Category Archives: Budgets

Right Building? – Is the Proposed New DPW Garage Properly Conceived, Sized, and Priced for Medfield’s Needs?

Right Building? –
Is the Proposed New DPW Garage Properly Conceived, Sized, and Priced for Medfield’s Needs?
By Osler L. Peterson

There is no question the current DPW Garage is not adequate and that an answer is needed.  The issue is instead whether the building as proposed is the proper building, at the proper cost, at the proper size, with the proper fittings to fill the town’s need.  Too date too many questions remain.

At town meeting, the Warrant Committee clearly stated that they were not making a call about whether the proposed building was the correct answer, rather they said they were relying on  others for that determination of appropriateness.

To my mind the proposed DPW Garage was neither fully vetted, nor completely explained to the town, with the result that there still remain too many unanswered questions about its size, scope, and propriety.  I cannot tell, nor have I felt sufficiently reassured, from what I have seen and heard, whether what has been proposed is the strictly utilitarian garage storage structure with connected offices for the employees needs that the town should construct.  So to date I still do not know whether we are getting the right building or not.

I am happy to be convinced that we need a building that is this big and this expensive, but I have yet to see those answers – and it is not for want of asking.  I started asking over a month before town meeting, the day Town Administrator,  Mike Sullivan, called to tell me that the night before the Warrant Committee decided to turn a place holder article into a funded article.  As a selectman, I usually get information I need when I ask for it, but not this time.  By town meeting I had not gotten enough explanation, and what explanation I got only raised more questions than it answered for me.

To assist others determine whether this is the proper structure to build, I have listed my current unanswered questions about the DPW Garage as proposed:

●    I will start with a quibble about the actual cost.  The DPW garage is presented as a $10 m. building, but since the DPW will be doing the site work (which would otherwise cost almost $1 m.) and since the town has already spent over $500,000 on the construction drawings, the garage is really a $11.5 m. building, without assigning any value to the land on which it will sit.  If the DPW were not doing the site work at the garage they would be doing other projects to improve/benefit the town, so their doing the site work for the garage is still a cost to the town, a lost opportunity cost – imagine how many sidewalks or parks could get built with $1 m.
●    The cost of the building is mainly determined by its size.  So one big question is whether the size of the building is justified?  The building is a central office core with two opposing garage wings.
○    The offices portion of the building is larger than two floors of the town house combined.  Does the DPW need that much office space?
○    The plan shows forty vehicles being garaged.  Are there really 40 vehicles that need to be stored out of the weather?  If so, can the town see the list of vehicles proposed to be garaged, so the town can decide if it wants to pay to garage them all?
○    On the plan there are two rooms labeled “spare room” – are those rooms necessary?  Or only being build for future needs?  Or can they be deleted?
○    The superintendent has an office in the building, to use during emergencies (snow storms), yet the superintendent will keep and primarily workout of his current office at the Town House.
–    Does the superintendent need two offices?  Or is there a way to provide a  smaller space for the superintendent in the garage to use during the 10-15 days we have snow storms a year without dedicating a room to this use year round?
–    Or have the superintendent cede his town house office for use by others?
○    Do we need three repair bays?  Do we not employ just two mechanics?
○    Do we need to build two bays just for “Plow Storage”?
–    Do the snow plows need to be inside year round?
–    What is the anticipated cost savings from storing the plows indoors versus the cost to build and heat the extra two bays on the building?
○    One room is labeled “Tire St.” and one “Storage Gen.” – what will these be used for and are they really necessary?
○    Are the rooms necessary that are labeled:
–    School Dept.
–    Cem. Dept.
–    Water Dept.
–    Hwy Dept.
–    Are these intended as offices for workers?
○    One room is labeled for “Reception” – will there be a receptionist there?
○    For what purpose do we need a “Conference/Operations” room?
–    Could the larger “Crew Room,” which is shown with eight tables and thirty-two chairs, double as the conference room?
○    Do we really need men’s and women’s locker rooms?
–    Would it make sense to let the workers return home at the end of their work days to shower and change at home?
–    There are no women employees, and yet we are building a room for seven “Women Lockers” – is there a better way to create equal facilities for possible future women employees than to build a facility with no current use?
●    Different configuration
○    Should the building’s twin garage wings be wider so that each bay can park three to four or more vehicles end to end instead of the propose two to three, to save on the cost of the thirty-nine garage doors?  What are the cost trade offs from saving on garage doors versus increased structural cost of a wider building?
●    Should the garage bays be heated?  Most residents’ garages are not heated.
○    What is the increase in the efficient use of the heated equipment versus the increase in cost to heat the bays, both the cost to construct the heaters and the ongoing cost to operate the heaters?
○    Could plug in electrical engine block heaters get one the increased efficiencies of faster starting of the diesel engines in the winter at a much lower cost to build and run?
○    Vehicles corrode faster if kept in heater garages
●    Should the building be constructed entirely of masonry block, as proposed, or to save money, should it be masonry block on the bottom with a metal building sitting on top of those masonry blocks or all metal?
○    What are the trade offs and what are the costs of each?
○    I am told that the cost difference is small (2%), thus militating against use of a metal building, but I would like to see a greater discussion of the details.
○    Masonry building last longer, but will things change so much in the 40 years that we might get from a metal building that whatever we build will no longer be serviceable.  Note that the town is currently looking at replacing 40 year old masonry block public safety buildings because they no longer meet the current needs of police and fire.
●    Would it be cheaper for the town to enter into a design, build, and operate agreement with a private developer to build the garage, or a sale and lease back of a completed garage on a long term basis?
○    Could such arrangements avoid the added construction costs the town faces when it does construction on its own – those costs are said to increase municipal construction costs by upwards of 25% (i.e. – could we save $2.5 m.)?
●    Can we repair the existing garage and build additions onto that structure?  What would be the costs, the savings, and the compromises?

