Category Archives: Uncategorized

MEC on 1/12

Posted on February 9, 2017 | Comments Off on MEC on 1/12

MEC

Draft minutes

Medfield Energy Committee

Jan 12, 2017

 

Fred Bunger presiding, Jerry McCarty, Cynthia Greene, Lee Alinsky, Fred Davis, Paul Fechtelklotter (taking minutes)

 

  1. December 8 meeting minutes accepted. Fred B. will make effort to put all 2016 meeting minutes in a single location for easier access.

 

  1. Annual report – FB.

Made minor updates to the draft report. Still awaiting updates for the solar projects – Fred B will submit revised report once he receives them.

 

  • Green Communities –FB:

 

Fred B spoke with Kelly on Medfield’s application status. He received very positive feedback but no official response.

Axxum confirmed that there is money available for her to assist with our application for initial grants after Medfield receives confirmation of achieving Green Community status.

The expected deadline for submitting the grant application is 3 March. Jerry will be “on point” for the grant submittal with MEC support.

The MEC will have to identify priorities for spending the ~$148K in grant money, using Table 2 of the Energy Reduction plan as the starting point. Retro-commissioning of the High School and Blake are likely to be high on the prioritized list of projects since it will likely be difficult to secure funding for those projects in a competitive grant scenario.

Jerry has received preliminary pricing for retro-commissioning and EMS software upgrades from vendors and should have more data points by our February meeting.  The costs were highlighted at the December MEC meeting and total ~$80K. He is also just starting to develop a list of items to include in his capital submission to the town.

Jerry is getting bids for replacing halogen lights at the library, weatherizing windows at the library, and replacing an exterior door at the library. Fred D. volunteered to assist with the library lighting effort.

Fred B. will make sure that committee members have the final version of Table 4 that was included in our Green Communities application package.

 

  1. LED streetlights – FD:

Fred D. walked through his analysis of typical maintenance/support contract terms that Medfield should put in place if the town owned the lights.

New funding sources and grants have recently become available that will reduce the net cost of the replacement effort from ~$89K to ~$67K

There are limited funds available so it is important to move forward quickly.

Fred B. will send Fred D’s package and data to Jerry and Mike Sullivan. He will also write a letter to the Board of Selectman on behalf of the MEC to start the process.

Should the project go forward, Medfield will still have to choose an LED technology. We can either leverage MAPC to make a recommendation or do it ourselves.  A suggestion was made to engage Westwood for advice since they recently went through a similar effort.

 

  • Town Solar – JM:

 

DPW Solar: No change in status since the last MEC meeting. Still engaged with Solect (who is the SRECs aggregator, solar maintenance, and reporting), who advised town to wait until next round of solar programs.

 

Public Safety Solar: everything is set but still waiting for ACA approval, which should come before 19 January.

 

  1. Solarize Medfield Status:

Tabled until February meeting.

 

  1. Other business.

Tabled discussion on best way to archive committee materials until February meeting.

 

Meeting adjourned around 9:15.

Comments Off on MEC on 1/12

Posted in Energy Committee, Uncategorized

Storm impacts

Posted on February 9, 2017 | Comments Off on Storm impacts

Note:

  1. town offices are closed today.
  2. emergency #s for Eversource and Verizon

20170209-town-website

Comments Off on Storm impacts

Posted in Uncategorized

Image

Election candidates

20170209-candidate-list

Comments Off on Election candidates

Posted on February 9, 2017 in Uncategorized

Office hours tomorrow 9-10AM

Posted on February 2, 2017 | Comments Off on Office hours tomorrow 9-10AM

COOA's Center_and_sign

Selectman Office Hours

Selectman Osler “Pete” Peterson holds regular monthly office hours at The Center on the first Friday of every month from 9:00 to 10:00 AM (his litigation schedule permitting).

Residents are welcome to stop by to talk in person about any town matters.  Residents can also have coffee and see the Council on Aging in action (a vibrant organization with lots going on).

Peterson can be reached via his mobile at 508-359-9190 or his blog about Medfield matters, where any schedule changes will be posted.

Comments Off on Office hours tomorrow 9-10AM

Posted in Uncategorized

ALS costs

Posted on February 2, 2017 | Comments Off on ALS costs

Chief Kingsbury provided new figures for various permutations (use the link to get a copy with correct formatting):

ambulance

20170131-wk-advanced-life-support-for-the-town-of-medfield

 

Advanced Life Support for the Town Of Medfield

 

 

Total calls for service by the Medfield Fire Dept. was 1274 for 2016 of that 517 were for Emergency Medical Services.

