Category Archives: Police Department

New sidewalk rankings

Posted on February 16, 2016 | Comments Off on New sidewalk rankings

sidewalk

Tonight the BoS will discuss the input from DPW, the schools, and Police on what the town order of priorities should be for new sidewalk construction in town.  These are the recommendations from those three:

The Superintendent of Public Works recommendations, in order of preference,
for new sidewalks is as follows:

1. Metacomet from South Street to Pleasant Street.
2. Adams Street from Dale Street to West Street.
3. Adams Street from West Street to West Mill Street.
4. West Mill Street from Adams Street to Ice House Road.
5. Dale Street near Charlesdale.
6. Ice House road to Copperwood.

school department would request sidewalks at the following streets:

Metacomet St- This would be our first priority
Adams St.- Important for Dale St. students
Green St. to Summer St.- This would finish the area that began last year
Friary St.- This will help with planned adjustments to bus routes

From Police Chief Meaney
Recommended sidewalk construction:

Metacomet Street; Dale street; East Main Street

 

Let the selectmen know today if you have an opinion.

Comments Off on New sidewalk rankings

Posted in Downtown, DPW, Police Department, Schools, Uncategorized

Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal

Posted on February 6, 2016 | Comments Off on Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal

Hannah-Adams-Rte-27-South150

A traffic signal is needed at the Rte. 27 intersection with South Street, because of traffic volumes and backups, per a January 19 letter from traffic engineers hired by Chief Meaney to study the need, summarizing their recent study.  The traffic signal is projected to cost about $200,000.

Reportedly, however, Mike Sullivan says Chief Meaney is considering whether to ask the town meeting to proceed with that traffic signal or one for the intersection of Rte. 27 and West Street, which has a high number of accidents, many of which have been serious due the speeds of the vehicles.

The letter appears below and as a more readable PDF is here  20160119-mcmanus-town of medfield_route 27 (spring street) at south street_signal memo (2…

McMAHON  ASSOCIATES
300 Myles Standish Boulevard | Suite 201 | Taunton, MA 02780
p 508-823-2245| f 508-823-2246
mcmahon a ssociates.com
PR INCI PA LS
Joseph W. McMahon, P.E. Joseph J. DeSantis, P.E., PTOE
John S. DePalma William T. Steffens Casey A. Moore, P.E.
Gary R. McNaughton, P.E., PTOE

A SSOCIA T ES
John J. Mitchell, P.E. Christopher J. Williams, P.E.
R. Trent Ebersole, P.E. Matthew M. Kozsuch, P.E. Maureen Chlebek, P.E., PTOE
Corporate Headquarters: Fort Washington, Pennsylvania
Serving the East Coast from 13 offices throughout the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Florida

January 19, 2016
DRAFT

Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr. Medfield Police Department 110 North Street
Medfield, MA 02052
RE:

Route 27 at South Street ‐ Medfield, MA

Dear Chief Meaney:
McMahon Associates has completed a traffic warrant analysis at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring
Street/High Street) at South Street in Medfield, Massachusetts. The purpose of this study is to
evaluate existing traffic conditions at the intersection and to determine if a traffic signal is
warranted. Our assessment is based on a review of current traffic volumes, accident data, and
anticipated traffic growth over a 10‐year period. This study examines and documents future
conditions under unsignalized and signalized scenarios.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area is composed of the two intersections of Route 27 with South Street, which are offset
intersections approximately 600 feet apart. The study area intersections are displayed in the
attached Figure 1. The southerly intersection of Route 27 (High Street) and South Street is
currently signalized, while the northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street
is unsignalized, with free‐flowing traffic on Route 27 and stop control on South Street.

Route 27 (Spring Street/High Street) is a two‐way, two‐lane urban principal arterial under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction. Route 27 is approximately 30 feet in width providing one‐foot wide shoulders
on either side of the roadway and generally runs in the north‐south direction through the Town of
Medfield. Route 27 currently has a posted speed limit of 40 miles an hour in the study area.

Both segments of South Street are two‐lane, two‐way urban minor arterials also under Town of
Medfield jurisdiction, which runs in the east‐west direction through the Town of Medfield. The two
segments of South Streets have shoulder widths varying from one to three feet on either
side, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour in the study area.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 2 of 9

Route 27 (High Street) at South Street
At the southerly intersection with South Street, Route 27 (High Street) provides a through lane and
exclusive right turn lane on the southbound approach, and a through lane and exclusive left turn
lane on the northbound approach. South Street is approximately 40 feet in width and provides a
single multi‐use lane on the eastbound approach with shoulder widths ranging from one to three feet
on either side. There is a crosswalk located across the southbound approach at the intersection,
which spans across Route 27 and provides connectivity between the sidewalk on the eastern side of
Route 27 and the northern side of South Street. There is also a raised island present on the
southbound approach to facilitate the channelized right turn lane. The intersection of Route 27
(High Street) at South Street is currently signalized in all directions and provides an exclusive
pedestrian phase.

