LODI BD OF ED

LINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS

BASEMENT
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR
REVISIONS
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
NO ASBESTOS INCLUDED
BASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15
DESCRIPTION

9450 sf
18900 sf

QUANTITY

PROJ. NO:
BID DATE

10-160

EST DATE:

7/30/2015

28350
ADDENDA'S
# & Date
READ BY

GROSS SF:

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
BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS
BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL
OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
BLDG. CONSTR. SUB TOTAL
BOND AND INSURANCE

BLDG. CONSTR. GRAND TOTAL

10

124,980

SQFT

1,374,778

10

124,980

1,374,778

137,478

1,512,256

45,368

28,350
10
28,350
3.00

28,350

SQFT

48.49

%
SQFT

53.34

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
A

LODI BD OF ED
2 LINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS
3 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
7/30/2015
Detailed Item Take off
4 BASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15
sf
Unit
5
DESCRIPTION
Quantity Unit
COST
Totals
58 EXTERIOR
1

59
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95

REMOVE ABANDONDED STAIRWAYS

4800.00
0.00
REPAIR AND WATERPROOF BASEMENT
0.00
SOIL EROSION
1 LS
5000.00
SAWCUT ASPHALT
629 LF
8.00
REMOVE ASPHALT 40' FROM BLDG
16024 SF
3.00
REMOVE AVG 2' SOIL
1187 CY
40.00
ASSUME NOT CONTAMINATED
0.00
EXCAVATE TO FOOTING
1011 CY
20.00
CLEAN FOUNDATION WALLS
3550 SF
1.00
ALLOW FOR REPAIR
3550 SF
3.00
WATERPROOF FOUNDATION
2485 SF
8.50
FOOTING DRAIN
555 LF
12.00
AROUND BLDG ACROSS PARKING LOT TO DAYLIGHT
STONE
53 CY
40.00
BACKFILL
1011 CY
20.00
NEW ASPHALT
1780 SY
38.00
0.00
TOTAL
$
257,777
0.00
0.00
REPAIR DAMAGED BRICK
0.00
APROX
100 SF
100.00
0.00
REPOINT ENTIRE FAADE
10650 SF
26.00
0.00
0.00
REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL WINDOWS
0.00
EXTERIOR ALUM WINDOWS
0.00

96

WIDTH

HGT

3
4
4

97
98
99

1 LS

QUAN

4
6
5

SF EA

20
96
32

12
24
20
0
0
0

100
101
102
103

DOUBLE HUNG / FIXED

7/31/20152:28 PM

3184.00 SF

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,800
5,000
5,032
48,072
47,479
20,226
3,550
10,650
21,123
6,660

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,104
20,226
67,657
10,000
276,900
-

240.00
2304.00
640.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75.00 $

238,800

SF TOT

10-160 LODI Linclon School estimate.xltx

2 OF 3
A
1
2
3
4
5
104
117
133
134
135
136

LODI BD OF ED
LINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
7/30/2015
Detailed Item Take off
BASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15
sf
Unit
DESCRIPTION
Quantity Unit
COST
Totals
0.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
EXTERIOR
$
788,277
ROOF REPAIRS

137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145

REINFORCE CRAKED AND EXCESSIVELY DEFLECTED RAFTERS

TOTAL SF
8,466
TOTAL LF
9524 LF
0.00
ASSUME 20%
1905 LF
60.00
SISTERING
0.00
0.00
REPAIR AND SPLICE WATER DAMEGED VALLEY RAFTERS
AUXILLARY FRAMING SUPORT
280 LF
100.00

$
$
$
$

114,291
-

28,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

50,796
19,309
212,396

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

34,000
3,000
-

15.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
$
0.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $

60,000
-

146
147
148
149

AUXILIARY FRAMING SUPPORT

IN LIEU OF NEW POSTS, ALLOW

12699 SF

150
354

MISC REPAIRS

10%

355

8.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

ROOF REPAIRS
357 FLOOR REPAIRS
356
358
359
360
361

BLOCKING AND REINFORCEMENT

362

BLOCKING AT DOOR JAMBS

363

NEW CONNECT. AT GIRDER, MEETING RM

68 EA
50 LF

364
365

REMOVE HUMP AT FIRST FLOOR

366

REINFORCE LONG SPAN JOISTS

367
368
369
370
371
372
7/31/20152:28 PM

4000 SF

0.00
0.00
0.00
500.00
60.00
0.00

10-160 LODI Linclon School estimate.xltx

3 OF 3
A
1
2
3
4
5
373
374
375
376

LODI BD OF ED
LINCOLN SCHOOL STRUCTURAL REPAIRS
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
7/30/2015
BASED BECT REPORT DATED 7/10/15
sf
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
JACKING
1
CEILING REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT
4000
PATCH AND PAINT
240
$100/HR PLUS $50/HR

377
378
379
432
433
434

FLOOR REPAIRS
436 FLOOR REINFORCING
435
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453

TOTAL

Detailed Item Take off

Unit
Unit
COST
Totals
LS
20000.00 $
20,000
SF
6.00 $
24,000
HRS
150.00 $
36,000
0.00 $
0.00 $
300.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
0.00 $
$
177,000

$
$
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 $
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

July 10, 2015

At an undetermined date, likely in the early 20 th 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 faade 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

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 leftright 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

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 Superintendents 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 -inch (Photo 16). The joists are notched, and the flush girder aligns
with the wall separating the custodians 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 20 th-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

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 repointing activities to ensure full access to the faade behind the fire escape. The system
can be re-installed in kind.

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi

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 20 th-century
addition will involve locally jacking of the floors to level and installation of solid blocking at

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi

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 repainted.
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 repainting 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

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 regrading
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

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