The proposed design for an addition to Hildreth House received little support at last week’s meeting of the Select Board. The board had asked members of both the Permanent Building Committee and the Hildreth House Phase 2 Subcommittee to attend the Oct. 8 meeting, and after hearing the subcommittee’s reasons for the design decisions it had made, responded negatively to the decision that lay at the heart of the design: a separate building instead of an attached addition.
Members of the Phase 2 subcommittee explained some of the design decisions the group had made early in the schematic design process this summer. They said the architect had looked at three different sites, and the subcommittee had chosen the site that was reported to be the easiest and most economical to build on. Only one design plan could be developed because the Permanent Building Committee had asked in its Request for Quotes that the architect produce one plan for the project rather than several options. The group decided not to connect the addition to Hildreth House to avoid the cost of having to meet code requirements for a larger building, including sprinklers, so a separate building 30 feet from Hildreth House was chosen. A covered connecting walkway was included in the design at one point, but was removed when the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) asked the Phase 2 subcommittee to cut costs.
Cindy Russo, PBC chair, said that various PBC members attended many Phase 2 meetings with the architect last summer and determined that the original estimate for the design was high, prompting the subcommittee to trim $500,000. Russo also said the PBC suggested including some items that would have cost more money, such as added parking and keeping the connected walkway. But the Phase 2 subcommittee was committed to keeping costs down, and it responded that the connector wasn’t needed. As for parking, COA Director Debbie Thompson said the expected increase in people coming to the new center could be managed with carpooling and the two Council on Aging vans.
No support for separate building
Several Select Board members expressed dislike for the separate building. Board member Lucy Wallace said it “felt disjointed.” Chair Alice von Loesecke questioned how a separate addition solved the Council on Aging’s goal of having all senior activities under one roof. Thompson responded that the plan was to have all the activities and lunches under one roof, not necessarily the offices. She added that the architect told the Phase 2 subcommittee that attaching the addition to Hildreth House could open up a “Pandora’s box” of code issues, adding to the cost of the project. Council on Aging board co-chair Beth Williams said that according to the architect, Hildreth House would also have to be brought up to current seismic codes, and that could be “some major money.”
Select Board member Kara Minar mentioned the lack of additional parking in a plan that adds space for 90 people, and asked if it might be better to locate the addition in the back of Hildreth House with a new parking lot on the east side. Williams answered that there is not enough space behind the building for a 90-seat dining room. As for parking, Williams said parking is “not just the Hildreth House’s to solve; it’s a town problem.”
The board also had an unfavorable reaction to the Phase 2 committee’s goal to avoid putting sprinklers in Hildreth House. Board member Stu Sklar cited the dangers of offices in a wooden two-story building with no sprinklers. But Guy Oliva, chair of the Phase 2 subcommittee, asked the board if it was concerned about the safety of Hildreth House right now. If so, he said, “Rather than tack improvements to Hildreth House onto our project, why don’t you put an article in the warrant to fix it?”
Avoiding code compliance a mistake?
Von Loesecke said she also felt the Phase 2 subcommittee made a mistake by letting the desire to avoid code compliance in Hildreth House drive the addition’s design. She said, “When a project starts with a constraint and a whole avenue is never explored because of that, I have to question that.” Assistant Town Administrator Marie Sobalvarro responded that the group was limited to the development of a single plan by the town’s contract with the architect.
A week after the Select Board meeting, on Oct. 15, both von Loesecke and Wallace attended a Council on Aging (COA) board meeting, where the lack of communication between groups involved in the design and the Select Board was discussed. Von Loesecke said the first time she saw any information about the design of the addition was in the Harvard Press and added that the subcommittee had not communicated with the Select Board over the summer. Williams explained that members of the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) attended Phase 2 meetings over the summer and vice versa. The group was not told it had to report to the Select Board, but they sent agendas and minutes of every meeting to Wallace, the Select Board liaison to the COA.
Williams and other COA members told von Loesecke and Wallace that they felt blindsided by the Select Board’s negative reaction to the design, especially since it was clear the board had not seen the most recent schematic plan that the COA had submitted to the Capital Planning and Investment Committee Oct. 1. Williams reiterated that the group was told it could develop only one plan, and it developed that plan based on the project goals and trying to keep costs down, as the PBC asked it to do.
Select Board wants more info
Wallace and von Loesecke asked the COA to get estimates for the cost of bringing Hildreth House up to fire and seismic codes prior to its meeting with CPIC on Nov. 4. They also asked the board to get a current cost estimate to build the desired addition attached to Hildreth House. However, when the Select Board’s request was relayed to Sobalvarro at a PBC meeting on Oct. 15, she said the $40,000 budget for schematic design had all been accounted for, and there were no remaining funds for the architect to do more work. In addition, an estimate for another option was not in the architect’s contract.
Oliva told the PBC he had spoken to DAI Architects vice president Tom Lam about preparing an estimate for an attached addition. Lam said his firm’s estimator was out of town, but he would get back to Oliva next week with a price for that task. Wallace and von Loesecke told the COA board that if the estimate could not be done as part of the schematic design work, they might be able to find discretionary funds to pay for it.
Williams told the Press she was “beginning to feel like a pingpong ball,” bouncing between committees and boards reacting to conflicting messages. “The Select Board will have to look at who is responsible for what,” she said. “It’s a gray area right now.” She added that the PBC is still trying to figure out what its job is, which the PBC has acknowledged at multiple meetings. It plans to review its charge, policies, and procedures at its next meeting. “Unfortunately,” Williams added, “we’re the first group through.”