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street
The northerly intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is approximately 25 feet in
width at its intersection with South Street, providing one‐foot shoulders on either side. South
Street is approximately 75 feet wide at its intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street), with no
shoulders on either side of the roadway. South Street is currently under stop control at the
intersection, while Route 27 (Spring Street) is free‐flowing in the north‐south direction. There
are currently no crosswalks present at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South
Street. However, there is an existing portion of sidewalk on the southeastern corner of the
intersection which provides connectivity to the intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South
Street.

Sight Distance
A field review of the available sight distance was conducted at the South Street westbound approach
at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street). Route 27 (Spring Street) has a posted speed limit
of 40 miles per hour in both directions. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) publication, A Policy on Geometric Design, 2011 Edition, defines
minimum and desirable sight distances at intersections. The minimum sight distance is based on the
required stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles traveling along the main road and the desirable
sight distance allows vehicles to enter the main street traffic flow without requiring the mainline
traffic to slow to less than 70% of their speed and is referred to as intersection sight distance
(ISD). According to AASHTO, “If the available sight distance for an entering or crossing vehicle is
at least equal to the appropriate stopping sight distance for the major road, then drivers have
sufficient time to anticipate and avoid collisions.” The following table summarizes the sight
distance standards for the various speeds.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 3 of 9

Table 1
Sight Distance Requirements

Approach      Movement

Speed (MPH)

SSD
Required (ft)

SSD
Measured (ft)

ISD
Required (ft)

ISD
Measured (ft)

Meets Requirements

South Street WB at Route 27 (Spring Street)

Left (South)         40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes

Right
40               305                 500+                445              500+
Yes
(North)

For the westbound approach of South Street, there is over 500 feet of sight distance in either
direction along Route 27 (Spring Street). Based on the above mentioned requirements for stopping
sight distance and intersection sight distance with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour, the
South Street approach at the intersection with Route 27 (Spring Street) provides sufficient
available sight distance.

Existing Traffic Volumes
To assess peak hour traffic conditions, manual turning movement counts were conducted at the study
area intersections on Tuesday, November 10, 2015. The traffic counts were conducted during the
weekday morning peak period from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the weekday afternoon peak period from 4:00
PM to 6:00 PM. The traffic counts are summarized in 15 minute intervals and are attached. The
resulting 2015 unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.

In addition, Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) data was collected for a 24‐hour period from Tuesday,
November 10, 2015 through Wednesday, November 11, 2015 on both Route 27 (Spring Street) and South
Street to determine the hourly distributions of traffic for the traffic signal warrant analysis.

MUTCD Signal Warrants
Signal warrant analyses were performed for the unsignalized intersection based on procedures
outlined in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD
establishes nine criteria, referred to as warrants, for the installation of traffic signals. The
manual states that satisfaction of these warrants does not in itself require the installation of a
traffic signal. However, a traffic signal should not be installed unless one or more of the
warrants are met. The analyses performed for this report are based on the criteria for the eight‐
hour, four‐hour, and peak hour volume warrants, as well as the pedestrian volume and crash
experience warrants.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 4 of 9

Eight‐hour, four‐hour and peak hour signal warrant analyses were performed using existing traffic
volumes at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) and South Street. The results of the signal
warrant analyses are attached, and a summary of the results are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Signal Warrant Summary

Intersection                         Eight‐Hour      Four‐Hour     Peak Hour     Pedestrian
Route 27 (Spring Street)

Crash Experience

at South Street                             Yes                   Yes                  Yes
No                   No

As seen in Table 2, the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street meets the peak
hour, four hour traffic signal warrants (Warrant 2 and 3), and the eight‐hour traffic signal
warrant (Warrant 1), but does not meet the pedestrian warrant (Warrant 4), or crash experience
warrant (Warrant 7).

For the eight‐hour vehicular volume signal warrant (Warrant 1) to be met, minimum vehicular volumes
for the major street and minor street, found in Table 4C‐1 of the MUTCD, must be exceeded for one
of two volume conditions. Per MUTCD methodology, the 70% factor lowering the volume thresholds
required for satisfying the warrants is applicable to this intersection because of the 40 mph
posted speed limit. A summary of the results of the eight‐hour warrant are presented below in Table
3.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 5 of 9

Table 3: Eight‐Hour (Warrant 1) Signal Warrant Summary

Hour

Northbound Volume

Southbound Volume

Existing 2015 Total Major Street Volume

Minor Street Volume

Condition 1 Met1

Condition 2 Met2

6:00 AM                 819                         306                         1125
33                       no                        no
7:00 AM                1388                       640                         2028
143                     yes                       yes
8:00 AM                1100                       588                         1688
132                     yes                       yes
9:00 AM                 649                         501                         1150
99                       no                        yes
10:00 AM                485                         421                          906
111                     yes                       yes
11:00 AM                469                         512                          981
141                     yes                       yes
12:00 PM                 486                         475                          961
142                     yes                       yes
1:00 PM                 488                         487                          975
137                     yes                       yes
2:00 PM                  593                         773                         1366
279                     yes                       yes
3:00 PM                  581                         934                         1515
302                     yes                       yes
4:00 PM                  674                        1007                        1681
276                     yes                       yes
5:00 PM                  702                        1010                        1712
218                     yes                       yes
6:00 PM                  581                         882                         1463
215                     yes                       yes
7:00 PM                 369                         452                          821
130                     yes                       yes

