March 13, 2017

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 17-0085

Dear Mr. Capizzi:

As requested we conducted additional inspections of the Lodi Board of Education

Administrative Building. The purpose of the inspections was to provide an update to our
condition assessment report issued July 10, 2015 (copy attached). It is our understanding
that the proposed replacement of the existing building has been postponed, and that you
requested the update to determine if there were significant changes in the conditions
reported in our 2015 report and to identify specific repairs or maintenance needs that should
be addressed to allow for the continued safe use of the building. Detailed descriptions of
our observations, conclusions and recommendations regarding the current condition of the
building follow a summary of the 2015 report and our current recommendations.

Executive Summary

Our 2015 investigation revealed that the general condition of the overall structure was fair,
but that specific repair or reinforcing projects should be implemented if the building were to
continue to be used for the administrative offices for the Board of Education. Our recent
inspections revealed minimal changes to the conditions observed during our 2015
inspections. Deflections in the 1st and 2nd floor hallways of the original building remain the
same as those documented in 2015. Deflections in the 2nd floor room outside of the
Superintendents office have decreased compared to those measured in 2015, likely due
to the removal of some storage loads. Deterioration of areas of the brick faade observed
in 2015 continues to advance at a slow pace. Our recommendations for long-term use of
the building remain the same as those included in our 2015 report. Our recommendations
for continued short-term use of the building are for localized repair of damaged rafters and
for localized replacement of brick units in the exterior walls.
Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 2 March 13, 2017

Observations

We inspected the exposed roof framing in the attic, the areas of first, second and attic floor
framing exposed by finish removals during our 2015 inspections, visually accessible areas
of the foundation walls and the exterior walls of the building. We also recorded elevation
measurements in the 1st and 2nd floor corridors in the original building, and in the large room
outside of the Superintendents office. You had expressed concern regarding notable out-
of-level conditions in these areas before our 2015 inspections, and floor elevations in these
rooms were documented at the time.

Our recent observations reveal no significant changes in the condition of the building
structure. We noted no new areas of floor deflection, and no additional damage to roof or
floor framing members. The floor elevation (deflection) measurements documented in the
areas described above were either the same as those documented in 2015, or in the case
of the room outside the Superintendents office, indicative of reduced deflection compared
to the 2015 measurements. We observed no new cracking in the interior wall finishes.

Inspection of the exterior facades revealed some progress in the deterioration of limited
areas of brick since the 2015 inspections, primarily at areas where significant deterioration
had already been noted in our 2015 report. Photographs of the same areas taken
approximately 21 months apart are provided at the end of this report for comparison.
Overall the facade appears to be in fair to good condition, with the exception of the same
limited areas of brick and mortar deterioration.

Conclusions

The building structure is in fair condition, and can continued to be safely used for office
space. Though some components, specifically the first floor joists beneath the non-load-
bearing corridor partition walls in the original structure, exhibit deflection beyond that
acceptable by current Code limits, the lack of cracking in the supported walls indicate their
condition is stable. As mentioned in our 2015 report, the floor framing at all levels is not
adequate for large storage loads, and would require reinforcing for that use. All high density
storage needs should be directed to the basement slab on grade.

The observed damaged attic framing (cracked rafters) continues to be a concern, though
the conditions have not changed since our 2015 inspections. Bridging of loads around the
damaged areas to sound adjacent structural members has prevented any major failures,
but cannot be depended on for design loads.

The slight but notable progress in the deterioration of the brick and mortar at areas identified
in our 2015 report can be expected to continue if not addressed. Repair of these limited
areas could help avoid future repairs of interior water infiltration damage.
Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 3 March 13, 2017

Recommendations

If the building is to be used for administrative offices and storage of high density files, we
continue to recommend the repairs and modifications outlined in our 2015 report. However,
if the building is proposed for this use for only an additional 2-5 years, our recommendations
are as follows.

The cracked rafters should be repaired by installing full length reinforcing members of
similar section along the damaged rafters. The reinforcing members should be connected
to the original rafters with 3 rows of 12d nails or #12 screws at 12 inches on center.

The limited areas of damaged brick and mortar at the exterior facades should be repaired
by replacing damaged brick units and grinding and tuck pointing the deteriorated mortar
joints. As the expected life for a complete grinding and tuck-pointing project is
approximately 50 years, it is not cost effective to re-point the entire building for a limited
period of continued use.

The window replacement we recommended in our 2015 report can be replaced with a
project to renew the deteriorated sealant around all window and door frames. The payback
period from energy savings from installing new insulated windows likely exceeds the period
of continued use of the building. A sealant renewal project will reduce the likelihood of water
infiltration at the windows and avoid the cost of potential future interior repairs.

The risk of water infiltration associated with the elevation of the pavement close to that of
the basement window sills remains. However, any measures to remedy this condition will
be costly, and higher than the cost of interior finish repairs in these unoccupied areas. In
order to avoid water damage to high-density files stored in the basement areas,
consideration should be given to the installation of sleepers, consisting of preservative-
treated dimensional lumber placed on the basement slab on grade, to raise the files off the
floor. The selection of the size of the sleepers (2x, 4x, 6x, etc.) should be based on any
past experience with basement flooding.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide 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
Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 4 March 13, 2017

Damaged Brick Facade area in 2015

Damage Condition in 2017

Mr. Marc A. Capizzi 5 March 13, 2017

Brick damage near side entrance 2015

Damaged area in 2017