The size and many choices make this building as expensive as it is, so the town must be certain that it needs all the things that are in the building.  To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirkson, “a million here, a million there, pretty soon you are talking real money.”  Let’s together make sure we are buying the right size, right building.

My To Do List for the Board of Selectmen

Today I created my To Do List of some items for the Board of Selectmen to work on as we start out on what is really our new town government year now that town meeting is over.  Let me know if you have things you think I should add.

1.    Town should show debt budgets out 10 years, as suggested by Jack Wolfe at the annual town meeting (ATM)
2.    Start succession planning for town departments
3.    Create more information for residents ahead of the ATM, perhaps lengthier descriptions of the articles and issues in the Warrant booklet
4.    We should start planning right now for the town and school budget for the next ATM in 2012.  The Board of Selectmen should reach out to the school committee to see if we can work cooperatively on a town wide budget, instead of the historic approach of separate town and school budgets.
5.    We need a fuller discussion/education process on the DPW garage, and perhaps the Board of Selectmen can facilitate that process at our meetings before the 5/23/11 election.
6.    Board of Selectmen should pull the trigger now to start the education process about the Medfield State Hospital project, regardless of when DCAM is ready to proceed.
7.    Routinize the process by which warrant articles are drafted – see more in the proposed annual town calendar below.  The Lyme disease and Energy Committees warrant articles did not work this year.
8.    Create and publish a calendar for conducting town business, working backwards from the ATM
a.    ATM
b.    Warrant Hearing
c.    When warrant articles must be finalized
d.    When warrant articles must be reviewed by town counsel
e.    When warrant articles must be reviewed by town administrator
f.    When warrant articles must be submitted
g.    Budget hearing
h.    The Board of Selectmen and Warrant Committee to meet to discuss and set the budget assumptions for the upcoming year
i.    Evaluation of town administrator
j.    Board of Selectmen sets goals for year
9.    Ken Feeney needs to deliver cost of installed street reflectors for bad corners
10.    Department Heads should annually submit written goals
11.    Determine whether the current town car use policy is the proper one – should any employees take town vehicles home
12.    Create a mechanism to thank and celebrate long term employees.
13.    Review use of overtime by town departments
14.    Lease from the MBTA of the land to create the Bay Colony Rail Trail