1 Ma jor street volume greater than 350 vehicles pe r hour and minor street volume greater than 105
vehicles pe r hour. 2 Ma jor street volumes greater than 525 vehicles pe r hour and minor street
volume greater than 53 vehicles pe r hour.
****Spe ed Limit is 40 mph on Route 27 (Spring Street)

As seen in Table 3, both Conditions 1 and 2 of the eight‐hour signal warrant were satisfied during
ten consecutive hours, which surpasses the necessary eight‐hour signal warrant requirements. Based
on the results of the eight‐hour signal warrant and MUTCD criteria, the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection is warranted. In addition, the results of four‐ hour and peak hour
warrants also support the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection.

Accident Summary
Crash data for the study area intersection was obtained from the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT) for the most recent three‐year period available. This data includes
complete yearly crash summaries for 2011, 2012, and 2013. A summary of the crash data is attached.

The signalized intersection of Route 27 (High Street) at South Street had a total of 11 crashes
reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.44 crashes per
million entering vehicles at the intersection. This value is lower than the average crash rates of
0.80 and 0.89 for signalized intersections statewide and in MassDOT District 3, respectively. It
should also be noted that the majority of the crashes were rear‐end type crashes resulting in
property damage, which are typical at a signalized intersection.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 6 of 9

The unsignalized intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street had a total of nine
crashes reported over the three‐year period from 2011‐2013, resulting in a crash rate of 0.37
crashes per million entering vehicles. This is lower than both the statewide and MassDOT District 3
averages for unsignalized intersections of 0.60 and 0.66 crashes per million entering vehicles,
respectively. The majority of the crashes that occurred at the intersection were angle or rear‐end
collisions; however, there were two crashes that were head‐on collisions. All of the reported
crashes resulted in property damage and there do not appear to be any trends related to weather or
time of day.

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
A background growth rate of one percent per year was identified in order to forecast increases in
traffic volumes on the study area roadways and intersections for our future analyses based on
information provided by the Town of Medfield. This rate captures growth associated with general
changes in population and accounts for other small developments in the vicinity of the study area
and is consistent with similar traffic studies completed in this area in recent years. No
additional developments or other roadway projects were identified to be included in the future
traffic analysis. The resulting 2025 Unsignalized traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 for the
weekday morning and weekday afternoon.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
As a basis for this assessment, intersection capacity analyses were conducted using Synchro
capacity analysis software for the study area intersection under the 2015 Existing, 2025
Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized conditions. The analysis was based on procedures contained in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Capacity analysis summaries are attached. A discussion of the
evaluation criteria and a summary of the results of the capacity analyses are presented below.

Level‐of‐Service Criteria
Operating levels of service (LOS) are reported on a scale of A to F with A representing the best
conditions (with little or no delay) and F representing the worst operating conditions (long
delays). In an urbanized area, LOS D is typically considered adequate.

Capacity Analysis Results
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the study area intersections to evaluate the 2015
Existing conditions, as well as 2025 Unsignalized, and 2025 Signalized peak hour traffic
conditions. Based on our analysis, the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic occurs between 7:15
AM and 8:15 AM for the weekday morning, and 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM for the weekday afternoon peak
periods. The results of the capacity analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5 below for the morning
and afternoon peaks, respectively.

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 7 of 9

Table 4: Morning Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

Movement

LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)       EB         L                F      155.9    1.28      F      213.6
1.41      F       81.8     1.06
at South Street                                R                A        3.8      0.12      A
0.1      0.05      A        0.6      0.05
NB       L                B       10.2     0.14      B       10.6     0.16      E       76.9
0.56
T                F      227.1    1.44      F      293.1    1.59      F      271.9    1.51
SB         T                C       33.4     0.92     D       53.7     1.02      F       67.8
0.96
R                A        0.1      0.10      A        0.1      0.11      A        0.8      0.11

Overall

F      134.1    1.44      F      179.4    1.59      F      148.1    1.51

Route 27 (Spring Street)    WB      L                F     1175.1   3.24      F     2097.3   5.17
D       39.0     0.68
at South Street                                R                D       28.3     0.11     D
34.7     0.15      B       11.4     0.09
NB       TR             A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A       11.8
0.78
SB         LT              C       18.2     0.06      C       21.2     0.08      A        8.1
0.64

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

B       10.3     0.78

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 8 of 9

Table 5: Afternoon Level of Service Summary

2015 Existing      2025 Unsignalized

2025 Signalized

Intersection

Movement LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3   LOS1  Delay2   V/C3