 

 

Emergency Medical Services

 

517 Requests               257 BLS Transports                189 ALS Transports               71 Refusals

 

 

The 189 transports were accompanied by paramedics from Events EMS, Westwood FD, Walpole FD, Norfolk FD and Brewster EMS.

 

Events EMS ceased operations and Brewster as of now is not available.

 

The Problem? Who is going to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) for the almost 200 calls requiring Paramedic (Medic) intervention? What are our options?

 

  • If we do nothing.

 

We might be able to get away with it. It delays providing in-house ALS for a year if not more. It takes advantage of other communities ALS at their expense. We risk being shut off from their services as it is not mutual aid. A fellow chief who is struggling to staff his volunteer Fire Dept. and is using mutual aid excessively said it best,

 

“Mutual Aid is a network of sharing, with resources flowing back and forth across jurisdictional borders, and should not routinely benefit one partner in the form of subsidized services by the taxpayers of another community.”

 

  • Hire a Private Provider

 

Initial conversations with Millis & Medway resulted in a proposal from a private company for a dedicated ALS response truck to service the three communities it would be @ $600,000 per year and another $225.00 per intercept. Millis & Medway were not interested in pursuing further. On 01/19/17 as requested, I met with Chris DiBona of Brewster Ambulance to see if there was anything his company could do with either the three towns of Medfield, Dover and Sherborn or from their base in Norwood. Chris got back to me on 01/25/17 and said they were still working on it. I reached out to the Fire Chiefs in Sherborn and Dover, Sherborn expressed a little interest as they are struggling too and Dover does not appear to be interested.  I have not heard anymore as of yet. I will provide any info as soon as it’s available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Add Staffing (options)

 

  1. I met with the Fire Chiefs from Millis and Medway on 01/23/17 to further discuss what options we might have. Both of those towns are pursuing advancing to the ALS level through hiring and training, more so hiring. As a result of these discussions if we were to get to the level of at least four (4) Medics each we could seek permission from our Medical Directors to run at a Paramedic/Basic (P/B) level and when needed we would pull a second medic from a neighboring town to facilitate a two medic event.

 

Pro’s: It’s a start                                                       Con’s: 2nd Medic availability =

We would have 2 Medics 50% of the time     delayed response

Increased Revenue                                           Expense

 

Cost Estimate:  4 Staff @ $80,556 = $322,224

Startup                       $90,400

Est. Total                                           $412,224         

 

 B)If we were to hire six (6) additional Medics we would have adequate resources to staff the Ambulance at the ALS level 24/7/365. The additional staff would have two shifts with four (4) personnel and two shifts with three (3) personnel.

 

Pro’s: 24/7 coverage at the ALS level                  Con’s: Expense

Increased Revenue

Staffing to aid in medical calls

Staffing to respond to fire calls

 

 

Cost Estimate:  6 Staff @ $80,556 = $483,336

Startup                        $90,400

Est. Total                                            $573,336

 

  1. If we were to hire eight (8) additional Medics we would have adequate resources to staff the Ambulance at the ALS level 24/7/365. The additional staff would have all shifts with four (4) personnel. With the additional staff and by having a second ambulance, in the event of back to back medicals, we could staff it to respond at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level. Added Medic staff would be able to cover open shifts to maintain ALS staffing.

 

Pro’s: 24/7 coverage at the ALS level                  Con’s: Expense

Increased Revenue

Run a 2nd BLS ambulance

Staffing to aid in medical calls

Staffing to respond to fire calls

 

 

Cost Estimate:  8 Staff @ $80,556 = $644,451

Startup                        $90,400

Est. Total                                            $734,851

 

 

According to Joy Ricciuto our Town Accountant, the Ambulance service generated $439,644 for FY16. Although I do not want to predict how much in this volatile time in Healthcare, it is safe to say there will be an increase to our revenue stream by advancing to the ALS level of service. By keeping it in-house we will keep the $62,000 we paid for outside services. The likelihood of increased revenue by way of increased demand for ALS calls and being able to reciprocate with mutual aid does exist.

 

Hiring additional Staff to provide ALS

 

Pro’s:

 

By providing in-house ALS you get the needed resources to the patients side the fastest possible way. No delay with patient care by waiting for a regional or alternative ALS intercept service.

Patients deteriorate every minute you wait for intervention.

