Category Archives: Buildings

Tonight – Dale Street School Workshop

Posted on December 9, 2019 | Comments Off on Tonight – Dale Street School Workshop

From Anna Mae O’Shea Brooke –

Please Join the Town of Medfield, Medfield Public Schools and the Dale Street School Building Committee for a Community Educational Visioning Workshop Monday, December 9, 2019 6:00PM – 8:00PM Dale Street School Cafeteria, 45 Adams Street, Medfield, MA Come help us begin the Educational Programming Phase for the new Dale Street Elementary School. With the help of our Educational Planner, David Stephen of New Vista Design and Educational Planner, Emily Grandstaff-Rice of Arrowstreet, we as a community will collaborate, explore and shape Medfield’s educational vision for the new school. In turn, we will begin to define how to best manifest this vision into the architecture of the school. DALE STREET SCHOOL PROJECT Agenda:  MSBA Process and educational Visioning Overview  Priority Goals for the New or Renovation/ Addition School  21st Century Teaching and Learning  Design Patterns  Guiding Principles  Discussion of Options  Recording of the Dale Street School‘s Strengths, Challenges, Opportunities and Goals as Connected to the School’s Design Goals https://www.medfield.net/dale-street-project

Comments Off on Tonight – Dale Street School Workshop

Posted in Buildings, Planning, Schools

LED lights in all schools

Posted on August 13, 2019 | Comments Off on LED lights in all schools

Facilities Director, Amy Colleran, shared in advance of the Medfield Energy Committee meeting this evening that the schools are replacing all lights in all school buildings to effect an annual $123,000 estimated energy savings.  The cost to do the swap is 100% paid for by Eversource grants.

This is the projected savings for the Medfield High School, our biggest building.

Financial Summary Energy Conservation Measure PROJECT TOTAL COST Estimated Incentive CUSTOMER COST ROI AC & Maintenance Savings SIMPLE PAYBACK (YEARS) Estimated Annual Energy Savings ($) Lighting $88,334.00 $88,334.00 $0.00 0% $14,670 0.0 $41,142.00 Total $88,334.00 $88,334.00 $0.00 0% $14,670 0.0 $41,142.00 $4,651.00 Monthly Cost of Delay KWH SAVINGS 242,014 Town of Medfield High School $0 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 Year 1Year 1Year 1 Year 1 Year 2Year 2Year 2 Year 2 Year 3Year 3Year 3 Year 3 Year 4Year 4 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5Year 5Year 5 Year 5 Year 6Year 6Year 6 Year 6 Year 7Year 7Year 7 Year 7 Year 8Year 8Year 8 Year 8 Year 9Year 9Year 9 Year 9 Year 10Year 10Year 10 Year 10 10 Year Energy Savings 10 Year Energy Savings10 Year Energy Savings 10 Year Energy Savings10 Year Energy Savings 10 Year Energy Savings 10 Year Energy Savings

Savings at the Blake Middle School are about $25,000/year, $15,000 at Memorial and Wheelock, and $13,000 at Dale Street.

Comments Off on LED lights in all schools

Posted in Buildings, Energy Committee, Green

Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

Posted on November 27, 2018 | Comments Off on Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

I just responded to a great comment from Nic Scalfarotto, and since my general sense is that such comments and my replies are not likely seem by many, and sense Nic raised a big issue, I thought I would post both his comment and my reply here so more can see them.

Nic, I added a little more on as well.

========================================================

Nic Scalfarotto

34 minutes ago
User Info
Assessors tax classification hearing

Accepting that developing differential tax rates would not provide benefit to home owners because there is a small industrial base, a plan to address the lack of such a base needs to be developed and communicated to residents.

==============================================================

Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

As a new selectman, my first search was for businesses that wanted to locate in town, and when that did not seem a likely result, I have turned to having a town policy of building housing that is revenue positive to the town.

We know that people want to live in town, but mainly not build businesses here. The can make tax money and reduce our current residents’ taxes by building the kind of housing that is more profitable, such as Old Village Square (42 units paying over $600K/year in taxes, with one school child the last time I heard) or the two Larkin brothers projects (Glover Place off North Street and Chapel Hill on Hospital Road, again, both with few school children).