Route 27 (High Street)      EB    L                  B       12.2     0.36      B       12.5
0.39      E       79.0     0.75
at South Street                           R                 A        0.0      0.02      A
0.0      0.02      A        0.7      0.02
NB   L                  B       10.8     0.31      B       11.8     0.34      B       10.4     0.20
T                 C       34.8     0.94      E       61.3     1.05      B       14.3     0.61
SB    T                  B       15.8     0.75      C       20.6     0.83      B       13.6
0.48
R                 A        0.4      0.30      A        0.5      0.33      A        1.2      0.34

Overall

B       18.1     0.94      C       28.6     1.05      B       15.6     0.75

Route 27 (Spring Street)   WB  L                  F     1250.2   3.53      F     2116.2   5.39
F       94.1     1.04
at South Street                           R                 C       15.7     0.05      C       17.2
0.07      B       15.2     0.08
NB   TR               A        0.0      0.00      A        0.0      0.00      A        6.7
0.57
SB    LT               B       10.2     0.02      B       10.7     0.03      B       16.1     0.86

1 Level‐of‐Service

Overall

C       21.0     1.04

2 Average vehicle delay in seconds 3 Volume to capacity ratio
n/a Not Applicable

As seen in Tables 4 and 5, the proposed signal at the intersection of Route 27 (Spring Street) at
South Street is expected to operate at an overall LOS B during the weekday morning peak hour and at
overall LOS C during the weekday afternoon peak hour. During the weekday morning peak hour, the
westbound and southbound movements are expected to improve in operations compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on the level of service. During the weekday afternoon peak hour, the
westbound right and southbound movements are expected to improve compared to the future
unsignalized condition, based on level of service. The implementation of a signal at the
intersection will potentially improve the operations of the South Street westbound approach. In
addition, the potential implementation of a dedicated northbound right turn lane on the Route 27
(South Street) approach, as shown in Figure 4, is expected to improve operations at the
intersection. The implementation of a traffic signal in combination with northbound right turn lane
modifications on Route 27 (Spring Street/South Street) would potentially involve Right‐of‐Way
impacts.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the MUTCD traffic signal warrants, accident data, and sight distance measurements, it is
recommended that a two‐phase actuated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Route
27 (Spring Street) at South Street. A traffic signal will provide significant operational
improvements to the South Street westbound approach while maintaining adequate operations for Route
27 (Spring Street/South Street).  A traffic signal concept plan for the intersection of

Chief Robert E. Meaney
DRAFT
January 19, 2016
Page 9 of 9

Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street is shown in Figure 4. The preliminary construction cost to
install a signal at this intersection is approximately $200,000. This estimate does not include
costs related to potential roadway widening on the eastern side of the northbound approach on Route
27 (South Street), which will allow for more efficient traffic operations at the intersection. In
addition, the potential right‐of‐way or land acquisition costs have not been accounted for in this
estimate.

CONCLUSION
Based on the existing traffic volumes, accident history, and signal warrant analysis, it is
recommended that an actuated and coordinated traffic signal be installed at the intersection of
Route 27 (Spring Street) at South Street. The signal warrant analysis concludes that the
intersection volumes adequately satisfy the peak hour, four‐hour, and eight‐hour warrant
requirements. The capacity analysis indicates that signalizing the intersection will minimize
delay, and allow the intersection to operate at a LOS B and C during the weekday morning and
weekday afternoon peak hours. Under the future unsignalized conditions, motorists on South Street
will continue to experience long delays in the LOS F range during both peak hours. By installing a
signal, these motorists will experience much more acceptable levels of service.

We trust that our review and recommendations have provided you with the appropriate technical
information to finalize a decision on this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you
require any further information.
Very truly yours,
Phil Viveiros, P.E., PTOE Project Manager
Attachments
Figure 1 – Study Area Map
Figure 2 – 2015 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Volumes Figure 3 – 2025 Future Weekday Peak Hour Volumes
Figure 4 – Traffic Signal Concept Plan
Traffic Count Data Signal Warrant Backup
Synchro Analysis Reports

Comments Off on Traffic study for Rte. 27 signal

Posted in Police Department, Safety, Transportation, Uncategorized

Police say officer shot at own cruiser, fabricated story

Posted on September 3, 2015 | Comments Off on Police say officer shot at own cruiser, fabricated story
By Amanda Hoover @amahoover
Boston.com Staff | 09.03.15 | 4:32 PM

After a day-long manhunt for a suspect who had reportedly fired shots at a Millis police cruiser, causing it to crash and catch fire, police said Thursday they have found the person responsible: the officer who reported the shooting.

The officer, who police have not yet named, has been fired and is expected to be charged, Millis Police Sgt. William Dwyer said.

“I still am very upset and don’t know how to feel right now,” Dwyer said at a Thursday press conference.