 

You have more control on direct patient care by managing ourselves. We can choose the equipment to use to provide services. You have the ability to participate with any project waivers when they are available.

 

We can control the training of in-house medics. Training is key to this type of operation.

 

We have the ability to schedule medics in teams to capitalize on their experiences and skill level to provide the best service for the town.

 

We will maintain our own local medical control MD that is knowledgeable of the region and will oversee our entire service.

 

Increased billing for services rendered at the ALS level will result in increased revenue.

 

Increased staffing could result in running a 2nd ambulance resulting in increased revenue.

 

Increased staffing will aid in responding to Fire related calls for service as well as the day to day operational activities that are done.

 

Con’s:

 

Delay in providing ALS intervention to patients in need. Our avg. response time is under five minutes; it is a fifteen minute response from Norwood if we were to use Brewster as an intercept.

 

The startup expense is a downside but will be offset by increased revenues that will be better determined after it is up and running.

 

Conclusion:

 

This is an issue that will not be going away. We as a community need to address it so that all our residents have the best medical resources available to them in their time of need. I believe this decision as to what level of care is acceptable to our taxpayers should be left up to them. I would recommend the hiring of six (6) Medics to properly cover at the ALS level 24/7/365.

Comments Off on ALS costs

Posted in Fire Department, Uncategorized

MMA’s agenda

Posted on February 1, 2017 | Comments Off on MMA’s agenda

MMA

This from the Massachusetts Municipal Association this week with its agenda items:

January 30, 2017
MMA FILES LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO BE CO-SPONSORS

The Deadline for Signing is Friday, February 3, at 5 p.m.

The MMA has filed 19 local government bills approved by the Board of Directors for consideration by the Legislature in the new 2017-2018 legislative session.

The bills have been filed by lead sponsors in the House and Senate and now are available to be signed by legislators wishing to be co-sponsors. Co-sponsors are important. Please ask your legislators to sign on to these municipal bills. House and Senate members can sign on and co- sponsor bills that have been filed in either branch. The deadline is Friday, February 3, at 5 p.m. If your legislators are lead sponsors, please tell them thank you.

Many of the MMA’s proposals are continued priorities from previous sessions, and eight are new measures, including legislation to provide cities and towns with new local-option tax options, and a bill to increase municipal authority over utility companies’ use of city and town roadways. Among the refiled petitions are bills that would reform parts of Civil Service, allow cities and towns to set the number of local liquor licenses in their communities, and provide marketing assistance for local economic development campaigns.

Below is a list of the MMA legislative package with brief description of each, and the House and Senate docket numbers along with the names of the lead sponsors. A more detailed description of each bill is on the MMA website at the following link: http://www.mma.org/advocacy/mma-legislative-package. These measures are stand-alone proposals; the MMA’s entire legislative agenda is much broader, and includes dozens of priorities in the annual state budget bill, and work with the Legislature to support or oppose hundreds of other bills during the session.

Please note that each bill listed below has a temporary docket number that will be changed to a more formal bill number when referred to a legislative committee over the next few weeks.

Local-option excise on alcohol for substance abuse prevention and public health programs
Senate docket 484, Senator Cynthia Creem
This bill would allow cities and towns, upon local vote, to adopt a tax of up to 2 percent on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, including sales in bars, restaurants, package stores and other non-pouring establishments. The revenue would be dedicated to help pay for local substance abuse and other public health programs.

Payments in lieu of taxation
House docket 1362, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would allow cities and towns, upon local vote, to require certain tax-exempt charitable organizations to make payments in lieu of taxation to host cities and towns equal to 25 percent of what they would pay if the property were not exempt. The bill would require cities and towns to adopt bylaws or ordinances to provide for agreements between the municipality and organizations that may provide for exemptions from payment, consideration of community benefits as payment, and administration of payments.

Local-option fuel excise for transportation and stormwater infrastructure programs
House docket 1109, Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli
This bill would allow cities and towns to adopt a local-option tax on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel of up to 5 cents per gallon that would be collected in the same manner as the state excise. The revenue would be dedicated to help pay for local transportation programs (infrastructure and services) and stormwater programs.

Local-option meals tax
Senate docket 586, Senator Jason Lewis
The MMA bill would increase the maximum local-option sales tax on meals from 0.75 percent to 1.5 percent.

