LODI BD OF ED LINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRSPROJ. NO: 10-160BID DATE

BASEMENT 9450 sf EST DATE: 7/30/20151ST AND 2ND FLOOR 18900 sf GROSS SF: 28350

REVISIONSORDER OF MAGNITUDE # & Date READ BYNO ASBESTOS INCLUDEDBASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT $ TOTAL $

EXTERIOR 28,350 sf 27.81$ 788,277.46$ ROOF REPAIRS 28,350 sf 7.49$ 212,395.70$ FLOOR REPAIRS 28,350 sf 6.24$ 177,000.00$ FLOOR REINFORCING 28,350 sf 2.54$ 72,125.00$

BLDG. CONSTR. SUBTOTAL 28,350 SQFT 44.08$ 1,249,798$ CONTINGENCY 10 % 124,980$

BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL 0 SQFT 1,374,778$

GENERAL CONDITIONS 10 % 124,980$

BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL 28,350 SQFT 48.49$ 1,374,778$ OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 10 % 137,478$

BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL 28,350 SQFT 53.34$ 1,512,256$ BOND AND INSURANCE 3.00 % 45,368$

ADDENDA'S

BOND AND INSURANCE 3.00 % 45,368$

BLDG. CONSTR. GRAND TOTAL 28,350 SQFT 54.94$ 1,557,623$

APROXIMATE COST TO REMOVE AND REPLACE IN KIND 18,900 sf 375.00$ 7,087,500.00$ APROXIMATE COST TO RENOVATE AFTER STRUCTURAL 18,900 SF 225.00$ 4,252,500.00$

1 OF 3

12345585963646566676869707172737475767778

A B C D E F G H

LODI BD OF EDLINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRSORDER OF MAGNITUDE 7/30/2015 Detailed Item Take offBASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15 sf Unit

DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit COST TotalsEXTERIOR

REMOVE ABANDONDED STAIRWAYS 1 LS 4800.00 4,800$ 0.00 -$

REPAIR AND WATERPROOF BASEMENT 0.00 -$ SOIL EROSION 1 LS 5000.00 5,000$ SAWCUT ASPHALT 629 LF 8.00 5,032$ REMOVE ASPHALT 40' FROM BLDG 16024 SF 3.00 48,072$ REMOVE AVG 2' SOIL 1187 CY 40.00 47,479$ ASSUME NOT CONTAMINATED 0.00 -$ EXCAVATE TO FOOTING 1011 CY 20.00 20,226$ CLEAN FOUNDATION WALLS 3550 SF 1.00 3,550$ ALLOW FOR REPAIR 3550 SF 3.00 10,650$ WATERPROOF FOUNDATION 2485 SF 8.50 21,123$ FOOTING DRAIN 555 LF 12.00 6,660$

AROUND BLDG ACROSS PARKING LOT TO DAYLIGHTSTONE 53 CY 40.00 2,104$ 78

7980858687888990919293949596979899100101102103

STONE 53 CY 40.00 2,104$ BACKFILL 1011 CY 20.00 20,226$ NEW ASPHALT 1780 SY 38.00 67,657$

0.00 -$ TOTAL 257,777$ 0.00 -$

0.00 -$ REPAIR DAMAGED BRICK 0.00 -$

APROX 100 SF 100.00 10,000$ 0.00 -$

REPOINT ENTIRE FAÇADE 10650 SF 26.00 276,900$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL WINDOWS 0.00 -$ EXTERIOR ALUM WINDOWS 0.00 -$

WIDTH HGT QUAN SF EA SF TOT3 4 20 12 240.004 6 96 24 2304.004 5 32 20 640.00

0 0.000 0.000 0.00

DOUBLE HUNG / FIXED 3184.00 SF 75.00 238,800$ 7/31/20152:28 PM 10-160 LODI Linclon School estimate.xltx

2 OF 3

12345

A B C D E F G H

LODI BD OF EDLINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRSORDER OF MAGNITUDE 7/30/2015 Detailed Item Take offBASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15 sf Unit

DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit COST Totals104117133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147

0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

EXTERIOR 788,277$ ROOF REPAIRS

REINFORCE CRAKED AND EXCESSIVELY DEFLECTED RAFTERSTOTAL SF 8,466TOTAL LF 9524 LF 0.00 -$ ASSUME 20% 1905 LF 60.00 114,291$

