You are sick.
I have no interest in a DPW.
I have no interest in being involved in a DPW.
You know full well my continued comments are because of questions asked about the previous processes. Seeing I was involved from day one with the WWTP site and part of the "Mitchell Team" it seemed obvious who should respond to, at a minimum, a lack of knowledge by some of what transpired and at the worse complete false remarks about what transpired.
You're continued phony contrarian statements rather than putting forth a solution to a major problem shows you for what you are. A problem creator and not a problem solver.
So, rather than continue this obvious "baiting", why not put forth your "team", put together a viable solution, pro-bono, for the Town, get most of the BOS, half the Fincom, all the BPCC and a majority of Town Meeting to support you and then take the cheap shots that you now feel obligated to put forth when you don't get the 2/3rds required.
WWII????-As I said: You are sick. View Comment
Skepticism is good.
Why would anyone accept a donation of thousands of dollars of free engineering by people who do that type of work for a living, live in town and wished to help with a major problem?
Especially when all the parties responsible for accepting the work and presenting it to the townspeople were invited to review what was done and there were presentations to all three major boards.
It was obviously better to accept the work of a design team for over seventy thousand dollars and who proposed an 8.5 million dollar facility.
Please keep in mind that I am using a little sarcasm, in case you and UPSO couldn't tell.
One last point, the WWTP site was used in our proposal because it had been unanimously supported as a site by all three major boards before it was determined the "turtle area" wouldn't allow it.
We proved, with a letter from Natural Heritage, that it could be constructed on site, did all the background work, pro-bono to prove it could be done for the 2.1 million dollar figure and then presented it to all boards.
The water continues to flow under the bridge and the snow to fall on our equipment that is stored outside.
And skeptism is good.
Jack View Comment
All the information I listed was provided in a power point presentation at that fall town meeting by Mr. Knapik who at the time was the chairman of the BPCC.
Mr. Knapik was just as skeptical as others ended up being about using 44E. The difference is that he took the time to call Attorney Anderson at the AG's office and confirmed for himself that 44E was a viable option for a DPW facility.
The BOS put out an RFP as required by the Massachusetts bidding laws and as I mentioned six companies, all with pre-fabricated, metal building experience submitted bids. The advertisement was listed in the Central Register, again as required by state law, after having been shown to Attorney Anderson.
The bids were received in the Managers office and copies should still be availble-through a FOI request if necessary.
To be clear, the information I have given is in reply to questions or misinformation posted about what was provided in regards to the Providence Road DPW proposal.
There is no longer a "Mitchell Team" or a Mitchell proposal.
It's unfortunate that there are still individuals who question the process we used and the pricing established by experienced individuals but as the saying goes it is now "water under the bridge".
Here are the facts, as requested:
1) The building portion of the project was put out to bid by the BOS and six bids came in at an average cost of one million dollars for a completed building with furnishings and equipment. The remainder of the 2.1 million was the washbay, salt shed, new entry, RR crossing and site work along with a contingency of 10%.
2) The bids were based on a 44E specification submitted to and approved before hand by the Assistant Attorney General, Deb Anderson.
3) There were specs based on a design concept as called for in 44E and approved by the former DPW director, the BPCC and AAG Anderson.
4) Prevailing wages were in the bid package that all contractors had to follow as required by the Davis/Bacon law.
5) The railroad number was a quote from the P & W head engineer whom we met on site (Mr. Knapik, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Marzec and myself).
Jack View Comment
UPSO is such a DOWNSO.
Rather than keep responding to others and trying to "read between the lines" why not offer a solution that will bring everyone together?
"Impasse"? The only one we currently have is people not willing to work together. I offered a path to try and do that. You offer unknown authors.
Come out from under your computer screen and be a contributor instead of being one of those unknown authors. View Comment
I don't disagree with you after what happened following the Douglas road vote.
I sought out the main principal in two of the three previous DPW proposals and one of the towns main contrarians who was extremely influencial behind the scenes in getting out votes on all three. Although on opposite sides on many issues they agreed to meet to put their differences on the table to work out a solution.
I then made the offer to a number of politicians who also agreed that it was a way to try and find a solution.
Then I approached the Town Manager whose words to me, after the Douglas Road vote, were "I won't be involved in another DPW project"
So rather than trying to put all the main players; 2-members of the BOS, 2-members of the finance committee, 2-members of hte BPCC and three or four town citizens in a room with the Town Manager to see if a solution could be worked out the response is to bury heads in the "contaminated" ground and do NOTHING.
This had nothing to do with any of the previous proposals that were voted on or the 8.5 million but an attempt to see if something, anything could be accomplished working together rather than against each other.
You and others can now decide if this is leadership.
The bump-outs were part of the original design and presented at numerous public meetings where anyone could attend and comment. Many did, which resulted in numerous changes during the design phase.
The original road through town did not meet street guidelines for road width, sidewalk width or accessibiltiy.
All three of those were corrected so that we have proper road width in both directions, sidewalks of proper width and accessibility for all regardless of the location of the bump-outs.
The bump outs were never part of or a requirment of the grant but a suggestion from the engineers who had done many other cities and towns.
Why would they be an impediment to snow plowing when the road is of proper width and that is the area that must be cleaned? Their main purpose was to give the illusion of impediment to slow down traffic.
