Back to Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes
August 10, 2010
Regular Session 7:00 pm
Mr. Rabuffo, Mr. Riley, Ms. Burns
There were no questions from the public.
Mr. Rabuffo announced that there had been items in the news regarding a security breach within the town. The Town reacted quickly and the implications have been dealt with. There is some additional work to follow up and there have been no instances of further security issues.
Grant of location
Ben Doherty of National Grid presented the request for a single residential connection to the existing main in Hersey Street. Mr. Sylvester explained that during demolition of a building on 27 Hersey Street the homeowner was required to disconnect the line. It was found to be a bare steel line so a new line was necessary. Mr. Riley asked about the settlement that had been encountered in recent National Grid street restorations. Mr. Sylvester explained that the Town was in the process of a protracted negotiation with National Grid over grants of locations and street openings. Mr. Rabuffo asked if it would be possible to revisit these issues during a meeting after Labor Day.
Voted - to approve the Grant of Location request of National Grid to install and maintain approximately 12 feet, more or less of 1 inch gas service in Hersey Street. This service line will originate from the existing 2 inch gas on Hersey Street at house #27, southwesterly, to the property line for a new gas service. This approval is subject to the provisions of the Department of Public Works.
Relation of Community Planning Department to Elected and Appointed Boards
Ms. Lacy said she had forwarded some information and some possible discussion points but that these are probably best addressed at a later date. She said she had also forwarded a chart of those committees who had staff and promulgate regulations or are governed by statute. Ms. Lacy asked what the Board had in mind as to who should be helping these e with filing, what do you want them to make the Board aware of and how much do you want to know? Mr. Rabuffo said that the initial reason for the creation of a Community Planning Department was to present a single fact to the public. Ms. Lacy stressed that this was the beginning of a conversation and that it should be followed by a discussion with the chairs of the various committees.
Mr. Riley asked for an example of a potential conflict. Ms. Lacy said that it may be that the goals of a committee may be in conflict with the goals of the Selectmen. For example, the Conservation Committee spent a lot of time on regulations for docks and piers and was subsequently told that that was not a priority to the Board of Selectmen at this time. Mr. Riley said for many years the department heads were accountable to the Town Administrator and the new process is now in place. Ms. Lacy said she viewed this as an opportunity to create a new process and recommended getting the people who are the heads of commissions and committees in the same room and talk about their role vis-a-vis the Community Planning Director.
Ms. Lacy noted that the Wednesday morning meetings have lapsed this summer but this could serve as a forum to check on what everyone in Community Planning is doing. Mr. Paicos noted that Ms. Lacy has done an excellent job in framing the issues. He said that in some cases question arises where the Board Committee or Commission is pursuing a course of action the question is does this meet with the goals of the Board of Selectmen. The second question is have some of the ad hoc committees outlived their usefulness.
Mr. Rabuffo said it would be helpful to talk to citizens who had been through the process. It has been his experience that several citizens he spoke to were disappointed by the process. He asked what could be done to be more user-friendly. Ms. Lacy to a certain extent that obligation is on the staff but that can be difficult when the Board of Selectmen is appointing the committee. Ms. Lacy recommended committee members of staff get together for a fall meeting to discuss such issues.
Traffic Committee
Mr. Rabuffo noted that the Traffic Committee had been working on several items.
There has been some interest in making the High/French/Ward Street intersection a four way stop. Mr. Sylvester said that this had been brought up on numerous occasions but it does not line up the way you would like for a four way stop and it might make things worse. For that reason, no recommendation was made. Sgt Horte said that after the reconfiguration of the High and French Street intersection the crash rate is better. Mr. Sylvester said the intersection was reviewed in 2001 or 2002 by Perkins Engineering. It was their opinion that actual narrowing would not work because school buses and tractor trailers would not be able to make the turn. The Committee is continuing to keep an eye on the crash data.