See the analysis that Kathy McCabe, the consultant to the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee, did of the potential taxes to the town from leasing the lot 3 land the town owns on Ice House Road to build 42 units of senior housing versus leasing to a commercial facility, and the town netted either more than double or more that triple the taxes from the residential use over the sports complex, depending on whether the  housing was either 100% or 25% affordable, respectively.  Those results were summarized in Steve Nolan’s 1/2/2018 memo to the Board of Selectmen available here –20180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 – final sent to BoS and inserted below as well.

I think that many of the friendly 40B projects that we are currently allowing in order to be in safe harbor, will be revenue positive. Statistically, we are told that we will likely average about 1.5 school children per in single family houses, while we will likely average 0.15 school children per unit in multifamily housing. So multifamily housing may well be revenue positive for the town, even if not age restricted.

Additionally, the town is already mainly single family homes, so we really do not need any more single family homes options, while we do not have a sufficient variety of other housing opportunities for residents, especially for seniors. Current proposals in the pipeline will assist at filling in that gap:
8 units on North Street (two developments)
36 units on Dale Street
16 units on Adams Street, age restricted
42 units at the Rosebay, age restricted
56 units (from memory) at The Legion site

However, such diversification of the tax base can only accomplish so much with respect to reducing our individual tax bills. The other issue with which we need to deal is the town’s willing to spend, witness our vote at the last annual town meeting (ATM) to increase our tax bills by about 10%, over the objections of the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee.

