Ord. 2013-11 - budget amendment for FY12-13, mural - signed 2-5-13ORDINANCE NO. 2013-11
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2012 -2013 ANNUAL BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. 2012 -38 TO AMEND THE
ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the 2012 -2013 Annual Budget was adopted by Ordinance 2012 -38 on September 12, 2012;
WHEREAS, various unforeseen circumstances affecting the City have presented themselves during the course
of the fiscal year;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the circumstances independently, deliberating appropriately on the
associated revenues and expenditures and the overall impact on the general financial status of the City;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the laws of the State of Texas and the City Charter of the City of Huntsville, Texas, the
City Council has determined that it will be beneficial and advantageous to the citizens of the City of Huntsville
to amend the 2012 -2013 budget as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance combines the independent Council actions into one budget amendment document;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE,
TEXAS, that:
Section 1. The findings set forth above are incorporated into the body of this ordinance.
Section 2. The annual budget for fiscal year 2012 -2013 is hereby amended to include the fee schedule attached
hereto and made a part of this ordinance as if set out verbatim herein.
Section 3. All ordinances of the City in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed, and
all other ordinances of the City not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and
effect.
Section 4. Should any section, portion, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance be declared unconstitutional
or invalid for any reason, it shall not invalidate or impair the force or effect of any other section or portion of this
ordinance.
Section 5. The necessity for amending the budget for the fiscal year, as required by the laws of the State of
Texas, requires that this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the law in such
cases provides.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately after its passage
PASSED AND APPROVED on this the 5h day of February 2013.
THE CITY OF HUNTSVIL E, TEXAS
� rf/
Mac Woodward, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, City Attorney
B.
Increase Wynne Home - Building Maintenance account for Smither building mural plaster stabilization.
Fund Balance $ (5,337)
Building Maintenance $ 5,337
Item Title: Date: Agenda Item No.:
Mural Repairs 2/5/2013 �
Requested By: Dept. /Div: Dept. Approval: Finance approval:
Matt Benoit, City Manager 113
City Attorney Review Purchasing Approval City Manager Approval
Issue /Item Description:
Budget Amendments Related to Operating Funds for FY 12 -13:
$ (13,977) - Fund Balance
$ 13,977 - Building Maintenance - Wynne Home
Strategic Initiative Reference:
Strategic Initiative #3 - Huntsville residents enjoy and benefit from an attractive city with
;beautiful parks and lifelong educational and cultural opportunities.
Background:
At the January 8, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council considered this issue and elected to
table the item (effectively moving it to a date certain). Subsequently, the Mayor and Council
has been provided with an information memo containing four options for moving forward with
this issue. That memo is attached. City's staff's recommendation is for you to pass the
;'attached budget amendment allocating $13,977 in General Fund fund balance to pay for the
,balance of the original engineering study ($3,792), the independent testing services used to-
:date ($1,545), and the estimated additional independent testing services to ensure completion
of the mural repairs ($8,524).
The reason a budget amendment is required for this item is because the funds were included in
the fiscal year 2011 -2012 Budget. However, by virtue of when the engineering studies
commenced and subsequent repairs started, budgeted funds rolled into fund balance at the
conclusion of the 2011 -2012 fiscal year.
Facts to Consider:
e Budget Amendments necessary to complete projects.
Fiscal Impact /Funding Source(s):
.Transferring funds from Fund Balance back to Wynne Home Building Maintenance account to
complete projected started in FY 11 -12.
Attachment(s):
• Budget Amendments Related to Operating Funds for FY 12 -13
• Ordinance 2013 -11
Recommended motion(s):
Approve Ordinance 2013 -11 to authorize budget amendments.
MOTION: F
F PRESENTED
F TABLED
r- OTHER
SECOND: F
F APPROVED
VOTE:
F DECLINED ACTION
IL
N
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Matt Benoit, City Manager
Subject: Mural Repair
Date: January 16, 2013
The motion offered by Councilman Allen at the City Council meeting on Tuesday night is as follows (as
reflected in the unapproved minutes of the meeting):
"Councilmember Allen moved to table the item and was seconded by Councilmember Humphrey. The
motion passed 8 -1, Councilmember Olson voting against."