SISTERING 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

REPAIR AND SPLICE WATER DAMEGED VALLEY RAFTERS AUXILLARY FRAMING SUPORT 280 LF 100.00 28,000$

8.00 -$ AUXILIARY FRAMING SUPPORT 12699 SF 4.00 50,796$ 148

149150354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372

AUXILIARY FRAMING SUPPORT 12699 SF 4.00 50,796$ IN LIEU OF NEW POSTS, ALLOW 0.00 -$

0.00 -$ MISC REPAIRS 10% 0.00 19,309$

0.00 -$ ROOF REPAIRS 212,396$ FLOOR REPAIRS

-$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

BLOCKING AND REINFORCEMENT 0.00 -$ BLOCKING AT DOOR JAMBS 68 EA 500.00 34,000$ NEW CONNECT. AT GIRDER, MEETING RM 50 LF 60.00 3,000$

0.00 -$ REMOVE HUMP AT FIRST FLOOR

REINFORCE LONG SPAN JOISTS 4000 SF 15.00 60,000$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

-$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

7/31/20152:28 PM 10-160 LODI Linclon School estimate.xltx

3 OF 3

12345

A B C D E F G H

LODI BD OF EDLINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRSORDER OF MAGNITUDE 7/30/2015 Detailed Item Take offBASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15 sf Unit

DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit COST Totals373374375376377378379432433434435436437438439440441

JACKING 1 LS 20000.00 20,000$ CEILING REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT 4000 SF 6.00 24,000$ PATCH AND PAINT 240 HRS 150.00 36,000$

$100/HR PLUS $50/HR 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

300.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

FLOOR REPAIRS TOTAL 177,000$ FLOOR REINFORCING

-$ -$

REINFORCE FLOOR FRAMING 1885 SF 25.00 47,125$ BENEATH ASSEMBLY RM (ASSUME DUAL PURPOSE RM ON 1975 DWGS

0.00 -$ REINFORCE FLOORS AT FILE STORAGE 0.00 -$ 442

443444445446447448449450451452453

REINFORCE FLOORS AT FILE STORAGE 0.00 -$ ALLOW 1000 SF 25.00 25,000$

0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$ 0.00 -$

FLOOR REINFORCING TOTAL 72,125$

7/31/20152:28 PM 10-160 LODI Linclon School estimate.xltx

July 10, 2015 Mr. Marc A. Capizzi Business Administrator Lodi Public Schools 8 Hunter Street, PO Box 815 Lodi, New Jersey 07644 Reference: Lodi Board of Education Administrative Building Structural Condition Assessment Becht Project Number 15-0328 Dear Mr. Capizzi: At your request, we conducted non-invasive and limited invasive inspections of the Lodi Board of Education Administrative Building, located at 8 Hunter Street in Lodi, New Jersey. The purpose of the inspections was to develop an assessment of the condition of the structure, and provide recommendations for necessary repairs. Executive Summary The building is generally sound and in good structural condition, but requires critical repairs of limited and specific structural deficiencies. Reinforcing of structural elements are required for use of the elevated floor levels for storage and assembly. The exterior of the building needs repairing and upgrading to maintain or restore the integrity of the building envelope. Background The original building was constructed in 1894 for use as a school. The original building was a two-story structure, with a full height basement partially below grade. The basement floor is a slab on grade. The above grade construction consisted of timber framing supported on the exterior by multiple-wythe, solid brick walls, with interior support provided by timber posts at the elevated floor levels and roof, and brick piers at the basement level. The roof is hip-framed, with hipped dormers on the northeast and southwest sides of the original roof. Early photographs of the building depict a cupola with a bell tower, but the tower was removed at some point and replaced with hip framing. Subsequently, the former tower area was over-framed and is currently covered with a small flat roof area. A full-height front dormer extension is bordered on both sides by masonry entrance staircases with slate treads and top landing slabs. These staircases are now abandoned and the entrance openings have been infilled.