When we first were given the task, after the original streetscape grant was procured by the town, we looked at possibly using the funds to correct the traffic problem at Plummers Corner rather than do the streetscape. We were told that was not possible.
We then looked at returning the funds as we weren't sure the town wanted a major reconstruction of the road through town with all it's interuptions.
We were informed that by returning the grant we would be eliminated from eligibillity for any other state offered grants.
When we did start on the design and work it was determined to do Rockdale first so that there would be more time for the design and comment period in Whitinsville.
We can not go back and re-do what has been done and speaking only for myself, one of seven members of the BPCC who were involved, I wouldn't.
It's only my opinion but I feel they add to the beauty of downtown along with the removal of the poles and wires. Which we were able to do throught the hard work and perseverance of an "international" engineer.
As for the deplorable conditions at the DPW-we offered two plans to correct that but were defeated and we have moved on. Also, most of the men don't work there, they work out of there doing the things that need to be done to keep our town up and they do it well. View Comment
UPSO, no I didn't. Do you really think Mr. Shuris would listen to anything I have to say after the DPW fiasco?
It was a while ago that I passed the information on. I was in the town hall when it seemed some of the radiators were having their own private opera recital.
I noticed that whoever had been trying to adjust the steam part of the system did not know the difference between one pipe with vents and two pipe with traps.
Nice to hear from another poster that the problem was only a control on the boiler and not in the system.
I would be curious what the system pressure is, if all the rooms are heating properly and that there is no banging in the pipes or radiators.
The "dead men" set and piped the systems so that they would heat evenly at very low pressure in the boiler. High pressure usually means someone is trying to force steam to certain areas which could unbalance all. That is a sign that the traps may need cleaning or replacing-standard maintenance.
You can also tell if a system isn't quite set properly when you see windows open in some areas of a building when it's very cold outside.
I had given management in the town hall a number of suggestions on how to address the steam heat in the building along with the name of a contracting firm in Mendon.
Sad to hear it's still a concern.
Steam is an excellent system when properly maintained but it needs service personnel who know what they are doing and it needs tender, loving care.
There is a difference between sytems with venting and those with steam traps on the radiators and both must be set-up accordingly. Not hard, not tricky if you know what you are doing but they do not operate the same and as I recall someone at one time tried combining systems. Not the way to go to get a system to operate properly.
I wonder what the steam pressure is at the boiler? Most novices increase the pressure to increase the heat-WRONG.
The old "dead men", those who know steam call those who installed these excellent systems called them, knew how to design, install and maintain them.
Heatinghelp.com is the source for anything steam and the pros on the site will answer any questions.
Section 6-7 Capital Improvement Program
The town manager shall submit a capital improvement program to the board of selectmen and the finance committee at least one hundred fifty days before the start of each fiscal year.
It shall be based on material prepared by the building planning and construction committee established by by-law, including:
(a) a clear and concise general summary of its contents;
(b) a list of all capital improvements proposed to be undertaken during the next five years, with supporting information as to the need for each capital improvement;
(c) cost estimates, methods of financing and recommended time schedule for each improvement; and,
(d) the estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining each facility and piece of major equipment involved.
This information is to be annually revised by the town manager with regard to the capital improvements still pending or in the process of being acquired, improved or constructed.
Actually UPSO capital projects starts with the BPCC. They are supposed to seek out projects from all departments in town, review, place preliminary budgets on them and add them to all past projects on the capital plan.
The "plan" is then turned over to the Town Manager for review and for the Board of Selectmen to take appropriate action.
Even all school department capital items end up on the plan but I don't recall how they are processed after being submitted to the Manager. View Comment
A few comments:
The BPCC had a professional study done many years ago and the current location for the fire department was deemed the best for response times and those times impacted eveyone's insurance rates in town.
It was advised to leave it in the general area it is now. The study is at least 10 years old but I doubt much has changed to suggest the town would be better served in another location.
The BPCC even looked at possibly putting the Fire Department in the Town Plaze but that was discounted pretty quickly.
The study should be somewhere in the Managers office and/or with the BPCC files and it wouldn't hurt for it to be reviewed.
The land across from the WWTP was also studied for a DPW by the towns on call architects and it was deemed too expensive because of the ledge involved for site development. The study should also be in the possession of the Manager and/or the BPCC.
The Town politicians and Town Manager must now look for another solution to the DPW problem. It will not go away and it will not get better and throwing up hands in frustration solves nothing.
The Manager, Board of Selectmen and Finance Commitee are hired, elected and appointed to lead.
Either they should or let others do it.
Jack View Comment
Wouldn't it be interesting if Mr. Knott turns around and does a deal with the two gentlemen who were going to buy the property?
Regardless, with Jim's reputation, the building will remain, be renovated and become the masterpiece it once was. View Comment
What I heard at the BOS meeting was there were funds for site work excluding any possible clean-up. Didn't they say that testing was required before costs would be known?
I have a copy of HKT's report and I don't see any clean-up costs in it. If you know differently would you tell us where it is in the report?
Myself and the Mitchell team have not stopped listening about the 8.5 million dollar plan but continue to put forth our 1.8 as an alternative. It matches or exceeds HKT's despite what anyone who is against us will tell you.
If the BOS put forward the 8.5, supported it and got unanimous approval from the Finance Committee (Mr. D'Amato-sorry can't resist) and the BPCC, speaking for myself, I will vote for it.
Jack View Comment