You will ,find attached (Attachment #1) an email from Mike Roempke reflecting Council's direction to
inspect Mr. "Smither's wall,
In an attempt to assist the Council with options for advancement; on this issue at a future meeting, I
offer the following options. These options are based upon the following guiding principles:
1. 1 believe the City's most pressing concern should be the safety of residents and visitors to the
downtown area by ensuring that the existing plaster is secured to the building. Please see page
8 of Attachment 2 (Smither Building Preliminary Facade Evaluation).
2. I believe a related and secondary concern should be ensuring that a mural of Sam Houston
within the City's downtown not be left to decay or deteriorate.
3. l believe a third and final concern for the City should be seeking a partnership with the building
conss %n wi previous agreements ancT—re ecfs a inanc�a onservative m�
approach.
Option #1 Hire a Structural Engineer. I estimate that hiring a Structural Engineer to complete an
inspection on Mr. Smither's wall, complete a written report for your consideration and appear in front
of Council to answer questions will cost between $8,000 and $20,000 (depending on how much
investigation is needed to conclusively determine the structural integrity of the wall),
On Monday, January 14, 2012, 1 spoke with Jeffrey Kobes from Sparks Engineering (who completed the
report in Attachment #2). 1 asked Mr. Kobes some fairly direct questions about the wisdom of plaster
repair occurring prior to wall repairs. 'I would summarize our conversation as follows:
1. Mr. Kobes acknowledged there are structural problems with the wall.
2. What specific repairs would need to be to resolve the structural problems were outside his
scope of study. Foundation work and a new roof seem tobp certainties, but he stopped short of saying
those two items were an exclusive list.
I If the building owner did ~everything" that could possibly he done uoaddress the wall
no one knows what that is), would we necessarily b* insulated from any further repairs? His response
was, "maybe yes', "maybe nu° The wall isunreinforce6masonry, so it is prone to cracking and showing
cnwckin0. When cracks occur, the mural iolikely oobe affected anwell. The mural has a metal lathe
woven into to it that insulates the mural to some degree from wall movement and 'cracking.
4` If the building owner did °everyrhin0," what b the likelihood that the repairs that are currently
proposed (plaster injection and pinning) would be rendered useless, ineffective or just the of the
mountain," Ha said really the only thing that would render these improvements ineffective would be
straightening the wall to plum. Otherwise, purely structural improvements should not render mural
plaster repairs ineffective.
• Advantages:
• Given Mr. Roempkm's email (Attachment #1), itis uncertain whether, orto what extent
the structural integrity nf the wall b sufficient tm preserve the mural plaster repairs, k8r.
Roem�phe|s not a Structural Engineer. Tu fully implement Council's direction from the
January 8 meeting, an inspection and report would close this issue.
• Attachment #2 indicates on page 1, ~The purpose of the evaluation was to develop
opinions and recommendations regarding major structural issues and repairs related to
the fa�a6emn the east side nf the 6uUdinQ'" Although there are certainly aspects `mfthe
report that speak to the structural integrity oy the wall itself, a second report focused
specifically on the wall may shed additional light an the value mf mural plaster repair
without wall repair,
• Disadvantages:
• For those who may be concerned about the use of pwb|hu money to improve private
property, hiring a structural engineer to specifically review the condition of private
property iva questionable investment.
• Whatever recommendations a Structural Engineer may offer will likely come at
additional cost that the building owner may ormay not be required to undertake. In
addition, the improvements may ov may not be affordable or cost effective 'for the
owner.
Ootion #2 — Discuss the issue with the owner at a public meeting. There are indications, both in
Attachment #1 and Attachment #3' (Invoice from Tenacnn' dated December 3, 2012) that the owner iy
undertaking the recommended improvements that were included as plans and specifications in the
January 8City Council packet. However, the extent of the repairs, or his plan of action (either as it
relates to the structural integrity of the wall or the plaster repairs) are unclear at this time. The Council
may `wish toinquire about theseissuesto8ainafuUe,undemtand|ng.
Advantages:
o This is a no- cost option to get information and advance the Council's _ understanding of
the owner's plans that may complement other options in this memo.
Disadvantages':
• The owner declined an invitation to attend the January 8 meeting.
• As you know, whatever the owner may offer the Council in terms of his plans or
intentions with respect to either or both wail or mural plaster repairs may or may not
come to fruition for any number of reasons.
Option #3 Pay the pending invoices and make no further investment. To clear up any lingering
misunderstandings about this issue, the budget amendment presented for your consideration on
January 8 included services for Sparks Engineering to review the mural plaster and present
recommendations to the owner for repair and Terracon to ensure any work done was completed in
accordance with those plans and specifications.