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 2 July 10, 2015 At an undetermined date, likely in the early 20th century, an addition to the building was constructed at the rear of the original building. Construction materials and design were similar to the original building. The rear plane of the original roof was removed, and new ridge beams were installed, supported by timber posts, in order to provide a continuous matching roofline. At the floor levels, a new stairway was constructed of non-combustible materials (steel and concrete) to connect the original building to the addition. In the latter half of the 20th century, a new, relatively narrow two-story addition was constructed at the rear of the building, providing an additional non-combustible stairway and storage space. An exterior concrete ramp provides ADA-compliant access to this rear addition. This smaller addition is covered by a flat roof at an elevation a few feet below the eaves of the early 20th century addition. We documented evidence of at least two major fire events, one each in the original building and in the earlier addition. Damaged framing members were either replaced or reinforced. No significant changes in framing layout appear to have resulted from repairs made due to the fire damage. Late in the 20th century, the building ceased to be used as a school building, and now houses the offices of the Lodi board of Education. As part of this use, the building houses an extensive amount of file storage contained in steel file cabinets. The filled file cabinets exert significant concentrated loads on the timber framing of the elevated floor levels. Notable deflection and slopes of the elevated floors have raised concerns regarding the load-bearing capacity of the floor framing. This investigation was requested to determine the suitability of the building for the current use, as well as to provide an assessment of the condition of the structure. Observations – Exterior The brick exterior is generally in fair to good condition, with the exception of limited areas of individual clay brick unit deterioration (Photos 1-4). The stone lintels over fenestration openings appear to be original, and are generally in fair to good condition. The visible mortar is hard and generally sound. However, when exposed at areas of eroded or fractured brick, the visible mortar appears to consist of a thin layer of cementitious parge, typically applied over the entire surface of the façade after taping over the brick units (Photo 5). The tape is subsequently removed to expose the protected brick. While this method of renewing mortar can improve the appearance of a brick facade, it does not provide the longevity and degree of water infiltration protection that conventional grinding and tuck pointing provides. The windows for the building are not original, but likely have reached or are near the end of their useful life (Photo 6). The windows throughout the building are aluminum framed,

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 3 July 10, 2015 single glazed models, with fixed panels and operable swing panels. The single pane design of the glass panels lose significantly more heat that double-pane models. The sealant between the aluminum frames and the brick surrounding the openings is in poor condition. At grade level surrounding the additions, the asphalt paving for the parking area and concrete walkways intersect the building very near to the elevation of the basement window sills (Photo 7 and 8). Intense rainfall events and drifting snow could result in water infiltration at the window openings. Observations – Interior, Basement and First Floor The visible portions of the interior basement walls, constructed of mortared stone and solid, multiple-wythe brick, are generally in fair condition. At the time of our inspections, which occurred over a period with little precipitation, the walls were dry. However, the interior faces of the basement walls in the area of the front extension and abandoned entrance stairways exhibit indications of long term water infiltration, including severe corrosion of non-load-bearing steel framing used to support interior finishes, deterioration of mortar joints and efflorescent deposits (Photos 9-12). Finished and partially finished areas of the basement, where gypsum wallboard panels were installed over light gage steel or timber studs, also exhibit indications of water infiltration, especially near the windows (Photos 13 and 14). One of the major areas of relayed concern is a notable hump along the first floor corridor in the original part of the building. With the assistance of a contractor, areas of the basement ceiling finish were removed to provide direct visual access to the first floor framing in the area beneath the corridor. The basement ceiling finish consists primarily of a suspended grid with acoustical ceiling tiles. Removal of these tiles exposed a mosaic tin panel finish over a plaster and lath substrate, which is attached to the timber first floor framing members (Photo 15). The first floor framing consists primarily of rough sawn true 2x12 joists at 16 inches on center. In the original part of the building, the first floor joists are oriented such that they span in a front to rear direction. The joists are supported on the original foundation wall at the rear and front of the building, and on a line of brick piers and girders that span in a left-right direction between piers, near the center of the original building. There is a line of brick piers along the front-rear centerline of the original building that that provide intermediate support for 2 joists roughly aligned with the center of the first floor corridor above. The first floor corridor walls are located above joists that are 16 to 32 inches away from the joists above the piers. The second floor corridor walls roughly align with the first floor corridor walls. The dead loads for the corridor walls are supported on joists that span about 20 feet between supports, whereas the joists at the center of the corridor, which carry no wall loads, are supported at a maximum span of about 7-1/2 feet. We measured a difference in