Municipal health insurance vote yesterday, per Massachusetts Municipal Association alert today – Rep. Winslow favored & Rep Garlick opposed

HOUSE OVERWHELMINGLY ADOPTS MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN DESIGN REFORM
113-42 Vote Embraces Key Municipal Priority Advanced by Speaker DeLeo and Chairman Dempsey Cities and Towns Would Have Ability to Make Plan Design Changes or Join GIC

April 27, 2011

At 11:03 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, the members of the House of Representatives, by an overwhelming vote of 113-42, adopted a strong municipal health insurance reform plan advanced by the Speaker and the House Ways and Means Committee. The MMA applauds the extraordinary leadership of Speaker DeLeo, Ways and Means Chairman Dempsey, Ways and Means Vice Chairs Kulik and Walz, Public Service Committee Chair Scibak, and all House members who voted to add the reform amendment to the fiscal 2012 state budget. The reform package includes the following provisions:

  • Adds a new Section 19A to Chapter 32B, which, if adopted by the Board of Selectmen in a town, the Mayor or City Manager and Council in a city, or by the school committee in a regional school district, allows the community or district to increase its co-pays, deductibles and other plan design features up to the level included in the most subscribed plan offered by the Group Insurance Commission, or to transfer its subscribers into the GIC if the community would save more through that option;
  • Requires the appropriate public authority (generally the municipal executive) to convene a meeting of a special committee comprised of a representative of each collective bargaining unit and a retiree representative, and submit the proposal to that “public employee committee” regarding the plan design changes or transfer to the GIC, and conduct a 30-day discussion period to discuss the details of the proposal and negotiate how to allocate 10 percent of one year’s estimated cost savings, provided that the allocation of the savings shall only be used for health related programs (such as an HRA or other related items) for active employees and retirees;
  • If the 30-day discussion results in an agreement with the committee, the community shall implement the changes and the 10 percent savings shall be allocated as agreed;
  • If the 30-day discussion does not result in an agreement with the committee, the community may implement the plan design changes or transfer as originally proposed, however the community shall set aside 20 percent of one year’s estimated savings for an HRA to offset costs for high utilizers and retirees (this provides an incentive to municipalities to reach an agreement with the committee, and is the House’s preferred alternative to binding arbitration, which is not in the amendment); and
  • The amendment makes it clear that the decision to implement plan design changes or enroll in the GIC is not subject to collective bargaining — the employee/employer contribution percentage is still subject to collective bargaining, as is any change in co-pays or deductibles that would exceed those in the GIC’s most subscribed plan.
    The MMA will be analyzing the final language adopted by the House, and will provide further information as more becomes available. In the meantime,please contact your Representatives today to thank them for their vote in support of reform (please see the list of “yes” votes below).

    This is one major step on the road to reform. Action will now turn to the Senate, which has passed labor-favored language on this issue for the past two years. This will be a major challenge, so please contact your Senators today as well to ask them to follow suit and support real and meaningful relief for cities and towns.

    Thank you for your tireless advocacy — you have made the difference in this effort!