===============================================

MEMORANDUM TO: Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee FROM: Stephen M. Nolan, Chair Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee RE: Hinkley Property and Lot 3, Ice House Road DATE: January 2, 2018 The original charge from the Board of Selectmen to the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee (the "Committee") included Lot 3 on Ice House Road (“Lot 3”) and the adjacent Hinkley property (the “Hinkley Property”). It was our understanding that we were to take a fresh look at Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property in order to decide the most appropriate use for each parcel and how they might best be coordinated with the re-use plan for the Medfield State Hospital (“MSH”) core campus. It has since become clear that at least one of member of the Board of Selectmen believes that the best use for Lot 3 is an indoor sports facility, so that preference should be accommodated if possible in our final plan. A. Possible Uses of Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property. The consensus that has emerged from our public sessions, our meetings with the Council on Aging and the Senior Housing Study Committee and Committee deliberations is that the most desirable use for Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property is senior housing. The principal reasons for this are twofold: access to The Center and the possibility that a senior housing development could happen on a more expedited basis than the re-development of the MSH core campus because infrastructure is more readily available and the properties could be disposed of on an expedited track. The Council on Aging has expressed potential willingness to cede a small portion of the land at the corner of The Center adjacent to the Hinkley Property for purposes of enhancing the development potential of the Hinkley Property. The possible use of Lot 3 as an indoor sports facility on the other hand would respect a past Town Meeting vote to devote Lot 3 to an indoor sports facility and would increase the commercial tax base of the Town. On the latter point, our consultant, Kathy McCabe, did some research on the likely tax revenue from such a facility. Since the developable area of Lot 3 is only approximately 4.8 acres, the lot cannot support a large facility. Based on a survey of indoor sports facilities in MetroWest, it appears that a site of approximately 5 acres can likely support a facility of 100,000 square feet or less. The Forekicks facility in Norfolk is approximately 83,000 square feet and has a tax valuation of $5,000,000. Using that valuation as a basis for comparison, a 100,000 square foot facility would have a valuation of approximately $6,000,000, which would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $100,000. Kathy McCabe estimates that a 100% affordable senior rental housing project with 42 units would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $240,000 and the same project with only 25% of the units affordable (which would still qualify as 42 affordable units on DHCD’s Subsidized Housing Inventory) would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $320,000. So the revenue to the Town from a senior housing project would likely be significantly greater than the tax revenue of an indoor sports complex. This revenue must be off-set, however, by municipal expenses, which for 42 units of housing would be approximately $108,000 (assuming no school children). We have not been able to quantify the additional municipal services (traffic control, emergency services, road maintenance, snow-plowing) from a sports facility, but they should be factored into the cost-benefit analysis at some point. Even ignoring those costs, the net impact of a 100% affordable senior rental project would be at least $30,000 greater than an indoor sports facility while a 25% affordable senior rental project would be at least $110,000 more favorable to the Town budget than an indoor sports complex. Other possible impacts to be considered include traffic. Our consultant has advised that a sports facility on Lot 3 would create considerably greater traffic and possible over-flow parking than a 42-unit senior rental housing project, which could negatively impact The Center and a possible senior-appropriate homeownership development at the Hinkley Property. For example, parking at Forekicks in Norfolk requires about 1.7 acres, roughly equivalent to the size of the facility itself. Ingress and egress to and from the Norfolk Forekicks parking lots is a very serious problem during change-over times when cars are both entering and exiting the facility. In inclement weather conditions with snow and ice the traffic impacts are even worse. One other factor to be considered in deciding the possible use of Lot 3 is the Town’s disposition process. The difficulty in disposing of Lot 3 for a sports facility is that the Kingsbury Club has a provision in its lease that prohibits the Town from allowing a sports facility at Lot 3 without the consent of the Kingsbury Club. The Kingsbury Club has announced its interest in developing a sports facility on Lot 3, which suggests that the Kingsbury Club might use its consent right to thwart other possible developers interested in developing Lot 3 for a recreational facility. This needs to be factored into any possible disposition strategy for Lot 3. B. Rezoning. Lot 3 is already zoned to permit an indoor sports facility. The proposed overlay zoning being considered by the Committee would allow the development of both parcels for housing. The disposition process, described below, would need to control the use of each parcel. By using an overlay district, the underlying zoning of Lot 3 can be left intact, thus allowing for either housing or an indoor sports facility on Lot 3, depending on the Town’s preferences. If Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property are zoned for as-of-right housing under the Committee’s overlay zoning, a developer could start the development process as soon as disposition were completed, avoiding the process for obtaining a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, a process that can be time-consuming and expensive. We should consider whether to exempt the houses on the Hinkley Property from the Town’s inclusionary housing bylaw in order to allow more flexibility in providing as many dwellings as possible at a moderate (although not 40B compliant) price-point. We should also consider including duplexes, at least for the moderately-priced units, in order to further reduce prices. C. Potential Disposition Process and Timing. The disposition process for Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property should be handled by either the Affordable Housing Trust or the Affordable Housing Committee if they are to be developed as housing or, in the case of Lot 3, by another committee, such as the Economic Development Committee, if it is to be developed as an indoor sports facility. The Selectmen should decide on the appropriate body to handle the dispositions so that they can be placed on the market as soon as possible to address the desire for senior housing. The Selectmen and the Affordable Housing Trust will also need to decide on whether to provide a subsidy to developers in order to encourage moderate sales prices on the homeownership units to be constructed at the Hinkley Property. That decision is a complicated one because the seniors who would likely purchase the units are not likely to qualify under any governmental program providing subsidies for affordable housing creation and the units would not qualify for the Subsidized Housing Inventory. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the price of new single-family homes, even those of smaller size and senior-appropriate design are likely to exceed $750,000. The Senior Study Committee has requested that homes be priced in the area of $400,000. Such a price-point would likely require a subsidy even beyond free land, so the Selectmen or the Affordable Housing Trust would need to decide to whether to provide an additional cash subsidy or allow developers to compete based on the number of units to be made available at the $400,000 price point. In other words, developers would bid not based on price, but rather on the number of units to be sold to seniors at $400,000. This would be a complicated disposition because some minimum specifications for the moderately-priced units would need to be incorporated, as would a local preference for those units. In addition, this decision must consider the equity and fairness in providing implicit or direct subsidies (through low or zero land values or cash subsidies) for one selected group -- such as senior citizens -- and not other worthy groups such as returning veterans or persons with physical or developmental disabilities. The selection of potential buyers of moderately-priced homes is also a matter that must be decided. Given that the Town would be providing a subsidy in the form of free land, questions will arise as to whether purchasers should be means tested or otherwise selected based on need. That is another issue that the Selectmen will need to resolve. Because Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property are not located at the MSH core campus and will have separate infrastructure needs, there appears to be no reason why the Town should not proceed to prepare a disposition RFP that would allow for selection of a preferred developer promptly after Special Town Meeting approval of the re-zoning. The 42-unit rental project on Lot 3, if initiated promptly, could help provide the Town with a two-year extension of the 40B safe harbor that is currently in effect.20180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_220180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_320180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_4

