Category Archives: Town Meeting

Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

Posted on April 17, 2015 | Comments Off on Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

The Warrant Committee is in favor of all the annual town meeting warrant articles, except the following articles:

34 – new zoning definition of a half story – they had a tie vote

38 – traffic study for South Street intersection with Rte. 27 – they recommend dismissal

39 – Community Preservation Act – they recommend dismissal

On article 23 for funding construction of Straw Hat Park, they voted 5-2 in favor of funding only half the amount needed this year.

The selectmen take positions on the warrant articles at our meeting next Tuesday.

Comments Off on Warrant Committee positions on ATM articles

Posted in Town Meeting

CPA – Lexington’s experience

Posted on April 15, 2015 | Comments Off on CPA – Lexington’s experience

Interesting insights below into the Community Preservation Act, by Lexington’s Capital Expenditure Committee, which in hindsight rued its opposition to the CPA, given how much state money they got.

The CPA is all about getting the state matching money – because that state money in turn lowers our property taxes (if we eventually spend for open space, historic preservation, and affordable housing).

Medfield has adoption of the CPA as a question at its annual town meeting on 4/27/15, at 7:30 PM in the gym at MHS.

 

LEXINGTON CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE
STATEMENT TO TOWN MEETING
April 6, 2011
(edited for length)
When Lexington’s Town Meeting considered adopting the Community
Preservation Act in 2005, the Capital Expenditures Committee unanimously
recommended its rejection, primarily citing concerns about “crowding” out
future Proposition 2½ override votes. With 20:20 hindsight, the present
committee, 4 of the 5 members still being the same as 6 years ago, will be the
first to admit that we were wrong. I will have more to say on that topic in a
minute.
State Match
Clearly, the most important aspect of the CPA is the State “match”. Since
ratification, Lexington has received $6.4M in matching funds and we expect
approximately $859,000 more in the upcoming fiscal year. That yields an
effective State-match rate of about 50% over those five years. While the trend
in matching percentage has been downward since the 100% match in our first
year of adoption, the most likely scenario is that the matching funds remain
strong enough to justify continued CPA project funding in Lexington. And
because we are at the maximum surcharge level Lexington receives a higher
matching percentage rate than towns with a lower surcharge level.
Proposition 2½ Debt Exclusions
Some of the CPA projects we have funded in Lexington over the past several
years would, by policy, have been performed using Proposition 2½ Debt
Exclusions if the CPA had not been adopted here. This is because not only is
it difficult to find that much money in the “regular” tax levy, but it also
implies widespread consensus by virtue of passing a voter referendum. So by
obviating the need for debt exclusions for eligible big-ticket items like land
purchases, the CPA has provided a more flexible funding environment.
This flexibility and streamlining can be considered a positive in that it has
created a debt exclusion-free environment for CPA-eligible projects.
Regarding Lexington’s recent CPA land purchases, it is arguable that the
CPA aspect of their funding has saved the taxpayers money. Clearly there is
the obvious state match to consider. But there is also the aggressive bonding
taken by the Town with the recommendation and approval of the finance
committees. Of the three major CPA land purchases, one was cash and two