The intersection of Main and Cushing Streets has been on the Traffic Committee radar screen for some time. Many people compare the High, Free and Main Street intersection to Main and Cushing. The queue does not seem to be as long as people had indicated. The maximum queue between 5:00 and 7:00 pm was 12 cars and, on average, 5-6. The average wait time is about one minute. Sgt Horte said he questioned whether the intersection would meet the warrant for a traffic light. Mr. Paicos said that he had tasked Roger Fernandes with arranging for an initial look at the intersection. As constituted, Main Street meets the warrant based on traffic counts. Coler & Colantonio is gathering information and analyzing it. In October there should be some feedback from them that would identify issues as well as problems and/or solutions.
Sgt. Horte reported that the Traffic Committee had been approached by a resident because the existing crosswalk in the area of Main Street near the Congregational Church ended in a set of stairs. The Committee recommends an amendment to the Traffic Rules and Regulation to permit the installation of a crosswalk at 367 Main Street.
Voted - to amend the Traffic Rules and Regulations of the Town to install a crosswalk at 367 Main Street.
Mr. Riley noted that the pavement at Main and Free Streets is starting to move - probably due to the heat. This is more of a characteristic of the south than around here but this has been an extremely unusual situation. Mr. Riley suggested a letter to MassHighway because this will be a significant problem once it cools off.
Voted - to approve the minutes of June 22, June 29, July 1, July 6 and July 8, 2010.
Voted - to grant a Common Victualler license to NE Frog Pond LLC, d/b/a Pinkberry, 94 Derby Street expiring December 31, 2010.
Voted - to grant a Common Victualler license to L.P.M. Franchises, LLC, d/b/a Seasonal Specialties Fine Dining, 25 Technology Place (Blue Cross/Blue Shield Café).
Permanent Building Committee Discussion
Mr. Seelen reviewed his thoughts on the creation of a permanent building committee. He noted that it is not uncommon for it to take four to five months to get a committee up and running. A permanent building committee would minimize some of the uncertainty, incorporate institutional memory, provide consistent performance; knowledge of the regulatory environment and establishment of preferred design and construction standards. The goal of town is to improve the quality cost and delivery. Mr. Seelen also gave a collection of the bylaws of various communities. A brief discussion of updating the facilities studies ensued. The Hoit report and the Gale report each reviewed town properties and analyzed the condition of buildings and the beginnings of a long term plan for them. Mr. Seelen suggested looking at the portfolio and making a new five or ten year plan.
Committees are established by by-law which would require a town meeting warrant article. The tasks to get to that place are fleshing out the proposed by-law, meeting with town staff who would be involved in this, involving former chairs of other building committees, meeting with the Government Study Committee, meeting with Capital Outlay and Advisory and periodically update the Board of Selectmen. The goal is to improve project delivery and quality as well as to keep a control on project costs. This type of approach is in place in all but one of the triple A rated communities within our benchmark group have committees. A small number of municipalities have permanent staff who deal with this.
Mr. Riley thanked Mr. Seelen for his efforts. He asked who would make the selection of committee members. He suggested the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Moderator to give appropriate representation to each of the interests. Mr. Riley asked if the facilities study should be done prior to appointment of such a committee. Mr. Seelen suggested that they could go hand in hand. Some towns have the committee act as an advocate for the project; others have department head conduct feasibility studies. Mr. Riley recommended that a facilities study be done before getting too in depth with the committee.
Ms. Burns said that updating the facilities study and a building master plan makes a lot of sense. At one point Mr. Carey suggested maintenance standards and could this work into this committees work. Mr. Seelen said that although we may not see the extent of major construction that we have had in the past ten years maintenance would be an issue. Almost all towns have a provision for temporary members on the permanent building committees to deal with larger projects. Intrigued by the idea of the building committee recommend projects. I would not want to put another layer on an already long process. Perhaps a parallel process. Is there any idea what a facility study might cost? Ms. Bursn said that it makes sense to do a facilities staff right away and take things off the staff.