    Representatives Voting Yes on Chairman Dempsey’s Amendment (roll call 51), listed in order of appearance on the roll call machine: DeLeo, Mariano, Haddad, C. Murphy, Aguiar, Arciero, Ashe, Atkins, Atsalis, Balser, Basile, Benson, Binienda, Bradley, Brownsberger, Cabral, Campbell, Canessa, Cariddi, Coakley-Rivera, Conroy, Costello, Curran, Dempsey, DiNatale, Donato, Dykema, Fernandes, Ferrante, Finn, Forry, Fox, Galvin, Garballey, Gobi, Hecht, Henriquez, Hogan, Holmes, Honan, Kafka, Kane, Kaufman, Keenan, Khan, Kocot, Koczera, Kulik, Lewis, Linsky, Madden, Malia, Markey, McMurtry, Michlewitz, Moran, J. Murphy, Nangle, Naughton, O’Flaherty, Peake, Pedone, Peisch, Pignatelli, Puppolo, Rogers, Rosa, Rushing, Sanchez, Sannicandro, Scaccia, Schmid, Scibak, Smith, Speliotis, H. Stanley, Story, Swan, Torrisi, Vallee, Wagner, C. Walsh, Walz, Jones, Peterson, Poirier, Adams, Barrows, Bastien, Beaton, Boldyga, deMacedo, D’Emilia, Diehl, Fattman, Ferguson, Frost, Gifford, Harrington, Howitt, Humason, Hunt, Kuros, Levy, Lombardo, Lyons, O’Connell, Ross, Smola, Vieira, Webster, and Wong.

emails re details of proposed new DPW garage

4/21/2011  5:35PM
RE: FW: Cost of building, Block vs. Metal
To “Ken Feeney” Michael Sullivan  Kristine Trierweiler
===========================================================
Ken,

Thanks for the info

Questions still outstanding –
1 – can I get a set of the plans?  Are the plans on-line for the residents to see?
2 – I thought I counted 34 parking places on the plan that was projected on the wall at the last meeting.  Are there two vehicles parked per bay?
3 – will DPW be giving up its offices in the Town House after the garage is built?
4 – can I get a list of the vehicles that the town is looking to garage?

Thanks

Best,
Pete
Osler L. Peterson, Attorney at Law
PETERSON | Law
580 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02458
66 North St, PO Box 358, Medfield, MA 02052
T 617.969.1500
T 617.969.1501 (direct)
M 508-359-9190
F 617.663.6008
osler.peterson@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/osler.peterson/
Medfield Information at: FB, https://medfield02052.wordpress.com/ & http://twitter.com/Medfield

—– Original Message —–
From: “Ken Feeney”
To: “‘Osler L. Peterson'”
Sent: 4/21/2011 4:55PM
Subject: RE: FW: Cost of building, Block vs. Metal

Hi Pete,
The garage has 18 parking bays, 1 truck wash bay and 3 mechanics bays with 2 truck lifts. That makes a total of 22 bays.
The Superintendent and three Foremen take vehicles home.
We have forty major pieces of equipment.
Block heaters are huge consumers of electricity and I would worry that they may cause a fire and their longevity would not be good.
Block heaters would not help the hydraulic systems or air brakes on the trucks.
The new truck wash will help to take care of any corrosion problems that we might encounter.
The building committee took a long hard look at the size and decided to go with the design that you see.
They took into consideration future needs and that the school maintenance department will be moving in.
In the office area, we are allowing space for plan storage from the Town Hall freeing up some of the clutter in their storage area.
The town server will be moved to the new facility helping Town Hall free up a meeting room.
The new office space will have a conference room to accommodate various committee meetings.
A space is set aside for the backup radio system for police and fire.

Ken

—–Original Message—–
From: Osler L. Peterson [mailto:osler.peterson@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 4:46 PM
To: Michael Sullivan; Ken Feeney
Subject: RE: FW: Cost of building, Block vs. Metal

Ken,

Thanks for that cost comparison data.

Some more of the questions I still need answered include the following:
1 – Do we really need 34 bays?  How many vehicles are we looking to house?  Can we have fewer bays where employees drive many vehicles home at night?
2 – Should we be heating the bays or would plug in block heaters work equally well (I understand one gets less vehicle corrosion in garages that are not heated)?
3 – Has the size of the building been pared down as much as possible?

Can you email me a set of plans to review?

Thanks.