Comments Off on Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

Posted in Budgets, Buildings, Business, Financial, Planning, Select Board matters

Rosebay follow up #2

Posted on November 13, 2018 | Comments Off on Rosebay follow up #2

Rosebay

EMAIL EXCHANGE THIS AFTERNOON BETWEEN TOWN PLANNER AND NEIGHBOR:

Email from neighbor =  “Our main concern is the scale of the project is massive in relation to the neighborhood.”

 

Sarah Raposa email back = The Planning Board will be requesting that the ZBA include architectural and design review as part of the the ZBA’s technical review process in order to find ways to reduce the height and bulk of the building.

Sarah

Sarah Raposa, AICP

Town Planner
459 Main Street
Medfield, MA  02052
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net

www.town.medfield.net

 

 

Comments Off on Rosebay follow up #2

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Buildings, Development, Downtown, Zoning

Status of Rosebay

Posted on October 23, 2018 | 8 comments

Rosebay

Town Status on the Rosebay Project

I have been asked enough about the status of the Rosebay project that I thought I would share what I know.  Rosebay is the private development proposal for 45 units of senior affordable housing on Medfield Housing Authority land that is directly adjacent to Tilden Village on Pound Street.  Rosebay would be all seniors, all rental, and all affordable.  The developer is Brian McMillin of NewGate Housing LLC of Westwood, who was selected by the Medfield Housing Authority.  Brian McMillin previously worked for Gatehouse, at the time Gatehouse built The Parc in Medfield.

In general, the Board of Selectmen have been pushing to have more affordable housing, especially for seniors, so conceptually I support the Rosebay project.

The town’s active and effective Affordable Housing Trust has been meeting with the Rosebay developer and I understand that the Affordable Housing Trust has been advancing the Rosebay project as part of the town’s solution to our affordable housing needs.  I also believe that the Affordable Housing Trust even provided some monies for fees to that developer to advance the project.

The Town of Medfield is in a good spot at the moment with respect to unfriendly 40B proposals because we are currently in a safe harbor, meaning that:

  1. we have a Housing Production Plan that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has accepted, and
  2. we are currently building 21 SHI units per year.

I believe that we have about another year and a half of safe harbor remaining, but we also have several irons in the fire that could extend that time frame.

So as long as we remain in that safe harbor, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Medfield can turn down any 40B that it does not like on the basis that we are in that safe harbor, and the developer cannot end run the town by appealing for state approval to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) at the DHCD for an approval.  The HAC routinely approves any developer’s 40B developments turned down by towns, but the HAC will not overturn a ZBA denial based on our being in a safe harbor, while we continue to be in that safe harbor.

The Board of Selectmen will soon send a letter to Department of Housing and Community Development opining about the suitability of the Rosebay project in general, and we would welcome citizen input as part of our formulation of that letter.

The project is not looking to be a Local Initiative Project (LIP), which is a town endorsed 40B.  The need for that town endorsement of a LIP gives the Board of Selectmen a high level of control over any LIP.  The Board of Selectmen therefore does not have that same high level of input and control over Rosebay that we would have if it were a LIP.

In this instance the Zoning Board of Appeals will be the main town entity that will deal with the nuts and bolts issues of the Rosebay project, and that will seek to ameliorate the proposed project and its impacts on both the neighbors and the town.  The ZBA has even greater than usual control over the Rosebay proposal, because of the fact that we are in a 40B safe harbor, and any ZBA denial should be supported by the HAC.