Mr. Rabuffo said he would like an estimate of dollars and cents to make sure that it is necessary to put on another permanent layer. Mr. Rabuffo said that Mr. Seelen might need some arms and legs to assist him – perhaps a lawyer. Dr. Galo suggested the MSBA guidelines be considered in the creation of possible by-laws. Having temporary members might be a way to deal with the membership requirements. Mr. Seelen said he would contact Katherine Craven. Ms. Healey suggested that Mr. Seelen bring a member of a permanent building committee from another town to the School Committee when he addressed the matter with them.
Mr. Paicos said that about ten years ago he researched a permanent building committee for Easton. The general idea is outstanding. A couple of caveats – there is a distinction between building a building and planning a building. The choices about what public buildings should be rehabbed are political and should be made by the political body. Most communities go for true building committees. We do not have a very robust building maintenance capability.
Mr. Rabuffo said the Board needed to digest this and revisit the issue in the near future.
Stabilization Fund Warrant Article
Town Meeting created a new revenue stream in the form of a meals tax that could be directed to a stabilization fund. Ms. Burns said her goal in seeking the meals tax was to bring about some property tax relief and to do that through a stabilization fund that could offset the need for a debt exclusion. While no one likes a tax it is easier to substitute a meals tax dollar for a property tax dollar. Each year Town Meeting would vote to put money into the stabilization fund and later vote to take money out of the stabilization fund. In each case it would require a two thirds vote. Ms. Burns suggested a little New England frugality by putting money aside for the purpose of defraying the cost of capital programs which require a capital or debt exclusion for financing.
Mr. Riley said he would be somewhat in favor of the article
Mr. Rabuffo said we have an obligation to build reserves and 60% of the restaurant tax comes from those who are out of town. He said that it is his hope the initial thrust would be to build a bank account and provide an opportunity to deal with the unanticipated through some sort of stabilization fund.
Mr. Paicos said the statute provides that you have to vote the money into the stabilization fund and the law allows you to establish multiple stabilization funds. Town Meeting can rename the fund and re-designate the purpose at any time. A Town Meeting can only bind itself and not future meetings. Mr. Alexiades said the town adopted a stabilization fund some years ago. About 15 years ago the State expanded the purposes for which a stabilization fund could be established. Mr. Manning said that after a great deal of thought he would like to suggest that special education costs be the purpose of this fund.
Interim Town Administrator
Mr. Rabuffo said that this discussion was initiated by the Board on the basis of the imminent departure of the town administrator. Mr. Rabuffo said that although he has not seen orders with Kevin's name as yet he has seen that his unit is being activated soon. In the interim the Town of Foxborough has had reason to talk to Mr. Paicos about a town manager position and he is being announced as a town manager finalist this evening. Mr. Rabuffo said this presents a difficult decision for Mr. Paicos and the Board is not sure where this is going and it needs to talk about possibilities. The Board is proceeding as if Kevin is deploying but the question before the Board is how to proceed.
Mr. Riley said the Board could hire someone or staff the position internally. There has been discussion with both Mr. Alexiades and Ms. Foley. He questioned if the Town has the money to go on the outside to look for a temporary administrator. Ms. Burns remarked that two years ago the Board had never had any experience with replacing a town administrator and it took longer than it should have. She said her worry would be what would happen to the jobs that Mr. Alexiades and Ms. Foley are doing now. The impact on how the town operates would be very large. Ms. Burns suggested completing the process of deputy of town administrators and have someone to do what they can in the top spot.
Mr. Rabuffo noted that the budget process starts in about 45 days. Mr. Paicos recommended that Mr. Alexiades could be a very good person to fill in and that should signal some degree of stability. Mr. Rabuffo said he would like to start the planning process sooner rather than later and asked for a motion to appoint Mr. Alexiades as interim town administrator to keep town on even keel for next few months pending further clarification. He said the deputy positions need to proceed. The meeting with the Personnel Board is scheduled for the 17th. Mr. Riley agreed the Town needs stability but he would like to be able to look at going outside – this might be okay for a month or two but wants to be able to revisit it.
Ms. Burns commented that two years ago Mr. Alexiades did an amazing job on the budget. It was the year that three million had to be cut from the budget for the first time. He did the whole process and that is exactly how she pictures it happening this time. Ms. Burns said she worried about hiring someone to back fill a position. Mr. Rabuffo stressed the need to put a person in charge of the Town to send a signal to the staff that there is one person running the show.