Comments Off on Police say officer shot at own cruiser, fabricated story

Posted in Police Department

Reverse 911 call about the Millis shooting

Posted on September 2, 2015 | Comments Off on Reverse 911 call about the Millis shooting

This is Chief Bob Meaney of the Medfield Police Department. Millis had a shooting this afternoon. There is a possibility that the vehicle left the scene by way of Orchard Street.

Medfield units were immediately dispatched to the area to insure the safety of the neighborhoods.

At this time, the Millis Police Department, along with other law enforcement agencies, are searching an area in Millis by the Norfolk/Medfield line. They anticipate concluding this search by 6:oo PM tonight. You may see law enforcement personnel in the area as the search progresses.

Please do not call the Medfield Police Department for further information unless you have information that may assist with the investigation.

If there is anything further that residents need to know, an additional message will be sent.

—

Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr.

Medfield Police Department

110 North Street

Medfield, MA 02052

508-359-2315 (Dispatch)

508-359-6926 (Fax)

Comments Off on Reverse 911 call about the Millis shooting

Posted in Police Department

Shots fired at police in Millis this afternoon

Posted on September 2, 2015 | Comments Off on Shots fired at police in Millis this afternoon

Shots Fired at Millis Cruiser; Search for Suspect Underway

September 2, 2015

Massachusetts State Police and several local police departments are investigating shots fired into a Millis Police Department cruiser at approximately 3 p.m. on Forest Road in that town. The cruiser was struck by gunfire, then crashed and caught on fire.

State Police are not aware of any injuries at this time. If that changes we will update this post.

Preliminary investigation indicates the shots were fired from a dark colored — possibly maroon — pickup truck. The suspect vehicle fled the scene after the shooting. Preliminary reports describe the suspect as a white male.

State Police patrols from Troops H and C have responded to assist in the search for the suspect, as has a helicopter from our Air Wing. Additionally, State Police detectives, K9 units, crime scene technicians, ballistics technicians, and fire investigators are en route to the scene to assist.

No further information is available at this time.

Comments Off on Shots fired at police in Millis this afternoon

Posted in Police Department

Marijuana grow operation

Posted on May 19, 2015 | Comments Off on Marijuana grow operation

This press release is from the DA’s office –

Medfield man pleads not guilty To growing, distributing marijuana

Jack Keverian, 28, of Tannery Drive in Medfield pled not guilty to three charges at his Dedham District Court Arraignment today, May 19, 2015, according to Norfolk District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey:

  1. Possession with intent to distribute class D, marijuana
  2. Possession with intent to distribute class C, Tetrahydrocannabinol
  3. Cultivation of Marijuana.

Defense AttorneyPatrick Reddington waived the reading and entered a plea of not guilty on his client’s behalf.

Assistant District Attorney Jaclyn K. Sexton requested $10,000 cash bail. Defense counsel requested personal recognizance, citing his ties to the community. Judge Michael Pomerole set $10,000 cash bail and ordered the defendant to surrender his passport. The case is scheduled to return to Dedham District Court on June 16, 2015 for pre-trial conference.

Medfield responded to a call from a resident of the property at 5 Tannery Drive reporting an explosion at roughly 9:42 p.m. on Saturday, May 16. Responding police and fire personnel observed significant damage to the doors of the property’s 3-car garage and a substantial amount of visible marijuana and associated processing equipment.

A search warrant was obtained and executed beginning at roughly 6 a.m. Sunday. In addition to the contents of the garage, police reported finding growing marijuana plants and associate cultivation equipment in two sheds behind the main house. In all, authorities allege to have found about 200 growing plants and some marijuana that had already been processed into Tetrahydrocannabinol, a potent derivative and class C substance.

Medfield Police Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr. was present at the scene and directing the activities of detectives from Plainville, Norwood, Framingham, Wellesley, Needham and Walpole processing the scene and the evidence as part of the Metropolitan Law Enforcement Council (METRO-LEC) mutual aid organization. Chief Meaney was also in direct contact with Norfolk District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey, who provided several personnel from the detective unit and Drug Task Force assigned to his office. Because of the volume of evidence that needed to be seized, members of the State Police Evidence Unit also responded on Sunday morning.

“It reflects well on the Medfield Police Department, Chief Meaney and these area departments that they have such strong working relationships – with each other and with the State Police,” District Attorney Morrissey said. “As an office, we are certainly ready to provide assistance however we can.”