Identifying financial impacts of proposed environmental regulations
House docket 1384, Rep. Jeffrey Roy
Senate docket 49, Senator Michael Moore
This bill would establish a mechanism for identifying and describing the costs, benefits and financial impacts of proposed environmental rules and regulations before they take effect.

Sustainable water resource funds
House docket 2403, Rep. Carolyn Dykema
Senate docket 393, Senator Jamie Eldridge
This bill would clarify and strengthen the authority of cities and towns to establish water, stormwater, and wastewater utility fees in order to protect municipal public health and meet federal Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and other state and federal environmental requirements.

Minimum reliability contributions from net metering recipients
Senate docket 1334, Senator Anne Gobi
This bill would exempt municipalities that receive renewable energy net metering credits, low- income and community solar ratepayers from any monthly minimum reliability contribution.

Municipal control of liquor licenses
House docket 561, Rep. Denise Provost
Senate docket 354, Senator Jamie Eldridge
This bill would give the municipal legislative body the authority to set the number of liquor licenses available in the municipality.

Commission to study the administration of veterans’ benefits
House docket 1635, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would create a special commission to study the administration of benefits offered to veterans under Chapter 115 of the General Laws, including which benefits are offered, how they are administered, and the role of local veterans’ service officers.

Marketing prioritized development sites
Senate docket 193, Senator Lewis
This bill would require the Massachusetts Office of Business Development to create and maintain, either independently or through a partnership with an external entity, a statewide searchable database of developable land and vacant sites, with listings submitted at no cost by local officials.

Promoting local economic development
Senate docket 191, Senator Jason Lewis
This bill would create a program to provide funding or other opportunities, such as technical assistance, to municipalities or regions that maximize opportunities for economic development planning and growth by meeting a series of criteria.

Local impacts of enacted legislation
House docket 154, Rep. James Cantwell
Senate docket 336, Senator Anne Gobi
This bill would require the Executive Office, upon signing legislation, to attach a fiscal note specifying the local impacts of the legislation.

Retiree Benefits Trust Fund
House docket 2249, Rep. Alice Peisch
This bill would add two seats to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund Board, one municipal seat and one “schools” seat. This proposal would ensure the municipal and regional school district perspectives are recognized on the SRBTF Board.

Civil service reform
House docket 1364, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would allow cities and towns to exit Civil Service at local option without approval by the Legislature. The bill would require the city or town to provide documentation that outlines the local policy or policies that would replace the Civil Service statute.

Municipal unemployment insurance reforms
Senate docket 271, Senator Cynthia Creem
This bill would extend “reasonable assurance” to employees who work on behalf of the school system but are paid through the municipal budget. This would ensure that employees couldn’t collect unemployment insurance benefits when school is not in session. This bill would also address the issue of retirees collecting both unemployment benefits and a pension from the same public or private employer, by reducing unemployment benefits by an amount equal to 65 percent of the employee’s weekly pension.

Structure of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board
House docket 336, Rep. Aaron Vega
This bill would modify the membership of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board to require that the three members include a management representative, a labor representative, and a neutral party.

Municipal authority in public rights of way
House docket 2265, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would give municipalities increased authority over utilities that operate in the public right of way. The bill would specify that, if utilities delay in relocating poles and wires, municipalities have the authority to move poles and wires, and may charge utilities for non-performance. It would give municipalities the authority to adopt bylaws and ordinances related to imposing fees and fines, assessing taxes, and licensing and permitting of utility companies that operate in the public right of way.

Municipal purchase of utility poles
House docket 2279, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would give municipalities and public utilities the right to purchase utility poles from investor-owned utilities at a price that takes into account depreciation in value of the utility poles.

Seat belts on school buses
House docket 1973, Rep. Joseph McGonagle
This bill would require that all school buses in the Commonwealth be equipped with seat belts within five years.

PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO BE CO-SPONSORS

Thank You!

Comments Off on MMA’s agenda

Posted in Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association, Uncategorized

