Hubbardston trustees map phased lower-level renovation, cite ADA report conflict and seek contractor estimates

Hubbardston Public Library trustees discussed next steps for a planned renovation of the library’s lower level, focusing on how to use about $40,000 in community preservation funds and whether to hire a general contractor to oversee the work.

Trustees said they prefer issuing an RFP to choose a general contractor to manage demolition and subcontract specialty trades and recommended getting an engineering/site visit and a high‑level cost estimate before finalizing an RFP. A consultant the town previously used, identified in discussion as the McCarty company, was proposed for an initial walk‑through to identify structural, asbestos and other engineering issues to include in the procurement.

The trustees described the renovation as a phased project. Phase 1 would use current funds for the south side of the lower level (including the area for the director’s office), with future fundraising or grant awards used to complete the north side. Trustees said phase‑1 work may include demolition to the studs, floor and lighting upgrades, removal of deteriorated items, and reconfiguring the south side for expanded programming and temporary technology space pending additional funding.

Trustees flagged several technical and regulatory issues that will affect planning and costs. An ADA report produced after the meeting’s other planning documents was described as containing specific accessibility requirements that conflict in several respects with a prior historical‑preservation assessment prepared by Wendy Frontiero. Trustees said they will present both reports to any consultant or contractor so reviewers can propose solutions that balance accessibility, historic preservation constraints and cost.

Trustees also raised building‑condition concerns that will affect scope and budget: visible mold on a southeast basement wall, ongoing attic pests (birds and bats) and incomplete attic flooring and ventilation, and uncertainty about whether asbestos or other hazardous materials are present. They noted previous site work (new gutters) intended to reduce foundation moisture but said remediation and containment estimates are needed. The trustees asked library staff to check with the town’s insurance and municipal insurers about coverage for remediation.

Trustees discussed potential funding paths beyond the $40,000: a separate technology wiring grant (referred to in discussion as an NBI grant) for internet and wiring, and other town grant pots including CPC/CIPC and legacy trusts (for example, a Fairman beautification trust noted as a possible match for exterior work). Several trustees suggested prioritizing exterior accessible paths and front steps as possible capital requests to the Capital Improvement or Community Preservation processes when applications are open.

On next steps trustees agreed to: (1) prepare an RFP framework with input from town staff (Nate and Prisha were named as the suggested town contacts), (2) invite the McCarty firm to provide an on‑site overview and a ballpark cost estimate (conceptual cost estimate, +/- ~15%), and (3) assemble the ADA and historical reports for any consultant to review before a formal RFP. Trustees noted timing advantages to scheduling much of the work across fall and spring to avoid summer contractor backlogs.

Trustees also discussed interior programming goals for the renovated lower level: modular furniture to allow flexible layouts, a programming classroom on the south side for children’s and community events, and longer‑term plans for the north side to house a smaller technology classroom and staff/storage areas once additional funding is secured.

Trustees agreed they would return to the full set of reports and proposed consultant input at the September meeting and that staff should contact McCarty to arrange an initial site visit and cost estimate prior to finalizing an RFP.