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 4 July 10, 2015 deflection between the joists beneath the walls and the joists over the piers of almost 1-1/2 inches over 4 feet, which creates the impression of a hump in the first floor corridor. We conducted an invasive inspection at another area of concern, beneath the second floor framing near the entrance door leading to the room outside the Superintendent’s office. There is a notable depression in the floor in this area, and there are gaps between the flooring boards. Removal of the ceiling finish above the first floor meeting room revealed apparent relative movement where the floor joists connect to a flush girder that spans in the front-rear direction, offset from the center bearing wall approximately 5 feet. The joists are toe-nailed into the girder, and appear to have moved downward relative to the girder over time by up to ¾-inch (Photo 16). The joists are notched, and the flush girder aligns with the wall separating the custodian’s office from the basement corridor below (Photo 17). Observations – Interior, Second Floor and Attic We noted localized “dips” or depressions in the floor and at locations along the central wall separating the second floor north and south offices in the early 20th-century addition. Two of the dips occur at the jambs for door openings in the central wall, and we observed associated cracking in the gypsum wallboard finish above the door openings. Visual inspection of the flor framing beneath these areas revealed no solid blocking beneath the king and jack posts for the door openings. Within the attic, we observed several locations where the bearing ends of valley rafters had apparently been exposed to long term water infiltration, as evidenced by staining of the rafters and nearby attic floor decking, and replacement of the original plank roof sheathing with plywood (Photos 18 and 19). At a few locations the degree of water-related damage to the end of the rafter is significant. There are a few cracked or deteriorated rafters, mainly along the main north and east roof planes (Photos 20 - 22). A vertical post and two diagonal braces within the attic share a common support point on the attic floor (Photo 23). The post supports one end of the ridge beam between the centrally located chimney and a girder for the lower-pitched hip roof where the cupola was removed. The diagonal braces provide intermediate support for the valley rafters at the intersections of the north and south main roof planes with the east plane of the front hip roof. The posts and braces have punched through the attic flooring at the common support point (Photo 24) Inspection of the attic floor framing from the second floor corridor revealed that the post and brace support point is above a doubled joist above the center of the corridor. The original decorative tin ceiling panels above the existing dropped ceiling tile system terminate with decorative trim pieces on either side of the doubled joist (Photo 25). One end of the doubled joist is not supported (Photo 26). There are remnants of decorative tin trim pieces indicative of a former column capital at the location beneath the support point for the attic post and braces (Photo 27).

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 5 July 10, 2015 Conclusions and Recommendations Exterior On three elevations of the building, the asphalt paving and concrete sidewalks abut the brick at approximately the basement window sill level. On the fourth (front) elevation, abandoned and deteriorating exterior stairway structures abut the building. Signs of water infiltrations evident at the basement walls indicate that the walls below and adjacent to these impervious surfaces are not adequately protected by damp- or water-proofing material. We recommend that the abandoned stairways be demolished and removed, the impervious surfaces surrounding the building be cut back, and the below grade portions of the exterior walls be exposed and repaired and repointed as needed before applying an appropriate water proofing material. When backfilling the area surrounding the building, we recommend that the grade adjacent to the building be at least 8 inches below the elevation of the window sills, and that the grade slope away from the building. This will require significant re-grading of the parking area, and the installation of a stormwater management system around the building. Depending on the final grading design of the parking area, site retaining walls and associated bollards or fencing may be required. While the exterior brick walls are generally in fair to good condition from a structural standpoint, there are several concerns regarding the soundness of the walls from a water infiltration standpoint. There are several locations, primarily along the south elevation, where there are significant areas of brick deterioration that require replacement of the exterior wythe of brick. Once the harder exterior patina of the clay brick has deteriorated, the degradation of the relatively softer core will continue at a more rapid pace. The most recent re-pointing project appears to have consisted of a “tape and wash” procedure, rather than a more thorough grind and tuck pointing procedure. With a tape and wash procedure, the bricks are covered with tape and then a thin coating of cementitious material is applied to the entire wall surface. After the material has cure, the tape is removed, leaving the fresh material over the mortar joints. This procedure provides an improved appearance, but is not effective in maintaining the best water infiltration protection condition. While the condition of the mortar behind the cementitious wash is not visible, presumably some degree of deterioration led to the previous re-pointing effort. We recommend the grinding and tuck pointing of the entire exterior once all required brick replacement, partial demolition and re-grading procedures have been completed. The fire escape structure is in fair condition, but should be temporarily removed during re-pointing activities to ensure full access to the façade behind the fire escape. The system can be re-installed in kind.