Comments Off on Marijuana grow operation

Posted in Police Department

Bond sales

Posted on May 15, 2015 | Comments Off on Bond sales

This email came Wednesday from Mike Sullivan, but I was on trial at the time so I am only now catching up.  Read Mike’s email before looking at the PDF to make better sense of the PDF.  20150512-public safety & solar PV bond sales

 

Sale of Bonds for Public Safety and Solar Array

We opened the bids yesterday for the $18,700,000 of bonds authorized by the Special Town Meeting in March. We did well, although last week the bond market was reflecting rising interest rates, so it’s good we sold them quickly. The results were very confusing as the public safety issue was reduced to $16,375,000 and the Solar array issue was reduced to $610,000. The reason for the reduction in the public safety issue was that the low bid included about $1.8 million in premiums, so we used most of that premium to reduce the amount of bonds issued from $18 million to $16.375 million. The rest of the premium on this particular issue will be used to cover the cost of the bond issuance costs. As for the solar array issue, the cost estimates has gone down because of the falling prices for solar panels and, also, bond counsel wanted us to reflect the fact that we had already received $90,000 in grant funds from the state for this project. What really confuses this issue is that we then received a premium of about $89,000 on this issue, which is almost the same as the $90,000 reduction in the amount of bonds issued. After covering its share of the bond issuance cost, the remaining $80,000 will be used to pay a portion of the annual debt services costs for this issue or about $8,000 per year in premium amortization funds.

 

We received six bids, which was low and a bit of a surprise, considering the last bond sale we had. we received 11 bids. I think this reflected the uncertainty in the bond market this week. The low bidder was Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Philadelphia PA. The interest rate on the public safety bonds (twenty years) was 3.055% and the interest rate on the solar array (ten years) was 2.015 for a combined interest rate of 3.033. These rates are below what we projected at the town meeting so we’re in good shape as far as not underestimating our borrowing costs. I’m scanning the debt schedules for the two projects, along with the bid results and sending them in a separate email.

 

Hopefully Georgia will make sense of all of this when she comes to the Selectmen’s meeting on the 19th.

 

Mike Sullivan

20150512-public safety & solar PV bond sales

Comments Off on Bond sales

Posted in Budgets, Buildings, Energy Committee, Fire Department, Police Department

Moody’s says we’re Aa1

Posted on May 7, 2015 | Comments Off on Moody’s says we’re Aa1

New Issue: Moody’s assigns Aa1 to Medfield, MA’s $18.7M GO Bonds
Global Credit Research – 07 May 2015
Affirms Aa1, affecting $62.3M of parity debt, post-sale

MEDFIELD (TOWN OF) MA
Cities (including Towns, Villages and Townships) MA
Moody’s Rating
ISSUE                                                                  RATING
General Obligation Municipal Purpose Loan of 2015 Bonds  Aa1
Sale Amount                  $18,700,000
Expected Sale Date        05/12/15
Rating Description        General Obligation

Moody’s Outlook NOO
NEW YORK, May 07, 2015 –Moody’s Investors Service has assigned a Aa1 rating to the Town of
Medfield’s (MA)
$18.7 million General Obligation Municipal Purpose Loan of 2015 Bonds. Concurrently, Moody’s has
affirmed the Aa1 rating on the town’s outstanding GO debt. Post-sale, the town will have $62.3
million of GO debt.
SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE
The Aa1 rating reflects the town’s sound financial position, stable residential tax base with
strong wealth levels and a manageable debt and pension burden.
OUTLOOK
Outlooks are usually not assigned to local government credits with this amount of debt outstanding.
WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO UP
-Increased budget capacity and flexibility
-Material increase in available fund balance
-Large increase in the tax base
WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO DOWN
-Prolonged operating imbalance resulting in a decline in available reserves
-Material decline in tax base or demographic profile
-Significant increase in debt burden
STRENGTHS
-Sound financial position with healthy reserve levels
-Stable tax base with strong wealth levels
-History of voter approvals for overrides and exclusions of Proposition 2 ½