Total Sparks Engineering Invoice $7,600
Total Terracon testing services - $10,069
Subtotal - $17,769
Less amount previously paid to Sparks Engineering on (date) - 3 808
Total of January 8 Budget Amendment - $13,961
All that is owed to date is the remaining $3,792 of the Sparks Engineering services and an initial $1,545
invoice from Terracon. The City can pay all obligations and cease any further involvement in the project
with a budget amendment of $5,337. If the owner does not undertake repairs, we will not utilize
Terracon's services (or the balance of the $8,624). However, given the unique and specialized work
associated with grout injection and plaster anchoring, I believe it important that the work performed by
the owner's contractor is inspected by trained professionals.
Advantages:
o Paying the existing invoices stops any further City investment in the project.
Disadvantages:
• If the owner continues his work, and his contractor intentionally or unintentionally does
poor work, our investments in the wall and engineering studies will be lost.
• The City has been engaged in public /private mural partnerships for decades. There are
currently 14 murals in the downtown area. There may well be other murals in the
downtown area facing similar challenges. There is no way to know if or how downtown
building owners may react to this decision. However, the Council may wish consider
whether it wants to risk sending the message that the City intends to walk away from
our public /private mural partnerships or downtown investments.
Option #4 — Pass the budget amendment presented to you on January 8.
• Advantages:
• Funds were included in the 2011 -2012 Budget for this work. Those funds were not
rolled into the FY 2012 -2013 Budget. Remaining funds from the FY'11 '12 Budget rolled
into General Fund fund balance. There are adequate funds available in General Fund
fund balance to pay for the project.
• Passing the budget amendment holds the greatest chance that the building owner will
be encouraged to continue forward with plans for reattach the plaster to the building.
This accomplishes the primary objective of ensuring the safety of residents and visitors
to the downtown area.
• Passing the budget amendment also holds the greatest chance of ensuring that a mural
of Sam Houston within the City's downtown is not left to decay or deteriorate.
Answers to fallow -up questions offered by Councilman Allen regarding this issue are as follows:
I. Is the wall currently structurally sound and in a condition where the mural can be attached to
the wall? Provide documentation to support this answer.
There is no definitive answer to this question. Attachment #2 is the best available documentation.
Option #1 provides the best course of action to satisfy, this question.
2. If the answer (to question #I) is "No ", What is the plan for getting the wall in a condition so
that mural can be reattached?
Option #2 provides the best course of action to determine what the plans are for the building owner at
present time.
3. If the answer (to question <l#1) <is "No", Once the wall is in a condition that the mural can be
reattached and repaired, what is the plan for the getting the mural reattached and repaired?
Since the answer to the previous questions in unknown, it is very difficult to speculate about what work
may or may not be heeded to repair the wall. Further, steps to reattach and repair the mural are
equally difficult to speculate.
4, if the answer (to question #1) is "No ", Provide the estimated timeline of getting the wall in a
condition where the mural can be reattached, a timeline for getting the mural reattached to
the wall and repairs an the mural done, estimated costs to be incurred by the city, and the
funding source?
It would seem a combination of Options #1 and #2 above would answer estimated timelines for wall
repair and mural reattachment and repair. Estimated costs to the City for mural reattachment and
repair will range between $5,337 (Option #3) and $13,977 (Option #4). Any additional costs to the City
(and associated funding source) would be a policy issue for Council consideration,
S. If the answer (to question #1) Is "Yes", What Is the plan for getting the mural reattached to
the wall and repaired?
Option #2 would likely answer the building owner's plan.
6. If the answer (to question #1) is "Yes". What Is the estimated time line, cost to the City and
funding source?
Option #2 would likely answer the building owner's plan. The cost to the City will range between
$5,337 (Option #3) and $13,977 (Option #4). Any additional costs to the City (and associated funding
source) would be a policy issue for Council consideration.
As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments on this matter.
Matt Benoit
Subject: FW: Smither Building
From: Mike Roempke
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:05 PM`
To: Aron Kulhavy
Subject: Smither Building
Arun
I visited the site of the Smither Building at 1104 11`x' Street this date. The site visit was in regard to the repair work of
the wall and facade. During the visit l was able to view work ,that is in progress and visit with Mr. Smither. The following
is a basic report from the position of the Central Inspection Division:
• In April of 2012 this office inspected the wall /facade, reviewed an engineer's report, and discussed the proposed
repair with Linda Pease and Tom Weger. Based on that inspection, engineer's report, and the discussions with
Tom and Linda, the following was decided in regards to the Central Inspection's position:
- The structural wall that the facade is attached to was not in imminent danger of collapse
- The facade itself had a possible danger of pieces failing to the sidewalk below
- Steps had been taken to re -route sidewalk traffic and the sidewalk was barricaded to prevent public access.