were financed with 3 year front-loaded bonds. Had any of these been funded
using debt exclusions, the bonding would almost certainly have been for a
much longer term and therefore would have cost the taxpayers tens of
thousands of dollars more in debt service.
Project Diversity
The CPA has allowed Lexington to advance several projects which would not
normally be on the Town’s agenda. For example, the Lexington Historical
Society has received funds for restoring the Hancock-Clarke House and
Munroe Tavern. And funding has been approved for several affordable
housing projects which normally would have been difficult to fund with tax
levy monies. These projects count favorably against our Chapter 40(b)
threshold.
Impact of a Reduction
CPA-related projects in Lexington would look quite different should a
reduction of our 3% surcharge prevail. A cursory scan of the projects that
have been funded over the last five years indicates that most of those would
not have been funded if the only revenues available had been from a 1%-
surcharge. Moving forward with a reduced surcharge, it is clear that large
land and affordable housing purchases will be far less likely to occur, and if
they do, they will likely require the use of long-term bonding, a policy which
contradicts our past tendency to thoughtfully use short-term bonding for CPA
monies when debt funding has been necessary. Further, a reduced surcharge
will eliminate significant contributions towards Town projects creating the
possibility of deferred or eliminated projects, and/or future debt exclusions.
Crowding
As I mentioned before, prior to Lexington’s adoption of the CPA in 2006, this
Committee had been concerned that once the taxpayers had experienced the
additional demand of the CPA surcharge, it would “crowd out” their support
of Proposition 2½ operating overrides and debt exclusions. We were wrong in
this assumption. So far, that crowding effect has not materialized. In fact,
while there was split support for the four overrides in June 2006 before any
CPA surcharge appeared on tax bills, in Jun 2007, after the CPA surcharge
appeared on the bills, there was support for both a $4 million override for the
schools and a $27 million debt exclusion for the public works facility. The
current 3% rate creates a relatively minor impact on the average tax bill and
won’t present a crowding factor. Additionally on the topic of crowding, it can
be reasonably argued that the CPA funding at the current percentage has
actually reduced the number of overrides and debt exclusions, and will
continue to do so.
Project Costs and Matching Funds
Based on the most recent State-matching funds rate, the taxpayer presently
pays only 78 cents on the dollar of every CPA project. That number is 67
cents on the dollar if you take the overall matching rate over the past five
years. Undeniably, there are some projects that have been advanced by the
CPC over the past five years that were not unanimously supported by the
CPC and Town Meeting. That’s nothing new. Very rarely does Town
Meeting show unanimous support for any given year’s capital docket.
Nevertheless, the CPA has funded many beneficial and positive projects in
Lexington. If they weren’t positive, a majority of Town Meeting members
wouldn’t have approved them. And the fact stands that Lexington has already
received $6.4 million of CPA matching funds; make that $7.3 million with
this year’s match.
Capital Advocacy
It is this Committee’s job to advise Town Meeting on matters related to
capital spending in Lexington. The Capital Expenditures Committee believes
that the CPA at the current 3% surcharge level and State match have been
beneficial to Lexington’s capital agenda and we unanimously oppose
reduction of the percent 3% surcharge.