CHALLENGES
-Limited levy capacity and budget flexibility due to Proposition 2 ½
-Planned appropriation of reserves RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The fiscal 2014 audited financials reflect continued stability in the town’s financial position.
The $1.2 million drawdown of General Fund balance in fiscal 2014 reflects the ongoing planned use
of a restricted debt service reserve. Net of this draw, the town ran a surplus of $709,000 with
little change to available fund balance. Please see the Detailed Ratings Rationale for further
details.
DETAILED RATING RATIONALE
ECONOMY AND TAX BASE: STABLE RESIDENTIAL TAX BASE WITH STRONG WEALTH LEVELS
Medfield is a primarily residential community (95% of the 2015 assessed valuation) with a
population of 12,024, located approximately 20 miles southwest of Boston (Aaa stable). The town’s
$2.4 billion tax base is expected to remain stable with limited growth, reflecting a turnaround in
the regional real estate market. Assessed value increased 4.5% in 2015, bringing the five-year
compound annual growth to 0.6%. The town’s equalized value per capita remains strong at $199,561,
reflecting the strength of the residential sector. In addition, the town has a number of
residential developments underway, including new construction of high-end homes and condos, and a
new apartment complex which will continue to provide annual new growth revenue. Wealth levels are
also substantially higher than state and national averages, with median family income well over two
times the national average. Also, the town’s unemployment rate of 3.7% (January 2015) continues to
fall below the state (5.6%) and US (6.1%).
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND RESERVES: SOUND OPERATIONS WITH PLANNED USE OF RESERVES; FUND BALANCE
REMAINS HEALTHY
Medfield will maintain a healthy financial position over the near term given conservative budget
practices and limited, planned draws on reserves. Since 2008, the town’s financial statements
reflect annual use of reserves due to the drawdown of a large grant of $18.1 million from the
Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to cover school-related debt service. The current
balance of the grant is $10.8 million and is classified as restricted fund balance. The annual
drawdown averages $1.2 to $1.3 million and will continue to be reflected in the town’s annual
operations through 2023, the anticipated final draw date.
The fiscal 2014 operating results when netting out the use of $1.3 million of debt service reserve
appropriations reflects an operating surplus of $708,000, attributable to positive variance in
revenues and expenditures. Available fund balance remained relatively unchanged from the prior year
at $7.3 million, or 13.4% of revenues.
The fiscal 2015 budget increased by 3.9%, or $2.2 million from the prior year, driven by education,
health insurance and employee benefits. The budget was balanced with a 1.4% increase to the tax
levy and free cash appropriations of $1.3 million and $1.2 million from the debt service reserve,
covering both operating and capital needs. As of March, revenues are ahead of budget projections
while expenditures are on budget.
The fiscal 2016 budget increased by 6% from 2015 due to the debt exclusion, education, and employee
benefits. The budget is balanced with a 7.9% tax levy increase, free cash appropriation of $898,000
and $1.2 million from the debt service reserve.
Medfield derives the majority of its revenues from property taxes (67% of 2014 revenues) and
continues to benefit from a strong collection rate of 99% within the fiscal year. Positively, the
town benefits from a history of voter- approved general overrides to the Proposition 2 ½ tax levy
limit. In each of 2008, 2009 and 2012, the town passed a override to aid in general operations of
the town and education expenses, providing some additional revenue flexibility. Our ongoing
assessment of the town’s credit quality will factor in management’s ability to continue to maintain
a nominally balanced budget with sound fund balance levels.
Liquidity
Medfield’s net cash position at the end of fiscal 2014 was $23.2 million, or a healthy 42.4% of
revenues. DEBT AND OTHER LIABILITIES

Medfield’s net direct debt burden of 2.3% of equalized value will remain above average, but
manageable, given average amortization of principal and voter support for debt exclusions. The town
currently has no authorized, but unissued debt, and future debt plans are limited to an elementary
school project with an estimated cost of $30 million and expected no sooner than 2020. Given its
history, approval of future projects will likely include debt exclusions from Proposition 2 ½.
Debt Structure
The town’s principal amortization is average with 78% retired in ten years. Fiscal 2014 annual debt
service represented 8.4% of expenditures and the entire debt portfolio consists of fixed rate debt.
Debt-Related Derivatives Medfield has no derivatives. Pensions and OPEB
The town participates in the Norfolk County Contributory Retirement System, a multi-employer,
defined benefit retirement plan. The town’s annual required contribution (ARC) for the plan was
$1.6 million in fiscal 2014, or 2.9% of General Fund expenditures. The town’s 2013 adjusted net
pension liability, under Moody’s methodology for adjusting reported pension data, is $44.7 million,
or a moderate 0.84 times General Fund revenues. Moody’s uses the adjusted net pension liability to
improve comparability of reported pension liabilities. The adjustments are not intended to replace
the town’s reported liability information, but to improve comparability with other rated entities.
Medfield also makes pay-as-you-go contributions to OPEB in the amount of $1.5 million in 2014,
representing 41% of the ARC. The UAAL is $43 million and the town has established an OPEB trust and
recently began making annual deposits of $400,000. The 2014 total fixed costs for pension, OPEB and
debt service represented $7.8 million or 14% of expenditures.
MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
Massachusetts cities have an institutional framework score of ‘Aa’ or strong. The primary revenue
source for Massachusetts municipalities is property taxes which are highly predictable and can be
increased annually as allowed under the Proposition 2 ½ levy limit. Expenditures are largely
predictable and cities have the ability to reduce expenditures.
The town’s management team has shown a long term trend of consistent and conservative fiscal
management with multi-year capital planning.
KEY STATISTICS
-2015 Equalized Valuation: $2.4 billion
-2015 Equalized Value Per Capita: $199,561
-Median Family Income as % of US Median: 208.69%
-Fiscal 2014 operating fund balance as a % of revenues: 13.46%
-5-Year Dollar Change in Fund Balance as % of Revenues (2010-2014): 4.58%
-Fiscal 2014 Cash Balance as % of Revenues: 42.56%
-5-Year Dollar Change in Cash Balance as % of Revenues (2010-2014): 0.55%
-Institutional Framework: “Aa”
-5-Year Average Operating Revenues / Operating Expenditures (2010-2014): 0.98x
-Net Direct Debt as % of Full Value: 2.29%
-Net Direct Debt / Operating Revenues: 1.0x
-3-Year Average of Moody’s ANPL as % of Full Value: 1.35%