I am trusting the Zoning Board of Appeals to see that the details are worked out as well as they can be so as to minimize the impacts and effects of the project on the neighbors.

8 Comments

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Buildings, Development, Downtown, Permitting, Select Board matters, Seniors, Zoning

The Rosebay at Medfield

Posted on August 18, 2018 | Comments Off on The Rosebay at Medfield

Today I got this email follow up, below, from the developer that the Medfield Housing Authority selected for the proposed project on Medfield Housing Authority land next to Tilden Village.  I also met with the Legion and its developers this week about their plans, and the issue of how their timing fits in to the town’s safe harbor needs, so I asked Brain McMillin about the timing of his plan, and he reported  “it’s not out of the question that it could take until 2022 or 2023 until these units are ready to be leased up.”  –

 

Rosebay

 

I should probably point out that The Rosebay at Medfield is not public housing, so it is technically not an expansion of Tilden Village.  It will be a privately-owned development located on land leased from the Medfield Housing Authority under a long-term ground lease.

Although it will not be public housing like Tilden Village, all of the units in the proposed development would still be affordable and age-restricted (62+) to meet the Housing Authority’s requirements.  For the Town of Medfield, all 45 of the proposed units would count toward its Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory and further goals stated under its Housing Production Plan.

The basic structure we have proposed is fairly common and has been used around the country for privately-owned developments built on housing authority land.  We are aware, however, that that it may require some explanation and we plan to provide that detail during our Comprehensive Permit hearing before the Zoning Board.

 

Regards,

 

Brian J. McMillin | NewGate Housing LLC

Comments Off on The Rosebay at Medfield

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Buildings, Development, Downtown, Seniors

LCB restart

Posted on May 17, 2018 | Comments Off on LCB restart

LCB

The permitting for the proposed LCB assisted living facility behind the Clark Tavern on Main Street with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board is starting up again with a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on 5/23 at 7PM at the Blake Middle School auditorium.  In advance of that ZBA hearing Town Planner, Sarah Raposa circulated the most recent peer review by the town’s engineering consultants, BETA Engineering, dated 4/19/2016, which gives a summary of where things stand.

20160419-BETA-Medfield Senior Living Peer Review (002)

 

Also, I believe that there are still two outstanding and as yet unresolved apeals by LCB of the wetlands determination issues by the Town of Medfield Conservation Commission.  I understand those appeals are pending with the state DEP and at the Norfolk Superior Court.  The ConCom determined that Vine Brook is a “perennial stream” (i.e. it flows year round) and as a result that building setbacks are subject to the 200′ Rivers Act requirements.  I believe that LCB takes the position that Vine Brook is only “intermittent,” and that therefore the Rivers Act setback do not control.

 

Below is Sarah’s transmission email to town department heads –

===============================================================

LCB is coming back from continuance-hiatus next Wednesday night (5/23) with the ZBA. I wanted to refresh your memories on the project and where Beta is at with the reviews. The application and plans may be viewed here: Dropbox Link

Attached is the most recent civil and traffic engineering review from Beta.

 

For some departments, your predecessors submitted comments on the project. Previously submitted comments are HERE. You may wish to update departmental comments, if so, please provide written comments by next Wednesday at 10 am.

 

Looking closely, I don’t having anything from the Fire Department (though I know Chief Kingsbury reviewed the plan).

 

I did not include the COA and School Dept. in 2015 but feel free to submit if you have any comments for the ZBA.

 

I do have several documents from the Historical Commission that I didn’t attach here but are online. I know you’ll be at the meeting on Wednesday to submit comments in person.

 

All are welcome to the public hearing session: Wednesday, May 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm at the Blake Middle School Auditorium.

