his concern to get a paid General Contractor involved sooner rather than later as every meeting went in circles over whether a full foundation or a 1/3 foundation was necessary or whether a wall should be moved. The absence of such expertise meant we were wasting time. A volunteer or two simply cannot meet expectations the way a hired contractor would. We cannot accept a proposal absent that expertise.
Marlene Freyler asked if Bradford had not hired a General Contractor before? Freyler volunteered history of the Selectmen proposing a full foundation as an option (supplanting the original 2012 Monahon plan for a 1/3 foundation).
Reply was that a General Contractor (GC) was needed now to assist the committee with threshold decisions. Freyler remarked that the architect was paid $52,000. Scheffy advocated for engaging a professional who oversaw construction of a significant building as opposed to designing. Scheffy recommended paying for a GC, adding that we would be paying for the GC to give us a dedicated outlay of time now when the project demands and we could set expectations. He added that we may be correct about what we need and the timeline, and we may not be. How are we going to pay for a GC? Selectman Bibbo wanted to check on how much of the $30,000 appropriated in March had been spent. Bibbo added that it was possible that there would be money remaining possibly available for a GC as several skilled craftsmen now working on Town Hall had discounted their services.
Bibbo mentioned he knew of at least a dozen voters who were absent from Town Meeting 2016. He agreed to provide the names to Halsted for outreach.
Chair Wright planned to appear at Selectmen’s meeting on June 27 to ask about support for 1/3 foundation. Halsted commented that discussions with voters revealed their understanding of justification for the full foundation to be weak and related one voter’s perception that this was somebody’s whim. If the Board of Selectmen insisted on a full foundation, more needed to be understood about the justification to explain it. Learning that the cistern was to be placed outside, removed one justification for the full foundation. Chair Wright elaborated that a full foundation was for additional space and to make the building easier to heat. Halsted mentioned that the main public entry for Town Hall would have to be used by ambulatory as well as ADA visitors; segregating disabled visitors from the general public by making them use a dedicated ADA entrance was unacceptable.
LCHIP had asked where the ADA entrance was going to be. David Halsted mentioned it was a bad idea to add an additional doorway to the first floor meeting room and to build more corridors to shrink the meeting room, adding there was no need for this to be done. Clarification was sought on whether proposals were being suggested to trim the scope of the first floor renovation above and beyond altering plans for the full foundation. David Halsted offered that with the failure of the bond (4 years in a row) we were forced to make some adjustments. The biggest ticket item was the full foundation and indications were that major savings could result by scaling back this aspect of the project.
Discussion ensued over Rick Monahon’s original plan for a 1/3 foundation. The viability of Monahon’s plan was based on having a staffer maneuver through the crawl space with a camera, finding it fully stable and bone dry. The possibility of a surprise such as hitting ledge was mentioned as a risk in the full foundation scenario.
Michele Halsted shared insights provided by experienced contractors: Lifting the building up will disturb soil compacted for 150 years and may cause its own settling issues; lifting the building up may well cost more and take longer than estimates provided to the town–contractors are avoiding the project until they see the town is serious; after installation of a new foundation a major period of settling would be required before the LCHIP work may begin; what is Bradford’s Plan B if they lift up Town Hall to excavate and hit ledge; standard grading improvements would ameliorate drainage to the rear of the building. A full foundation also would require shipping granite to Vermont, slicing it and returning it, a costly and time consuming proposition.
Discussion ensued on moving walls. Halsted clarified that there was one structural post embedded in the wallboard of the first floor meeting room and, as a result, it would be simple to remove the new wall board to expand the current meeting room to the structural wall circa 10 feet south. This is the way it once was, and the tin ceiling and wainscoting from the original larger room remained in place. Why insist on dedicated space for town officials who spend four hours per week at Town Hall and instead not have those officials share workspace (with lockable cabinets–to maximize space available to the taxpaying public)? The question was whether the room was sufficiently large to host elections. Supervisor of Checklist Sandy Paul responded that it depended upon voter turnout. Presidential elections resulted in higher turnouts. Kranz asked if this was a proposal to move a recently completed wall. Halsted responded that if the town needed more space, the town needed to know the space already was there.
Contemplating the raft of proposed changes, Scheffy pointed out that engaging a General Contractor was essential. Otherwise, we lacked a methodology for a viable project. A General Contractor could look at problems and offer solutions.
Chairman Wright briefly discussed the concept of polling voters with well-thought out questions. No cost was available. No new business.
Chairman Wright proposed to brief the Selectmen at their 27 June meeting, and to seek their views on amendments to the project. Committee members were invited to attend.
Action Recap:
–Halsted to contact Steve Hansen for historic photos of the interior of Town Hall.
–Obtain list of approved work to be funded by LCHIP.
–Outreach to the Bridge regarding monthly submission.
–LCHIP requires data on finishes and any revised architectural plans.
–What is the status of the “as-builts” (detailed build-to architectural plans)–and if not completed, have they been paid for?
–Appearance before Selectmen on June 27, 2016 for decision on full versus 1/3 foundation and commitment to retain a General Contractor.
–What is the cost of a 1/3 Foundation?
Meeting adjourned at 1935 hours.
Next THROC Meeting 14 July 2016 at 1730 hours at Bradford Town Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Michele Halsted
—————————————————————————————————–
Appended letter :
Dear Members of the Town Hall Restoration Oversight Committee,
I am heartsick about the prospects of delaying Town Hall restoration. It’s not about changing minds. It’s all about getting the YES votes into the room to vote. You’ll never change the opposition’s minds. Losing LCHIP would be terrible–a slap in the face to the grant writer and all previous Town Hall Committee members who brought this project along. And a total embarrassment to the Town, harmful to future grant making opportunities; and gives a negative perception of our town which we may well deserve. Bradford would be a pariah town. Remember, our town is seen by many people who care about historic preservation outside our community. Eileen Kelly had some big donors lined up for donating if the warrant article had passed. Not now. Think beyond the walls of this community. No more messing about. Get this done. Denying funding is just an excuse for whatever negative attitudes exist. Our Town Hall is a physical connection to New Hampshire history since the 1700’s and our town’s beginnings. Town Hall, Bradford’s largest public building, provides available space for town offices, town records storage, public meetings, town committee work, voting, and public celebratory events. The building should be used, revitalized, and occupied in 2016.
Get out the vote! And don’t give up. Too many volunteer hours have been spent on this worthwhile project to give up in 2016.
Regards,
Audrey V. Sylvester
————————————————————————————————————