-3-Year Average of Moody’s ANPL / Operating Revenues: 0.6x OBLIGOR PROFILE
Medfield is a primarily residential community with a population of 12,024, located approximately 20
miles southwest of Boston.
LEGAL SECURITY
Of the current issue, $18 million is secured by the town’s general obligation unlimited tax pledge
as debt service has been excluded from the levy limitations of Proposition 2 ½. The balance is
secured by the town’s general obligation limited tax pledge as debt service has not been excluded
from the levy limit.
Of the town’s $45 million of outstanding debt, $31.7 million is secured by the town’s general
obligation unlimited tax pledge as debt service has been excluded from the levy limitations of
Proposition 2 ½. The balance is secured by the town’s general obligation limited tax pledge as debt
service has not been excluded from the levy limit.
USE OF PROCEEDS
Bond proceeds will be used to finance a public safety building project and solar project. RATING
METHODOLOGY
The principal methodology used in this rating was US Local Government General Obligation Debt
published in January 2014. Please see the Credit Policy page on http://www.moodys.com for a copy of this
methodology.
REGULATORY DISCLOSURES
For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides
certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of
the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are
derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings
issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain
regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to
each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support
provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory
disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating
that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the
transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating
in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab
on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on http://www.moodys.com.
Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if
applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.
Please see http://www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s
legal entity that has issued the rating.
Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on http://www.moodys.com for additional regulatory
disclosures for each credit rating.
Analysts
Nicholas Lehman Lead Analyst
Public Finance Group Moody’s Investors Service
Thomas Compton Backup Analyst Public Finance Group
Moody’s Investors Service
Geordie Thompson Additional Contact Public Finance Group

Moody’s Investors Service
Contacts
Journalists: (212) 553-0376
Research Clients: (212) 553-1653

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. 250 Greenwich Street
New
New
USA

Comments Off on Moody’s says we’re Aa1

Posted in Budgets, Buildings, Fire Department, Police Department

MCAP

Posted on April 9, 2015 | Comments Off on MCAP

The Medfield Cares About Prevention (MCAP) meeting this morning saw three positive results:

  • Tip Line – Establishment of a local tip line was advanced with news that everyone was in agreement with the script for call answering outlined by David Traub and news that the Norfolk District Attorney’s office will probably fund the cost of the telephone line.  The tip line idea is to provide an anonymous telephone line that anyone can call with information that can then be passed along to third parties, such as, “we hear you are planning to be at the Cape for the long weekend, and we are also hearing that there is a large party planned for your house on Saturday night.  We just thought you would want to know.”
  • Age 21 to buy tobacco – MCAP voted to recommend to the selectmen that the town increase the age to buy tobacco products from the current age 18 to age 21.
  • Marijuana education – MCAP decided to recommend early education in the elementary schools about the issues related to marijuana use be provided in conjunction with the tobacco use education that is already occurring.

Comments Off on MCAP

Posted in MCAP - Medfeild Cares About Prevention, Police Department, Teens

STM says yes and yes again

Posted on March 24, 2015 | Comments Off on STM says yes and yes again

Both articles passed last night at the Special Town Meeting (STM) by overwhelming majorities, that were with one close to being unanimous, and with the other was unanimous.  The public safety building must still get a majority vote at the regular municipal election next Monday, March 30, to proceed.

The first STM vote, to fund the $700,000 construction costs of a money making solar photovoltaic installation behind the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), was unanimous.  As soon as the town’s new Energy and Facilities Manager, Andrew Seaman, who was presenting on behalf of the Energy Committee, mentioned that the array will be revenue positive starting in its first year, the Moderator jokingly interrupted to call for a fast vote.  The presentation may have continued, but the wisdom of a money making project was clear in the unanimity of the ultimate vote.  The array is projected to save the town $726,509 in electricity charges at the WWTP over 20 years.

Conversations with Energy Committee member Fred Davis after the meeting disclosed that the MEC’s solar consultant is already recommending to the town to proceed as fast as possible with other installations before the state subsidies for solar end in the next couple of years, which will change the economics dramatically.  The roof of the Highway Garage has already been recommended, but the old landfill is also being eyed.  Few old landfills remain without solar arrays, and there is even grant money to support such an installation.  Medfield never properly closed the landfill, so the closure may need to be revisited, but the economics may still make the project attractive.

Vote 2 to fund the almost $19m. construction costs of a new public safety building seemed to find the vast majority of attendees grudgingly, if realistically  accepting of the need for us to pay more in property taxes to allow for the new building.  This observer guesses that perhaps 20-40 people voted against proceeding.  There is no disagreement over the inadequacy of the old facility, and only minor issues verbalized over the size and scope of the new building and the lack of options presented.

Selectmen meet again this evening, to hear from all three of our legislators.

Comments Off on STM says yes and yes again

Posted in Buildings, Energy Committee, Fire Department, Police Department, Select Board matters, Town Meeting