- An engineer's "fix" for the far ade as well as a portion of the structural wall had been prepared
- The structural wall repair would be the responsibility of Mr. Smither and was agreed upon by Mr. Smither
- This office requested that on all repairs (facade and structural wall) that inspections be performed by the
engineer to verify that his repair designs were being followed. This request was due to the engineer having
the structural expertise for these types of historical buildings.
- Written notice from this office for the repair of both wall and facade was not necessary due to steps already
being taken for repair
+ The site visit and communication with Mr. Smither this date has revealed the following
- On- going repair to both the facade and the structural wall was evident. This included work being
performed, this date, to the wail
- Repair to the wall includes structural block being added under the floor /wall area. This work was not
prescribed by the engineer but will add to the structural integrity of both the floor and wall; This type work
is considered preventative maintenance and does not require a;permit due to its mature. Mr. Smither
explained that he was sending pictures of this work to the engineer for his knowledge,
The portion of the wall in which the repair design is from the engineer has not yet been performed yet. Mr.
Smither stated that he wanted to perform and finish the preventative maintenance type work before he
started that particular repair.
- The repair work on the facade that has been performed up to this date appears to be in accordance with the
engineer's repair but an inspection by the engineer will need to make an official` verification.
Based on the information gathered in April of 2012 and this date, it appears that repairs are progressing and an official
notice to mandate repair or to mandate a time period is not necessary from me at this time.
Michael Roempke.
Building Official
City of I Iuntsville,'l exas
936-2,94-5772
A me n -r
P4gQ, 1 1
SPARKS ENGINEERING, INC.
STRUCTURAL EVALUATION, DESIGN AND TESTING
December 8, 2011
Linda Pease
Cultural Resources Coordinator
The City of Huntsville
1428 Eleventh Street
Huntsville, Texas 77340
936- 291 -5422
1peose @huntsvilletx.gov
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY FA�Ai7E EVALUATION
Smither Building
Huntsville, Texas
Dear Ms. Pease:
Sparks Engineering, Inc. (SEI) has completed our Preliminary
Facade Evaluation of the Smither Building in Huntsville, Texas..
The purpose of the evaluation was to develop opinions and
recommendations regarding major structural issues and repairs
related to the facade on the east side of the building, These
services were performed as requested by you and were
performed in accordance with our contract for consulting
services authorized November 14, 2011.
PROJECT INFORMATION
The Smither Building consists of two buildings, both of which
are load - bearing brick masonry (Figure 1); The original building
(Smither East) is at 1104 Eleventh Street and is two - stories with
a partial basement. The sloped site allows street level access
into the basement at the back of Smither East. The second
with the current two -story building (Smither West) which
shares the west wall of Smither East and wraps around the
north side.
On November 16, 2011, SEI project engineer Jeffrey Kobes
visited the site and met with Linda Pease and John Smither
while at the site. During the site visit, observations were made
of typical structural systems in readily accessible areas and signs
of significant structural distress such as cracking, deformation,
and visible deterioration were made. Limited non- destructive
testing was used to obtain additional information about the
existing conditions.
40:3 NORT'fI MAYS S'IREET • ROUND ROCK, TEXAS 78664
TEL. (512) 310 -7727 , FAX (532) 310 -9999
Smither Building December 8, 2011
Preliminary Faynde Evpluation Page 2
There appears to be two primary causes to the distress in the plaster fa ;ade: cracking in the masonry
walls and toss of adhesion between the plaster and the masonry wall. Observations and
recommendations are presented below.
East Fagade: Sam
Houston Murals
South Fagade:
Store Front
Figure: I: Plan sketch of the Smither Building showing Smither East and Smither West.
DOCUMENT REVIEW
As part of our evaluation we reviewed several pertinent documents to help us understand the history of
the work and the existing conditions of the building. These included:
• Smithers Building Structural Analysis Report from The Williams Company. Based on Kim
Williams' site visit on July 24, 1990.
• Structural evaluation letter byTrue E. Cousins, P.E. dated August 20, 1990.