MassHousing’s Mega-denial

Posted on February 1, 2017 | Comments Off on MassHousing’s Mega-denial

flll• 11 ~OUSlNG Massachusetts Housing Rnancc Agency One Beacon Street. Boston, MA 02108 TEL: 617.854.1000 I FAX: 617.854.1091 VP: 866.758.1435 www.masshousing.com January 31, 2017 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Medfield Meadows LLC 18 Forest Street Dover, MA 02052 Attention: John Kelly, Principal RE: Medfield Meadows Medfield, MA (MH# 873) Project Eligibility (Site Approval) Application Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is in response to your application for a determination of Project Eligibility ("Site Approval") pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B ("Chapter 40B"), 760 Cfv1R 56.00 and the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD") (the "Guidelines" and, collectively, the "Comprehensive Permit Rules"), under the following program (the "Program"): • New England Fund (''NEF") Program of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. The original application proposed to build two hundred (200) units of rental housing in two (2) buildings on individual parcels separated by North Meadow Road (Route 27) (the "Project") at 39-41 Dale Street and 49 Dale Street (the "Site") in Medfield, Massachusetts (the "Municipality"). Subsequent to an initial review of the Site and the proposed plans and comments from the Municipality regarding the site plan, MassHousing requested that the applicant reconsider the Project and its compatibility with adjacent uses and compliance with 760 CMR 56.04(4)(c), the applicable regulations that govern the design elements of a 40B proposal. On January 5, 2017 the Applicant submitted a revised proposal to MassHousing that purported to respond to concerns regarding the original site plan, reduced the proposed height of the buildings and the number of units from two hundred (200) to one hundred eighty two (182) rental · apartments units in three separate three and four-story buildings on a total of 6.24 acres of land, which only reduced the density from 32 units per acre to 29.17 units per acre on the Site. Charles D. Baker, Governor I Michael J. Dirrane, Chairman I Timothy C. Sullivan, Executive Director Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor Ping Yin Chai, Vice Chair Karen E. Kelleher, Deputy Director MassHousing staff has performed an on-site inspection of the Site, which local boards and officials were invited to attend, then revised the Site in connection with the revised application, and has reviewed the pertinent information from both the original and the revised applications for the Project submitted by the Applicant, and comments submitted by the Municipality and others in accordance with the Comprehensive Permit Rules. As a result ofMassHousing's evaluation of the information that was presented, and the Agency's evaluation of the Site, MassHousing is unable to approve your application for a determination of Project Eligibility. While it is expected that a Project proposal submitted in accordance with the zoning and regulatory relief available under Chapter 40B will differ from the surrounding context in many fundamental ways, the Subsidizing Agency must also address matters regarding the Project's relationship to existing development patterns in the surrounding area. This Site appears to be generally appropriate for residential development and while municipal actions to date have not yet resulted in the production of housing required, "to meet the municipality's need for affordable housing as measured by the Statutory Minima"; nevertheless MassHousing has determined that the conceptual project design for the proposed development is not appropriate for this Site. The reasons for MassHousing's denial of your applications are as follows: MassHousing considers the design of the building and the proposed site layout to be inconsistent with the design requirements outlined in 760 CMR 56.04(4)(c) and the related Guidelines dated May, 2013. Specifically: • The proposed apartment structure is inconsistent with nearby existing residential building typology. This is particularly true for the rear portion of the north parcel and the proposed building's relationship to the existing neighborhoods closest to the Site along Joseph Pace Road, John Crowder Road and Dale Street. The applicant's revised site plans do not adequately mitigate the impact of the proposed building's connection to the existing neighborhood from the initial proposal; the Project still fails to make a reasonable transition to this well established residential neighborhood. • The proposed three to four-story apartment structures are not compatible with nearby structures in terms of height, mass and scale. Building elevations indicate that the proposed buildings (the three proposed buildings range in height from 60' to 77.5' tall depending on the topography of the Site) are at least triple the height of most surrounding 1-2 story structures. The building massing in the original submission was entirely inappropriate for both the Site and its relationship to the adjacent residential neighborhood. While the revised site plan, particularly that of the north parcel, has addressed some of the most glaring impacts to its closest abutters, the overall perception of the massing has not been adequately reduced to make the findings required under the regulations. The proposed massing on the south parcel is not significantly improved by the revised site plans and the presence of wetlands on that portion of the overall development Site is a constraint to a more logical relationship to the Grove Street neighborhood. 2 • Appropriate density of residential development depends on a number of different factors, and must be reviewed on a case by case basis. In this case, however, it appears that the Project is simply too dense for the lot on which it is located; nearly the entire Site is occupied by the proposed building program and the limited areas for open space are not sufficient to mitigate the project's effective density. While there are no maximum density thresholds, it is advisable to develop at a density that takes some cues from the existing community context. The nearest rental development is the Pare at Medfield which has a considerably lower density of approximately 10 units/acre as compared to the almost 30 units/acre proposed for this Project. • The site plan does not provide a satisfactory design treatment of the edge between the Site and the surrounding streetscape and does little to enhance the visual quality of the streetscape. The northern and southern building facades face Route 27, which is the principal access to downtown Medfield, and create a poor visual relationship to this adjacent roadway. In MassHousing's review of any application for Site Approval under Chapter 40B, the Agency does not consider any one factor in isolation. Rather, the site as a whole is considered as well as whether the development proposal is consistent with applicable Regulations and Guidelines. After a thorough review of your application, MassHousing does not find that your proposal is able to meet all of the required findings. Therefore, your application is denied. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Greg Watson, Manager of Comprehensive Permit Programs, at 617-854-1880. Sincerely, Timo y C. Sullivan Executive Director cc: Chrystal Kornegay, Undersecretary, Department of Housing and Community Development The Honorable James Timilty The Honorable Denise C. Garlick The Honorable Shawn Dooley Mark L. Fisher, Chairman, Medfield Board of Selectmen Michael J. Sullivan, Medfield Town Administrator/ Sarah Raposa, Medfield Town Planner 320170131-masshousing-ltr-from_page_220170131-masshousing-ltr-from_page_3

