Future of Libby Museum still hangs in the balance

WOLFEBORO — The fate of Wolfeboro’s historic Libby Museum remains unsettled despite months of discussion and a proposed demolition date that puts a ticking clock on the building’s future. A vote on the Libby is expected to take place when selectmen meet Wednesday.

The Libby Museum, which opened in 1912, is the state’s oldest natural history museum and was a legacy of Dr. Henry Libby. In the 1950s, Libby’s relatives asked the town to take over as trustees. The building, which sits on prime property on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, was shut down in 2024 due to mold, structural deterioration and deferred maintenance. The Friends of the Libby Museum have held that their sole overview is the programming at the building, not maintaining its structural integrity.

A new group, the Libby Museum Preservation Society, was formed last year. At a second public hearing held Aug. 19, selectmen heard more pleas to save the museum, a detailed warning about the condition of its structure, an offer from a recently formed preservation group to take over the trust and a proposal to pause a decision for 18 months.

That pause did not happen.

A motion by Selectman Brian Deshaies to suspend all discussion of demolishing the museum for 18 months failed on a 3-1 vote, with Deshaies the lone “yes” vote.

Deshaies had argued that the preservation society should have time to work with the Charitable Trusts Unit of NH and establish whether it can become a viable successor trustee. “Or we can play ring around the rosy, which is what we’ve been doing for five years,” he added.

Board member Linda Murray seconded the motion but voted against it.

Before opening the hearing, board chair Paul O’Brien announced that the Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance of Meredith had formally withdrawn its interest in becoming a successor trustee of the Libby. The group had been exploring whether the property could become home to a permanent Lake Science Center and water quality laboratory while continuing to house part of the Libby Museum natural history collection.

That leaves the preservation society as the only group currently identified as seeking that role. O’Brien invited the preservation society to meet with the town before Sept. 2; however, no date was set during the meeting.

O’Brien reviewed a history of failed funding efforts, beginning in 2019, when voters approved $40,000 for work at the museum. In 2020, voters approved another $300,000 for repairs and renovations. In 2023, with approximately $2 million in donor money on the table and a business plan developed by the Friends, selectmen put a $4 million warrant before voters for a substantial renovation. It received the board’s recommendation; however, the budget committee voted 5-3 against recommending it. The project, which needed 60% voter approval due to its bonding requirement, failed.

The following year, voters again rejected a request for additional capital to stabilize and maintain the building. “From 2019-25, $4.6 million was asked of the voters,” O’Brien said.

“Approximately $340,000 was appropriated by the voters.” Much of that money is now being used to stabilize the building and address the collection, he added.

Last November, the Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts Unit contacted the town and threatened legal action if the Friends and the town could not come to an agreement to maintain the Libby property, a portion of which includes dock space on Lake Winnipesaukee that the town rents out. The CTU also said the fees from the docks were not documented correctly.

Wolfeboro selectmen voted in January to hold public hearings on possibly tearing down the Libby Museum of Natural History, which closed in 2024 due to mold and structural deterioration. On July 1, they set the hearings for Aug. 5 and 19.

Sebastian Tordonato, vice chair of the Libby Museum Preservation Society, and an engineer, offered a sobering assessment of the building during the hearing. After touring the museum, Tordonato said the collection was in “surprisingly good shape.” The building, however, was another matter. “It’s very rough around the edges,” he said.

Tordonato shared concerns about the foundation, including its depth, construction and whether adequate footings exist.

He also pointed to a bowing front wall and structural columns supporting the roof.

“Can it be restored? The answer is yes,” he said. “It can be restored. It’s a question of money.”

Tordonato estimated that a full restoration could require taking the building apart piece by piece, replacing compromised structural elements and rebuilding it. He said bringing the building up to current structural codes would be a significant undertaking.

According to reports Tordonato said he reviewed, the roof was designed for a snow load of about 20 pounds per square foot, while current code requires 80 pounds per square foot. The museum’s public floor areas would need to support 100 pounds per square foot, while some supporting beams reportedly can handle only 60.

Tordonato’s rough estimate for restoring the building could mean raising another $1.5 million to $2 million.

Suzanne Ryan, chair of the Libby Museum Preservation Society, urged the board to reject demolition and give her organization 18 months, with a possible six-month extension, to develop a plan acceptable to the courts and the state Charitable Trusts Unit. The preservation society also intends to pursue the trusteeship through the Carroll County Probate Court.

Catherine Dragonfly said that the museum is nowhere near collapse. “I just went to Italy and went to Rome and the Vatican, and I toured a lot of medieval castles,” she said. “The thing with history is, once you get rid of it, you can never bring it back.” Dragonfly also rejected the idea that the project must be all-or-nothing. “It needs to be saved, and it needs to be a long-term project,” she said.

While O’Brien opposed the pause, he said that the preservation society had raised a compelling argument and was interested in hearing how the group would approach fundraising and maintenance.

He said that the larger issue is that the town remains responsible for the building until the courts and charitable trust authorities approve a change in trusteeship.

“We’ve got guardrails here,” O’Brien said.