• Drawing sheets and specifications by The Williams Company for renovation work performed
between 1990 and 1991,
A -rTQch Ma 1-r
fq3Q, �,oC-
Smither $wilding
Preliminary Fagade Evaluation
December 8, 2011
Page 3
• C8D Review by The Williams Company from April 5,2000; July 12,2002; and .July 13, 2004.
• Natural Resources Conservation Services soil resource report for Walker County, Texas from
hit : / websoilsurvey. nres .usda.eov %appi`WebSoilSurveV aspx, November 21, 2011.
OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS
Masonry Wall
A significant contributor to the distress in the plaster facade is the active cracks (cracks that change in
width over time) through the masonry. We observed vertical cracks on the east and west walls (Figure
2) that are full- depth and that extend from the top of the wail to the foundation. It Is evident that the
cracking on the east wall has been patched previously, and that movement has occurred since the last
time the wall was painted. The crack on the west wall appears to be recent and tenants report that the
crack has grown significantly since the summer. Additionally, the reports from the 1990 work state that
there was cracking on the east wall of the building. We believe that there is ongoing and progressive
differential movement of the building, especially at the south end. We have installed two crack
monitors to aid in determining the severity of the movement. Crack Monitor 1 (CM1) was installed on
the east wall in the loft and Crack, Monitor 2 (CM2) was installed on the west wall in the first floor retail
shop.
Smither East
CMU Foundation
Wall
Fig.
GM1—
* -- CM2
Nall
I—Foundation wall
not observed
Foundation
Figure 2: Plan sketch of the Smither East. Full height cracks are shown in red (thicker lines mean wider cracks).
Changes in foundation walls and crack monitor (CM) locations are also noted.
A TT&Ck 1nQ0'
N _jo 3
Smither Building December 8, 2011
Preliminary Fosade Evaluation Page4
Further investigation is required to determine the cause of the differential movement. One suspected
cause is soil related movement. The Natural Resources Conservation Services soil resource report for
Walker County states that the soil near the Smither Building is a clayey alluvium soil with a high
shrink /swell potential (Plasticity Index of 25 to 45). During this latest drought the moisture level in the
soil around the foundation has no doubt dropped more than normal which has resulted in greater
shrinkage of the soil.
It also appears that there is a change in the foundation construction in the vicinity of the east wall
cracking (Figure 2), which may be contributing to the differential movement. It appears that the original
foundation wall was rubble filled stone- masonry, and that a portion of it was replaced with a concrete
masonry (CMU) wall (Figure'3). Based on the True E. Cousins structural evaluation report, the CMU was
in place prior to 1990. Finally, since the site is sloped, there is potentially a step in the foundation in this
area. A test pit wilt be required to investigate the foundation more fully.
nd the inner wythe of the stone masonry on the right. a) View
looking at the end of the inner wythe of stone masonry. b) View looking south between the stone masonry and the
concrete block. Note the end of the CMU and the beginning of suspected rubble stone masonry in the background.
Other issues that were observed with the east west walls are as follows:
• Renovation drawings from The Williams' Company (TWC) called for the window openings on
the east wall to be infilled with masonry. However, a borescope probe at the south window
. ed -with wood- stud-framing-an
Reportedly, that is the case with the north window as well.
The brick ,`is low -fired and in many places it is very soft. It does not appear that the bricks
are failing, but it is imperative that the brick wall be kept dry to reduce the possibility` of
deterioration.
• We could not see connections between the walls and the floors or roof. Connecting the
floors and roof to the exterior walls greatly improves the performance of load- bearing
masonry buildings.
• Cracking above the doors on the north end of the east wall was observed. This is due to the
corrosion of the steel lintels in the masonry. The cracking will continue as the lintels
continue to rust.
Plaster Fagade
In 1990 the exterior of the Smither Building was renovated to accommodate the installation of the murals
on the east wall and over the storefront on the south wall. From the available documentation, the fagade
Smi'ther Building December 8, 2011
Preliminary Facade Evaluation Page 5
renovation involved removing areas of cracked and delaminated plaster (bid estimate was 30% removal),
limited repair and repointing of the masonry, replacement of removed plaster and the addition of a plaster
finish coat over the entire surface to prepare for the mural installation. A steel frame at the interior
second floor was installed to stabilize the wall and prevent it from further out -of -plane movement
(leaning).