Comments Off on CPA – Lexington’s experience

Posted in Budgets, State, Town Meeting

ATM on 4/27

Posted on April 13, 2015 | Comments Off on ATM on 4/27

Two weeks to the Annual Town Meeting – at 7:30 PM in the gym at MHS.  This today from the Moderator –

Hello All: Two weeks to go to our Annual Town Meeting. This is my
regular appeal to ask everyone to take the usual steps to promote
participation and attendance at Town Meeting. (We have our usual challenge
of holding the meeting on the Monday following the school’s spring break.)
So please think about banners, school packets, blogs, emails, etc. And
thanks for your consideration. Best, Scott

Scott F. McDermott

Town Moderator

Town of Medfield

781.799.1285

Comments Off on ATM on 4/27

Posted in Town Meeting

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

STM tonight – my top 10 reasons

Posted on March 23, 2015 | 2 comments

The Special town meeting (STM) takes place this evening at the MHS gym at 7:30 PM to decide upon:

  1. The new public safety building; and
  2. A solar photovoltaic array next to the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Top ten reasons that I favor the new public safety building:

  1. The new public safety building has been designed and vetted by the Building Committee right from the very beginning.
  2. The Building Committee is comprised of a group of extremely knowledgeable,  talented and diligent people.
  3. As a result of my attending many of the Building Committee’s meetings, I have come to trust the judgment of the Building Committee, and to feel secure with what they recommend.
  4. The public safety building has been designed with specific input from both chiefs, to meet both current and future needs of police and fire.
  5. I do not have the expertise to question whether the size and build out of the public safety building is appropriate, but I have faith in those who have vetted the design.
  6. There are extra spaces designed into the public safety building to accommodate future growth, but it is not of such an amount as to me to make the total design questionable, even if one were to disagree with those assumptions about future needs.
  7. The marginal costs of those extra spaces designed into the public safety building is not substantial when compared to the cost of the building without that space.
  8. Alternately, it would be extremely costly to have to add onto the public safety building later if we designed it too small now.
  9. The town has asked the police and fire to work in substandard space for too long.
  10. The police and fire have been exceedingly gracious about accommodating the town need to postpone any consideration of a new facility for them for many years beyond the time when we knew the current facilities needed to be replaced.

2 Comments

Posted in Budgets, Buildings, Town Meeting

BoS on 3/23 & 24

Posted on March 19, 2015 | Comments Off on BoS on 3/23 & 24

Board of Selectmen
Monday, March 23, 2015, 6:30PM

AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
6:30PM Preparation for Special Town Meeting
7:30PM Special Town Meeting

Board of Selectmen
Tuesday March 24, 2015@ 7:00 PM

AGENDA (SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
Appointment: Representative Garlick
Representative Dooley
Senator Timilty

Comments Off on BoS on 3/23 & 24

Posted in Select Board matters, Town Meeting

Public safety building

Posted on March 16, 2015 | Comments Off on Public safety building

Chief Meaney today responded to questions that had been asked of me by a resident last week (which I in turn forwarded to the Chief and others in the know about the proposed public safety building) –

Mr. McKeown, Pete and others,

Here is what I have on the questions. Hopefully some of this was answered with the recent mailing as well as documents and presentations that have been placed on the Permanent Building Committee website medfieldpbc.org .

Here are some more specific answers:

What is the funding plan?
The project will be funded through a 20 year municipal bond which we anticipate will come in at a rate of 4%. This rate is based on opinions from Town Administrator and Town Treasurer.

Justification for the facility size/number of vehicles/personnel.

The size is based on anticipated needs over the next 50-70 years. Chief Kingsbury and I have spent many hours going over the space needs with professional consultants based on how Medfield handles public safety now and in the future. This process began several years ago but most recently over the past two years. One point that is very clear is that the current method of staffing the Fire Department is changing and has been changing over the past 10-15 years. The department currently has a chief and 8 firefighter/EMTs. The main goal is to staff the ambulance. When there is need for more assistance or there is an alarm of fire; part time, call firefighters are summoned to the station by way of a radio system that alerts the personnel of the need. These individuals then respond to the station from their homes or jobs to staff the vehicles and fight the fire or assist the ambulance. This manner of firefighting is disappearing in all parts of the country and not just Medfield. At some point in the future a decision will be made by the townspeople that more full time personnel are needed. That recommendation will come from the Fire Chief and proposed to the Board of Selectmen. Funding for this would then be proposed at Town Meeting where the voters can approve or reject the request. The transition to a full time Fire Department will be over a period of many years. The idea is to have sufficient capacity in the building to accommodate this need which is definitely coming, it is simply a matter of when.

The apparatus bay is designed to house only the current equipment with the addition of one ambulance. The apparatus bay is designed so that it will not be necessary to have equipment custom built in order to fit in the building, as is the current state of affairs. The most recent piece of apparatus was designed to fit into the garage under the police station and was built to tolerances of only a few inches, since that is all the room that exists. As a result, you can see that it is not anticipated that Medfield will require additional pieces of equipment but as the current equipment is replaced, it needs to have space to fit in. The additional ambulance will eliminate the need to rely on mutual aid from other towns when our ambulance is out of service due to routine maintenance or mechanical failure. This just happened earlier this month, so that while the EMS personnel respond to the scene in a fire vehicle, they cannot transport until another town arrives with their ambulance. It should be noted that this additional ambulance is obtained by simply not trading in the current ambulance (for which a very minor trade in amount is received) The new ambulance is financed by a revolving account that is supported by fees collected from insurance companies when individuals are treated and transported to the hospital.