Best,
Pete
Osler L. Peterson, Attorney at Law
PETERSON | Law
580 Washington Street, Newton, MA 02458
66 North St, PO Box 358, Medfield, MA 02052
T 617.969.1500
T 617.969.1501 (direct)
M 508-359-9190
F 617.663.6008
osler.peterson@verizon.net
http://mysite.verizon.net/osler.peterson/
Medfield Information at: FB, https://medfield02052.wordpress.com/ & http://twitter.com/Medfield

—– Original Message —–
From: “Michael Sullivan”
To: “‘Osler L. Peterson'” , , “‘Mark Fisher'” , “‘Tim Bonfatti'”
Sent: 4/20/2011 4:29PM
Subject: FW: Cost of building, Block vs. Metal

FYI. Below are the comparative costs for the masonry block vs. metal panel siding. Mike Sullivan

From: Vaughan Totovian [mailto:vtotovian@HNTB.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:50 PM
To: ‘Ken Feeney’; ‘Mike Sullivan’
Cc: Mohammad Saleemuddin
Subject: Cost of building, Block vs. Metal

Ken,

As per our phone conversation, Mohammad provided me with the cost estimates you requested.

Steel frame, metal panel siding:                           $5,872,000.00
Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Block Siding:     $6,137,000.00

Results in a savings of $265,000.00 for construction cost. However, metal siding will require more maintenance and is less durable and may end up costing more over the life of the building.

These are in late 2008/early 2009 dollars.

Regards,
Vaughan Totovian, PE
Project Manager
HNTB Corporation
31 St. James Avenue, Suite 300
Boston, MA 02116
Direct: 617-532-2294

Mike Sullivan email to Patch explains cost of two overrides

The average cost of a house in Medfield, according to the Assessor’s office is $564,400. The first full year of the debt service on a $10 million bond issue for the town garage is estimated at $900,000 ($500,000 principal and $400,000 interest) This would result in a $0.40 increase in the tax rate which would amount to an increase of $225.76 on the average home. Anyone who want to figure it on their own home can just divide their property valuation by 1,000. and multiply that amount by $0.40. For example, for a house assessed for $500,000 the tax impact would be $500,000/1,000 or 500 X $0.40 = $200. This would decrease by a small amount each successive year, because the interest payment would be decreasing and after the bonds were paid off (twenty years) it would disappear from the tax levy.

The budget operating override is estimated at $500,000. This would result in $0.22 increase in the fy12 tax rate which would amount to an increase of $124.17 on the average home($564,400). Anyone who wants to figure it on their own home can just divide their property valuation by 1,000. and multiply that amount by $0.22. For example, for a house assessed for $500,000 the tax impact would be $500,000/1,000 or 500 x $0.22 = $110. The last operating override was approved by the voters in 2008 for use in fy2009. The amount of that operating override was $850,000. There were no operating overrides voted in 2009 or 2010.  Unlike a debt exclusion override, which disappears when the bonds are paid off, an operating override becomes part of the tax levy base.

The debt service payments on existing town debt have been going down for several years and will continue to go down. At peak in fy2005 the Town’s debt annual debt service payments were $7,399,265. For next year, fy12, the Town’s annual debt service payments will be $5,685,266. This is a decrease of $1,713,999 or 23.2%.  In five more years the this figure will go down to $4,095,788, a further decrease of $1,589,478 or 21.5%, as the bonds on the library, town hall, 92 high school renovation and other capital projects are paid off. In addition, the Town has more than $20 million in School Building Assistance reimbursements and sewer betterment assessment revenues, with which to pay off this debt. As of June 30, 2011 the outstanding principal on Town debt will be $40,308,906 and the outstanding interest will be $9,718,089 for a total outstanding principal and interest of $50,026,995. Principal is being paid off at a rate of just over $4,000,000/year.   As a result, the Town is in a good position address its future capital needs.

Time to go home. Mike Sullivan

$10 m. DPW Garage

Warrant Committee and the Board of Selectmen attended the meeting last night of the Medfield Building Committee, at which the proposed new  $10 m. DPW garage was the topic of discussion.  The Building voted to endorse funding the new DPW garage at the annual town meeting (ATM) on 4/25/11.