Since the wall renovation, minor cracking had been reported in TWC's CBV Review, reports. But, bulging
and major cracking was reported beginning in March 2011, and it has reportedly progressed rapidly
since then that time. Figure 4 shows the cracking and bulging of the plaster as observed during our site
investigation.
Panels are labeled based on expansion joints (shown as dashed lines).
At the time of our site visit, there was a significant full- height Vertical crack between Panel 1 and Panel
2. It is evident that Panel 1 has moved down relative to Panel 2 by about 1J8 -inch (Figure 5). This
movement has resulted in shear buckling (rippling) of the expansion joint between Panel 1 -and Panel 2,
Figure 5: Approximately 118 -inch of vertical displacement between
Panel I and Panel 2. Also noted is the fractured loth in this location.
Arra .A mQnr d.
V�O'�;4 E� 4
Smither Building December 8, 2011
Preliminary Facade Evaluation Page 6
and it has also been significant enough to tear some of the galvanized metal lath. A long horizontal
crack is located about 3 -feet above the painted water table and is most significant in Panel 2. It reduces
to a hairline crack as`lt terminates half -way into Panel 3.
There is also a significant bulge located near the Intersection of the painted water: table and the
expansion joint between Panel 1 and 2. The finish coat of plaster has cracked horizontally in this area
and has displaced outward. Borescope probes in this area revealed two significant discoveries:
• The bulging is related to a 4 to 6- inch separation of the plaster from the back -up wall. We also
observed one location where the face of the outer wythe: of brick had broken off, indicating that
the brick is relatively weak. Care should betaken if plaster is removed, and anchorage into the
brick should penetrate at least 8- inches..
• The nails used to affix the lath to the plaster are too short (it appears they only penetrated into
the plaster; not the brick) and they have fully detached (Figure 6). The anchors are corroded,
indicating that water infiltration was likely.
back -up plaster on the right.
It appears that the plaster has lost or is losing support from the back -up wall. The loss of support and
the resulting displacement was significant enough that we instructed David Welch of the City of
Huntsville Street Services to block off sidewalk access in front of Panels 1, 2, and 3`. This portion of the
sidewalk is to remain closed until the plaster is reattached to the back -up wall.
We believe that the cause of the delaminated and bulging plaster is due to moisture related
deterioration, short embedment of the lath anchors and downward; movement of the south portion of
the building during this recent, ongoing drought (see Masonry Wall above). The 2004 TWC C8D Review
report noted that the secondary flashing (which prevents water infiltration between the plaster and
masonry at the top of the wall) was displaced above the area of distress. This condition was allowed to
remain for several years before it was corrected. The ensuing moisture infiltration likely contributed to
the deterioration of the plaster, the bond of the plaster to the masonry, and the anchorage of the lath to
the piaster.
Smither Building
Preliminary Fayade Evaluation
Other facade related cracking is identified below:
Detember8, 2012
Page 7
Vertical cracking at the southeast corner of Smither East. This is also related to the downward
displacement of Panel 1.
• Vertical cracking at on the southwest corner at the intersection of Smither East and Smither
West: This is due to the differential movement of the south portion of the building relative to
the rest of the building.
• Grid -type cracking above the storefront of Smither West. This type cracking may indicate that
there is a plaster on metal track back -up and that the metal track is beginning to corrode.
Further investigation would be required to definitively determine the cause.
Roofing Condition
The infiltration of water down the wall is a significant source of concern. In the case of the Smither East
building, the protection of the soft brick is an additional reason to ensure that the roof covering is
performing adequately. The TWC CBD Review reports, as early as 2002, state that the roofing of the
Smither Building had deteriorated and required replacement. It appears that the roof has not been
replaced to date. The bituminous coating has worn through in many locations, cracking was prevalent,
and tears in the parapet flashing were noted (Figure 7). The prevention of water infiltration down the
wails is a primary way to increase the longevity of load- bearing masonry buildings. The TWC CBD Review
report from 2002 also stated that the secondary flashing over the plaster was displaced. it appears that
his has been reset.
1�'
Figure 7 Smither East roof. (1) tear in the parapet cap, (2) wearing
through of bituminous coating, (3) cracking of bituminous coating.
It was also noted that the roofing on Smither West had torn and buckled (Figure &). This appears to be
due to the recent widening of the crack in the shared wail between Smither East and Smither West. The
tears should be repaired immediately because there is no protection from water infiltration in this area.