On the police side, any expansion in personnel is accomplished through the same funding process mentioned above. My need for additional personnel is different than the Fire Department. The next year or so will hopefully see the addition of a School Resource Officer and the restoration of a half Detective position. We currently have 4 full time dispatchers and I can see this increasing by one over the next few years. Increases in housing (West Street and the unknown potential at the former State Hospital) may increase the need for additional personnel. But that is not anticipated to be a major factor such as what Westwood is going through with the addition of University Avenue Station project. An additional factor is that sooner rather than later, the building that the auxiliary police use at the former State Hospital will be dealt with; most likely taken down. It has no water, sewer or heat but serves the minimal purpose of housing radios and is used as a meeting location. These personnel (10-15) will also be absorbed into the proposed public safety building. They will be able to use the EOC (Emergency Operations Center)/training room for meetings and training, have room to store equipment and the person in charge of the unit will have a desk to operate from in the second floor open office area.

The proposed building will also house the Town’s computer infrastructure. The IT is currently in a couple of locations with less than ideal security and emergency power supply. This will put it in one secure space with generator back up to allow for continuous operation.

Future growth

As mentioned, we have spent considerable time exploring this. Even if the former State Hospital were to be replaced with 1500 additional residents, this would add a small number of ambulance runs per month. As far as police services; this would certainly increase somewhat. I do not anticipate it to change call volume such that the Town will need to hire several additional personnel. At this point we do not know what the area will end up looking like but I feel comfortable that the proposed building can handle it. The reason I say this is that on the police side, the limiting factor for patrol personnel is the amount of locker space for employees to store equipment. Once an officer arrives for duty they are on patrol, for the most part. So I need to have space for their equipment, to have roll call, type reports, eat, and do training. As far as support services, I need spaces for dispatch, an office for the sergeants to share, an area for detectives, prosecutor and general investigative services. I also need areas to process and hold prisoners, process and store evidence, an area to store weapons and store the volumes of records that we maintain. Computers have not decreased the need for paper records, it has actually increased it. The building also provides for some growth in administration and a small fitness room that equates to what you would find at a Holiday Inn, (room for perhaps 3 aerobic machines and some limited weightlifting equipment, such as hand weights). There are also areas to conduct interviews, unsecure detention for juveniles (as required) and process firearm permits and other licenses. These rooms also have other functions as we have tried to make best use of the space we have. On the second floor, we have designed an open office type concept that can be used by the School Resource Officer, Animal Control Officer, Auxiliary Police Supervisor and others not currently anticipated. So we also have flexibility in the building with appropriate room for growth.

Hope this all helps explain things from our point of view…..Chief Bob Meaney

—
Chief Robert E. Meaney, Jr.
Medfield Police Department
110 North Street
Medfield, MA 02052
508-359-2315 (Dispatch)
508-359-6926 (Fax)

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator of this message. Town of Medfield

 

Comments Off on Public safety building

Posted in Buildings, Fire Department, Police Department, Town Meeting

STM next Monday on public safety building

Posted on March 16, 2015 | Comments Off on STM next Monday on public safety building

The special town meeting (STM) is next Monday evening, 3/23/15, at 7:30 PM in the Medfield High School gym, for the

  • public safety building, and
  • solar photovoltaic at the Waste Water Treatment Plant

The Proposition 2 1/2 override vote on the public safety building is the following Monday, 3/30, during the regular town election.