I told those in attendance what I told Mike Sullivan a couple of weeks ago when he first told me that the Warrant Committee was suggesting that the town fund the garage at the ATM. namely that I know we need a new DPW garage, but that I have not seen enough information yet to know that this is the size and scope of the garage that is required and/or that we need to spend $10 m.  There was nothing at the meeting last night that got me any closer to knowing that this is the right garage at the right price.

DLS Alerts email this afternoon

On April 14, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution declaring its intent to fund Chapter 70 and Unrestricted General Government Aid at levels not less than the amounts appearing in the House Ways and Means Committee’s budget

Governor’s budget would reduce Medfield’s local aid by 1% only

Massachusetts Department of Revenue

Division of Local Services

FY2012 Local Aid Estimates

MEDFIELD


FY2011 Cherry Sheet Estimate FY2012 Governor’s Budget (H1) Difference
Education:      
Chapter 70* 5,590,203 5,620,214 30,011
School Transportation 0 0 0
Charter Tuition Reimbursement 9,307 2,260 -7,047
Offset Receipts:      
School Lunch 9,744 10,893 1,149
School Choice Receiving Tuition 0 0 0
Sub-Total, All Education Items 5,609,254 5,633,367 24,113
       
General Government:      
Unrestricted General Government Aid 1,226,088 1,137,437 -88,651
Local Share of Racing Taxes 0 0 0
Regional Public Libraries 0 0 0
Police Career Incentive 7,305 6,813 – 492
Urban Renewal Projects 0 0 0
Veterans’ Benefits 1,215 520 – 695
State Owned Land 30,265 30,153 – 112
Exemptions: Vets, Blind, Surviving Spouses

& Elderly

27,349 26,482 – 867
Offset Receipts:      
Public Libraries 13,685 13,336 – 349
Sub-Total, All General Government 1,305,907 1,214,741 -91,166
 
Total Estimated Receipts 6,915,161 6,848,108 -67,053
     

 

 

 

*FY2011 Chapter 70 does not include State Fiscal Stabilization Funds of $30,011.

Governors budget numbers for Medfield

Just fyi from the Governors budget.   john

 

Municipality/Regional District 7061-0008 Chapter 70 Unrestricted General Government Aid Potential Total Section 3 Local Aid (Contingent Upon Allocation of Federal Funds)
MEDFIELD (FY’11 numbers) $5,937,045.00 $1,277,175.00 $7,214,220.00
Governors FY $5,620,214.00 $1,137,437.00 $0.00
House Budget $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Senate Budget $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Conference Committee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

 

 

 

John Nunnari, Assoc AIA
Executive Director, AIA MA
jnunnari@architects.org
617-951-1433 x263
617-951-0845 (fax)

MA Chapter of American Institute of Architects
The Architects Building
52 Broad Street, Boston MA 02109-4301
www.architects.org

 

Norfolk Selectman Association meeting

Attended Norfolk Selectman Association meeting last night – focused on regional services for towns, provided via Norfolk County government.

Norfolk County’s budget is way down – by way of example, the County Engineering Department has been reduced from 13 FTE to 5 FTE employees.   In rough numbers, of the $25 m. per year county budget, $5 m. goes to the Aggie School, $3 m. to the Norfolk Registry of Deeds, and a large portion goes to cover legacy costs from the former county hospital that has been closed (i.e – pensions and health insurance for former hospital employees).

The Norfolk County government is seeking legislation to add $10 to the fee to record documents, from $75 to $85.  $45 of that fee currently goes to the state, $25 to the Community Preservation Act funding, and the county government gets the remaining $10.  It generates $1.4 m. per year for Norfolk County.  The new monies would be used to create regional solutions to municipal needs, such as veterans agents, animal control, dispatch, assessing, and collections.

If Norfolk County government ceased to exist, the towns get a bad deal.  Under the state system, the legacy costs of the county would be assessed against the municipalities in the county, but the county income that formerly used to pay those costs will go instead to the state.