T SAL q
Smither Building
Preliminory Facade Evaluation
parapet cop due to recent cracking of the wall.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the following related to the facade;
December 8, 2011
Page 8
• Restrict access to the on the sidewalk until the plaster has been reattached to the masonry wall
« Reattach the plaster to the masonry wall using stainless steel epoxy anchors and stainless steel
plaster washers. Anchors should be added in Panels 1, 2, and 3 and the anchors should embed at
least 8- inches into the masonry. The washer and nut could be recessed into the finish coat of
plaster, patched and the mural touched -up at those locations.
• Repair the expansion joint between Panel 1 and Panel 2.
• Install silicone sealant in the existing cracks that are greater than 118
• Install a new roof. We recommend a TPO membrane as the best option.
As mentioned above the differential movement in the building is a contributor to the cracking and loss of
after the fnade is reattached to the wall. The first step is to determine the cause so a corresponding
solution to the apparent progressive, movement in the ,masonry walls can be made. We recommend
further investigation including the following:
• Monitor the cracks (in particular Crack Monitors i and 2) monthly for a period of one year. These
monitors should be photographed monthly and reviewed by us. The crack monitor should fill
photo, and it should be photographed straight on.
• Dig a 4 -ft by 4 -ft test pit to the bottom of the foundation at the east wall about 10-ft north of the
southeast corner. Obtain our review of the test pit and the condition of the below-grade wall.
• Obtain a geotechnical report for the site to include two borings to 30 feet. One boring should be
taken near the area of cracking at the east wall. Soil characteristics, Atterberg limits, consolidation
potential, and the bearing capacity at 5 -feet and 20 -feet should be stated.
• Install floor -to -wall and roof -to -wall connections (Figure 9) These connections increase the
robustness of the building by creating the ability for loads to be distributed to a greater portion of
the masonry.
A -TT a� T. r,"
to'S4_ g e _Cr
Smither Building
Preliminary Foyade Evaluation
VVAI — t�.l71OMM— i'I1UN Ut -IAIL
PERPENDICULAR W/ FRAMING
N.T.S,
Figure 9: Typical floor and roof connection to existing masonry walls.
December 8, 2011
Page 9
If the differential and progressive movement of the wall is soil related, we may recommend underpinning.
Below- ground masonry repair and repointing may be also required depending on the condition of the wall.
CLOSING
This preliminary structural assessment was based on visual field observations of readily' accessible areas.
The recommendations are based on the observed conditions at the subject property at the time of the
assessment. Other conditions may exist, or develop over time, which were not found during the
assessment. These recommendations do not represent a final design; or specification. Additional
investigation will be required as part of a comprehensive program or design,
you-have- any - questions- m%arding-this -tepo ' e-detaiis,_..._
specifications, or monitoring related to the above recommendations.
Sincerely,
SPARKS ENGINEERING,
PZ
.......... ,gsZ�I
S PATRICK SPARKS
70196
leffr y goefi
Project Engineer
i 45e 0,
Irerracon INVOICE
11133 1 -45 South;Bldg. T
Conroe, TX 77302
936-539 -1384 Project Mgr: Dennis Henley
Project: Smither Building Piaster Stabilization
1087 University Ave
Huntsville, TX
To: City of Huntsville TX
Attri Billie Smith
448 State Hwy 75 N
Huntsville, TX 77320 -1118
Invoice
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
PO Box 843358
Kansas City, MO 64184 »3358
Federal
P.O. Number: 2012 - 00000557
$101169.00
P�oject�Nurriber:
..97121..1..:16
Total Due this Invoice
Total Billed
$1,545.00
Payments to Date
Contract Amount;
$10,169.00
$1,545.00
Billed to Date;
$1,545.00
Invoice Date:
12/03=12
Services' Through:
11/24/2012
Date
Report
Description of Services
Quantity
Rate
Total
10/31/12
97121116.0001
Engineering Technician, per hour 8.00
$42.00
$336.00
10/31/12
97121'116.0001
Vehicle Charge, each 1.00
$50.00
$50.00
10131112
97121116.0001
Compressive Strength of 37" x 7" Grout Prism, each 6.00
$50.00
$300,00
1111112
97121116.0002