 

Thank you,

Sarah

 

 

Sarah Raposa, AICP

Town Planner
459 Main Street
Medfield, MA  02052
(508) 906-3027
sraposa@medfield.net

 

Comments Off on LCB restart

Posted in Buildings, Business, Development, Downtown, Permitting, Planning, Zoning

Dwight-Derby House water issues

Posted on November 7, 2017 | Comments Off on Dwight-Derby House water issues

Dwight-Derby House-2

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Medfield Public Schools
459MainStreet
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052
Director of Facilities
Gerard McCarty, Director
508-906-3068
MEMORANDUM

TO: Michael Sullivan
FROM: Jerry McCarty
DATE: November 2, 2017
RE: Dwight Derby House Funds

The Dwight Derby House Historical Committee has approximately $10,000 in funds for repairs for the Dwight Derby House (DDH). The two projects that the Committee want to address are the Gutters and the sump pump/drainage.

This memo is to address the sump pump/drainage issue. The DDH incurs an excessive amount of ground water during the wet season. If not addressed, ground water rises to a level that impacts the basement crawl space heating system which is suspended from the floor above.. Currently, the DDH has a sump pit on the west side of the house which discharged into the sewer line, which is not permitted. To address the excessive ground water, and correct a discharge violation, my office is installing a new exterior discharge and drainage bed system on the east side of the property. The materials cost will come out of the above mentioned fund.

In an effort to save cost, I propose using some of the fund to pay DPW employees overtime to perform this machine work in digging trenches and installing stone (estimated cost of labor is $1000). This effort will be cheaper than having to bid and outsource this work. With the good fall weather, the DPW has been concentrating its effort on doing road projects in preparation for winter. By doing the DDH work on overtime hours, this project will not tie up men or machine work of the DPW to do its core function of road preparation, and will be cheaper bidding and outsourcing work.

Please let me know how I should proceed with this project.

Comments Off on Dwight-Derby House water issues

Posted in Buildings, Downtown, History

MCC at PB

Posted on November 7, 2017 | Comments Off on MCC at PB

After listening to the last planning board hearings on the Medfield Children’s Center petition for site plan approval of its proposed new child care facility at 75 High Street, I concluded that the planning board will approve that petition, with the conditions discussed last night.  The planning board closed the hearing last night, will next await any Board of Health action, and then the planning board will formally vote on the petition for site plan approval at its 12/4/17 meeting.

It is my understanding that the zoning compliance issues will need to be decided by the Building Commissioner, or the Zoning Board of Appeals if he defers to the issues to the ZBA.  It is my understanding that the lot does not have the minimum width required of lots, that the parking will not comply with the bylaw requirements, and additionally the lot is subject to a 1975 variance that limits any use to one single family home.

The Medfield Children’s Center currently operates child care facilities in both the Baptist Church and Episcopal Church in the downtown, and I believe the churches are looking to reclaim their spaces.  The Medfield Children’s Center looking to consolidate its operations in one location.

This was the crowd at the start of the hour long hearing before the planning board last night –

20171106 202104

20171106 202104

Comments Off on MCC at PB

Posted in Buildings, Children, Development, Permitting, Planning

Public Safety Building was a bargain

Posted on November 7, 2017 | Comments Off on Public Safety Building was a bargain

The table below about Public Safety Building costs was shared this week, first by a Gilbane Construction employee with Mike Quinlan, chair of the Building Committee, then to Mike Sullivan, and then to the Board of Selectmen.

To me it is reassuring to see both that the cost of our Public Safety Building was relatively low, but also that our size comports with what other towns are deciding to build, which reaffirms the appropriateness of the recommendations of the Building Committee about the size of a building that was needed.  Congratulations and thanks are again in order to the Building Committee for successfully steering the town through that project!

I have had many meetings in both conference rooms that are available for public use in the Public Safety Building, and can attest to both their quality and utility.

Publis safety bld prices

 

This was the accompanying email from Mike Sullivan that makes our low cost per sq. ft. even more remarkable –

FYI. This came in this morning from Mike Quinlan. Confirms what we’ve been hearing about what a good price (relatively) we got on out public safety building. Especially since our project included construction of the Dale St. School parking lot, repair of the Adams Street basketball/tennis court, and installation of solar panels. Even better, we still have over $500K left in out accounts. Mike S

Comments Off on Public Safety Building was a bargain

Posted in Buildings, Financial, Fire Department, Police Department