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 6 July 10, 2015 The windows are dated and inefficient, and should be replaced as part of any renovation project. We recommend the installation of energy efficient, commercial grade windows at all locations. Interior There are two categories for interior work. The first category is for the repair of structural damage or deficiencies. The second category is for the reinforcing of existing sound framing elements to account for loadings generated by the intended use of the spaces. Repairs - Roof The most critical repair items relate to roof support framing. The most straightforward and least costly repairs are the repair and reinforcing of cracked and excessively deflected rafters. The installation of reinforcing “sister” members of similar dimension directly to the damaged or deflected elements is sufficient to restore the required capacity. The repair of the valley rafters damaged by water infiltration will require the installation of shoring, as these members will need to be able to continue to provide support for the rafters connected to them. It is possible that some jacking will be required in order to remove the damaged ends and install the new pieces to be spliced. This jacking could potentially distort the roof sheathing, and limited areas of re-sheathing and new roofing materials may be needed. The problem that led to the punching through the attic floor of the roof support post and braces likely was the removal of original walls that previously were located along what is now the centerline of the first and second floor corridors in the original part of the building. While the removed walls did not support floor loads, they were components of the original load path for the support of roof framing. While the most straightforward repair would involve the restoration of the original load path, this approach would result in columns located in the middle of the existing corridors. An alternate approach would be the design of reinforcing and auxiliary framing within the attic that would permit the removal of the support post and bracing. As access to the attic is limited to a small hatch, and the temporary scaffolding and support components will not fit through the hatch, temporary removal of the windows at one of the dormer gables would be required to bring material into the attic. As some repair or reinforcing elements will be long and heavy, the use of a crane likely would be required. Repairs – Floors The repairs of the dips along the bearing walls centrally located in the early 20th-century addition will involve locally jacking of the floors to level and installation of solid blocking at

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 7 July 10, 2015 point loads from attic-level posts and second floor wall openings. Temporary removal and restoration of the ceiling finishes in the repair areas will be required. Once the blocking has been installed, the cracks in the gypsum wallboard can be repaired and the areas re-painted. The repair of the deficient connections at the second floor flush girder above the meeting room will require the jacking and temporary support of the joists attached to the girder, reinforcing/replacement of the girder, and installation of joist hangers at the joist/girder connections. Restoring the floor to a level condition may result in additional cracking of the floor finish, and flooring repairs may be required. The hump in the first floor corridor of the original portion of the building results from the deflection of the joists beneath the partition walls on both sides of the hallways being significantly greater than that of the joists along the center of the corridor over the basement level piers. Correction of this condition will involve the jacking of the joists beneath the walls to level and the installation of either reinforcing or intermediate support columns and footings. Intermediate columns and footings is the more straightforward approach, but may interfere with the use of the basement space. The reinforcing approach would require extensive removal of the original ceiling finish and the design and installation of new connections at each end of the reinforced members. The jacking to level of the joists will result in cracks in the wall finishes on both sides of the walls, and will require repair and re-painting as necessary. Reinforcing for Intended Use While the existing framing is adequate for the Code-prescribed design load of 50 pounds per square foot (psf) for office use, the concentrated loads applied by filing cabinets and storage, which are critical needs for the use of the building as the administrative offices for the Board of Education, result in overstress and excessive deflection conditions. The use of a portion of the first floor as a meeting room, with a Code-prescribed assembly design load of 100 psf also results in overstress and excessive deflection. Upgrading the capacity of the entire building to support storage and assembly loads would require the reinforcing of most floor framing elements, but provide flexibility for re-design of office and storage layouts. Alternately, reinforcing areas where locations of concentrated loads would result in a less extensive construction project, but would require that the layout be permanent. Except for the required reinforcing of all members below the assembly space, the development of a plan locating the storage cabinets and any other concentrated loads is necessary to determine the extent of reinforcing required.

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 8 July 10, 2015 Summary of Recommend Scopes of Work Exterior:

Removal of abandoned stairways

Repair and waterproofing of basement walls

Re-grading of area surrounding building with new grade established at least 8 inches below basement window sills

o Re-design of parking area as required by re-grading o Installation of new storm water management system as required by re-

grading o Re-configuration of parking area as required by re-grading

Repair of damaged brick

Re-pointing (grinding and tuck pointing) of entire building

Replacement of windows Roof Repairs:

Reinforce cracked and excessively deflected rafters

Repair and splice water-damaged valley rafters

Repairs associated with removed support of ridge beam and valley rafters o Restore support for attic post and braces, or o Installation of reinforcing and auxiliary framing to eliminate need for post and

braces Floor Repairs

Installation of solid blocking beneath door jambs and roof support posts

Provide new connections at slipped connections between second floor joists and flush girder

o Reinforce flush girder as required

Remove hump at first floor corridor in original building o Install new intermediate support posts and footings, or o Reinforce existing long-span joists and connections

Floor Reinforcing

Reinforce existing floor framing beneath assembly room

Reinforce existing floor framing to account for concentrated storage loads o Reinforce all floor framing to allow flexibility o Develop fixed plan for storage and reinforce elements affected by

concentrated loads only.

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 9 July 10, 2015 We are pleased to have the opportunity to offer our engineering services to assist in this matter. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Richard Lee Burke, PE, VP Principal, Civil/Structural Division Manager RLB/rb: 2015 W:\2015\15-0328\CORR\report.docx