Compressive Strength of 37" x T' Grout Prism, each 6.00
$50.00
$300.00
11/1/1.2
97121116.0003
Compressive Strength of 37' x 7" Grout Prism, each 6.00
$50.00
$300.00
1112112
97121116.0001A
Engineering Technician, per hour 2.00
$42.00
$84.00
11/2/12
97121116.0001A
Vehicle Charge, each 1.00
$50.00
$50.00
11124/12
Month
Senior Project Manager, per hour 1.00
$125.00
$125.00
Invoice Total $1,545.00
Statement of Account
Contract Amount
$101169.00
Amount Previously Billed
$0:00
Total Due this Invoice
$1,545.00
Total Billed
$1,545.00
Payments to Date
$0.00
Total Due
$1,545.00
TERMS: DUE UPON PRESENTATION OF INVOICE
Created on 11/29/2012 Page 1 of 1 Client #20787
Ir TraCL, T1\4 n� 3
GROUT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Irerracon
Report Number: 97121116.0001
Service Date: 10131/12 111331 -45 South Bldg. T
Report Date: 11/29/12 Revision, t - 28-day results Conroe; TX 77302
Task 936 - 539 -1384 RSS No: F -3272
Client Project
City of Huntsville TX Smither Building Plaster Stabilization
Attn: Billic Smith 1087 University Ave
448 State Hwy 75 N Huntsville, TX
Huntsville, TX 77320 -1118
Project Number. 97121116
Material Information Sample Information
Specified Strength: 28 days
Mix ID: Trial 1
Supplier: Mixed on Site
Batch Time: 1300 Plant; Mixed an Site
Truck No.: N/A Ticket No: NIA-
Field Test Data
Test Result
Slump (in):
Grout Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp.. (F):
Laboratory Test Data
Sample Date:
11 /01 /12 Sample Time: 1300
Sampled By:
Dennis E. Henley
Weather Conditions:
Clear
Accumulative Yards:
N/A Batch Size:
Sample Size:
2" x 2"
-Sample, Location:
Bottom Coarse_
Placement Location:
Bottom Coarse
Form Material:
Brass Molds No. Units:
Specification Samples Plumb: Yes
Temperature Range:
1 /Fiyash
1 /Cement
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO,_or DOT test methods. This report Is exclusively for the use of the client
Indicated above and shall not be reproduced except at full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein am only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or Identical materials.
CRMO, 1- 14.1Z.Rm$ Page t o1 2
QtTTgON, tlhtnT` *
Measured Measured
Maximum
Compressive
Set Specimen
Slump Flow
Date
Date
Age
Area Load
Strength
No.. ID
(in) (see)
Received
Tested
(days)
(sg in) (ibs)
(psi)
i A
NP
11/07/12
11/07/12
6
4.04 1,060
260
1 B
NP
11/07/12
11/07/12
b
4,04 1,002
250
1 C
NP
11 /07/12
11/07/12
6
3.98 1,033
260
Average (6 days)
260
1 D
NP
11/07/12
11/29/)2
28
4.00 2,260
570
1 E
NP
11/07/12
11/29/12
28
4.00 2,340
590
► F
NP
11/07/12
11/29/I2
28
3.99 2,180
550
Average (28 days)
570
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day Cube compiles with the specified strength. **NP = Not Performed
1 /Fiyash
1 /Cement
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO,_or DOT test methods. This report Is exclusively for the use of the client
Indicated above and shall not be reproduced except at full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein am only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or Identical materials.
CRMO, 1- 14.1Z.Rm$ Page t o1 2
QtTTgON, tlhtnT` *
GROUT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT Irerracon
Report Number: 97121116.0002'
Service Date. 11101/12 11133 145 South Bldg. T
Report Date: 11129/12 Revision 1 - 28 -day results Conroe, TX 77302
Tasks 936- 539 -1384 Ref; No: F -3272
Client Project
City of 1- tuntsviIle TX Smither Building Plaster Stabilization
Attn. Billie Smith 1087 University Ave
448 State Hwy 75 N Huntsville, TX
}-Huntsville, TX 77320 -1118
Project Number: 97121116
Samples Made ay: Terracon
Services: Obtain sample of grout used as well fill; perform required field tests and cast compressive strength test prisms,
Terracon Rep.: Dennis E, Henley Started, •*
Reported To: Finished:' *
Contractor:
Report Distribution: -
(I) City ofHuntsw11cTX, Billie Smilb (I)SpaksEnginecring;lef imyKobe& Reviewed By:
Dennis Er Hen
Project Manager
Test Methods:
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM. AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except In full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested' at the tocation(s) referenced and are not necessarily Indicative of the propetttes; of other apparently; similar or identical materials,
CROW), Page 2 of 2
�oi�. -3