This email this morning from the Moderator –

Hello Gentlemen:  I have submitted a Letter to the Editor and a banner advertisement to the Hometown Weekly and Medfield Press.  I would ask that we undertake all appropriate means to communicate with our residents inviting them to attend our Special Town Meeting on the 23rd.  As we know, the consideration and determination of the STM regarding the appropriation for the public safety building and the photovoltaic array are very important and strategic for Medfield.  In this regard, I’d ask the Selectmen to encourage any notices, postings, or distributions intended to promote attendance at the meeting.   Thanks very much, Scott

 

Scott F. McDermott

Town Moderator

Town of Medfield

781.799.1285

Comments Off on STM next Monday on public safety building

Posted in Elections, Fire Department, Police Department, Town Meeting

Public safety building

Posted on February 28, 2015 | Comments Off on Public safety building

This email today from Mike Quinlan, co-chair of our Building Committee –

As some of you know, for the past few years, I have served as Co-Chair of the Medfield Permanent Building Committee.  Our committee oversees design and construction of all town facilities.  I wanted to reach out to you all to make sure you’re aware of some important upcoming town events as they will influence the future of Medfield and I believe it’s important that we all participate in shaping that.

In 2008 due to severely deteriorating facilities the town created a Capital Investment Plan that included four major building project organized by priority.  The first of which was the DPW Garage which was approved in 2013 and completed in the fall of last year.  The second major facility in need of replacement is the Police/Fire facility that we are now calling the Public Safety Building.  This month, the town will be holding a Special Town Meeting to decide whether or not to authorize the town to borrow funds to build a new Public Safety Building.  Subsequent to that, at the annual town election, there will be a ballot question requesting the approval of the town to borrow those funds.

The Permanent Building Committee has been working with architects and engineers for 2 years to design the facility and bids to build the facility are due this week.  This will give us an exact amount that the building will cost.  Currently, we are estimating the project to cost $20,350,000 of which the town has already allocated $1,350,000 at previous Town Meetings.  Thus we will likely be seeking $19,000,000 at this Town Meeting in 3 weeks.  This amount would add between $200-$500 to your annual tax bill depending on the value of your home.  This email seeks only to inform you of the details and not to advocate for either position.

There will be a Public Informational Forum held next Saturday to provide more detailed information about the proposed facility and there will also be tours of the existing facility so that people can see why the need exists.

Below is the schedule of important dates and I hope that you all are able to participate in some way.  You also should’ve received a mailer in your mailbox yesterday or today.

March 7th, 10AM, Dale Street School Auditorium – Public Information Forum

  • March 23rd, 7:30pm Medfield High School Gym – Special Town Meeting
  • March 30th, All Day, Medfield Council on Aging – Annual Town Election

Please forward to any neighbors, friends, spouses or other Medfield residents that may be interested.  Also, don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions…

Best regards…

Mike

Comments Off on Public safety building

Posted in Buildings, Elections, Town Meeting

FY16 budget calendar

Posted on February 25, 2015 | Comments Off on FY16 budget calendar

The annual budget calendar countdown to the town meeting, plus the Special Town Meeting and Election dates for the public safety building –

FY2016 TIME TABLE

November 4, 2014 – Budget meeting with Warrant Committee All Town Department Heads

December 2, 2014 – FY16 budgets due in Accountant’s Office

December 16, 2014 – Selectmen vote to open Annual Town Meeting Warrant

January 6, 2015 – Warrant articles needing legal review are due

January 15, 2015 – Annual reports are due in the Selectmen’s Office.  This date is a Town Bylaw voted at Town Meeting, May 4, 1981

January 27, 2015 – Selectmen vote to close Annual Town Meeting Warrant

March 17, 2015 – Warrant Hearing. Selectmen sign Town Election Warrant for posting

MARCH 23, 2015 – SPECIAL TOWN MEETING on public safety building and solar photovoltaic installation at the Waste Water Treatment Facility

March 26, 2015 – Warrant Report and Town Report mailed to printer Selectmen sign Town

MARCH 30, 2015 – TOWN ELECTION on override for the public safety building and me for selectman (Re-Pete!)

April 7, 2014 – Meeting Warrant for posting

April 16, 2015 – Warrant Report mailed to residents

MONDAY MARCH 30, 2015 TOWN ELECTION

MONDAY APR IL 27, 2015 TOWN MEETING
(if needed, second night of Town Meeting on Tuesday April 28, 2015)

 

Comments Off on FY16 budget calendar

Posted in Budgets, Elections, Town Meeting