Comments Off on MassHousing’s Mega-denial

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Uncategorized

BCRT

Posted on January 31, 2017 | Comments Off on BCRT

bcrt-logo

Christian Donner provided the following links to data about the Bay Colony Rail Trail, and he also seems to maintain the website.   –
Medfield

The Study Report:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTh2qKB7lfonO0cgFF

Medfield Parking Concepts (by Jeremy Marsette)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBUiUONWsUXHWyoT

Misc Documents

Bay Colony Railroad – Modified Rail Certificate
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBuJn9Pqi6DbD2cP
(this is basis for bypassing the abandonment process)

MBTA Lease Agreement – Template
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBm9QQNUlvc0eylc

BRAC Program Brochure, with contact info of brokerages
https://1drv.ms/w/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiAGQheMAwHtsDEAT

Needham

Needham Rail Trail Cost Breakdown (actuals)
https://1drv.ms/x/s!At7W7NFH9EnThzsZhkfEOk7QAJnA

Needham IFB Phase 1 (removal of rails and ties)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThz_lMGpuyZE8XCH9
(includes the MBTA lease and other documents)

Needham Phase 1 Bid Sheet – Results
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThz1BVNE65bqnk2Dn
(comparison of bid submissions and cost breakdown)

Needham IFB Phase 2 (finishing surface)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTh0FBT520acg0nd7C

Needham Phase 2 Bid Sheet – Results
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThzk-CFWV4-dFqGpb

Needham Warrant with lease and insurance article (pages 5 and 6)
http://www.needhamma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1130

Needham Study RFP
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBNBhkGmJOa3lsLL

Dover

Dover – Memorandum from Law firm Anderson Kreiger regarding lease terms and environmental issues
http://www.doverma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bay-Colony-Rail-Trail-First-Supplement-to-KDB-Memorandum-.pdf

Newton

Newton Legal Department – Opinion on 99 year lease
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBfEmMKL6U13EFQE

Comments Off on BCRT

Posted in Uncategorized

Nominations close today

Posted on January 31, 2017 | Comments Off on Nominations close today

Today is the last day to put your volunteer in the next photo – these were the 2014 honorees.  Get the Medfield Foundation nomination form here.

VOTYs - Colleen Sullivanvoty-20140227-poster-nominees

Comments Off on Nominations close today

Posted in Uncategorized, Volunteers

Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

Posted on January 28, 2017 | Comments Off on Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

mfi-volunteer-awards

EXTRAORDINARY VOLUNTEERS RECOGNIZED

The Medfield Foundation (MFi) annually fetes at its Volunteer Awards those individuals, suggested by fellow residents, whose extraordinary efforts and activities have made a special marked difference in the quality of life in Medfield.

At a reception at 3PM on March 19  at The Center the town will celebrate all the individual nominated this year, and the MFi will name its Volunteer of the Year, Youth Volunteer of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement Award recipients.

The Volunteers Awards are based entirely on nominations submitted by the public, and solely on the information submitted.  Give recognition to your special volunteer by submitting your nomination before January 31 on the form found at www.medfieldfoundation.org.

Brothers Marketplace generously sponsors the MFi Volunteer Awards, and support is also received from The Rockland Trust Charitable Foundation.

 

These were the people suggested in 2013:

voty-2013-all

Comments Off on Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

Posted in Medfield Foundation, Uncategorized, Volunteers