Mr. Riley said he did make a commitment to Mr. Alexiades a shot as interim town administrator but he would like some time.
The Board will revisit the matter at its meeting next Tuesday.
Voted - to sign the First Amendment to the Separtation Agreement between Richard Morgan and the Town of Hingham.
Reports
Ms. Burns reported that she lost the Selectmen's Regatta, again. Mr. Riley enjoyed the regatta and he also attended the Shipyard event. He said the movie was comical and the after party was a younger person's event. Mr. Rabuffo also attended the Shipyard movie premiere.
Meeting adjourned 9:55 p.m.
Betty Foley, Clerk
Ms. Lacy's submittals:
Discussion Questions
Clarifications re: Selectmen Appointed Committees in Community Planning Department
Board of Selectmen Meeting
August 10, 2010
For those committees whose activities are not dictated by state statute or Town By-Law, how do the Selectmen communicate what they want these groups to focus on?
What is the relationship between Town Hall staff and appointed board/community members? Insofar as activities are not dictated by state statute (like the ZBA), what if the objectives or activities of the committee are in conflict with those of the Selectmen, Town Adminstrator or Community Planning Director?
All of the main committees have their own regulations or guidelines outlining policies and procedures that they vote on independently. These include the ZBA Rules and Regulations, Historic Districts Handbook, and the Hingham Wetlands Regulations. Should the Selectmen or Town Counsel review or at least be made aware of changes to these regulations?
Who is responsible for staffing and keeping track of "Tier II" committees, such as Harbor Development Committee, HDIC? Who does their minutes, keeps their files, etc.?
How can the Community Planning staff assist boards/committees on keeping the Selectmen and Town Administrator up to date on what each group is working on? How much do you want to know?
Are there revisions that you would suggest for the Code of Conduct for Appointed Committees (attached)?
Selectmen Appointment Committees Served by Community Planning Staff
Committee Board of Appeals Conservation Commission Historical Commission Historic Districts Commission
Created By Zoning By-Law Section I (D) 1 Article 1, 1959 ATM Article 21, 1974 ATM
Created by 1966 Town Meeting Article 34
Appointed by Selectmen Selectmen Selectmen Selectmen/PB
Statutory Regulations
Chapter 40A
Chapter 40B
Massachusetts General Laws, Section 8C
MGL Chapter 131, Section 40: Wetland Protection Act
MGL Chapter 40, Section 8D
MGL Chapter 40C Section 4
Staff Sue Letizia Eddy Cliff Prentiss Andrea Young Andrea Young
Town By-Laws Hingham Zoning By-Law General By-Law Article 22: Wetland Protection By-Law
General By-Law Article 30: Rules and Regulations Governing the Use of Conservation Land
General By-Law Article 31: Demolition of Significant Buildings or Structures
General By-Law Article 28: Historic Districts By-Law
Self-Voted Regulations ZBA Rules and Regulations Town of Hingham Wetlands Regulations Inventory of Historic Structures? Historic Districts Handbook
Selectmen Appointment Committees Served by Community Planning Staff or Related to Land Use
Committee
Hingham Development and Industrial Commission Harbor Development Committee Open Space Acquisition Committee Community Preservation Commission Harbor Task Force
Created By Article 12, 1962 ATM
Article 19, 1963 ATM
Article 30, 1971 ATM
Article 17, 1997 ATM
Article 31, 2001 ATM
2009 Vote of Selectmen
Appointed By Selectmen Selectmen S/CC/PB Selectmen/AC/PB/CC/HDC/Mod HDC/PB/TTHBB/CC/
Staff None Assigned None Assigned Cliff Prentiss? Andrea Young Katy Lacy (unofficial)
Statutory Regulations MGL Chapter 40, Section 8A
None MGL Chapter 44B
None
Town By-Laws None General By-Law Article 15: Harbor by-Law
None General By-Law Article 38: Community Preservation Committee
None
Regulations None Non None ? None
Mr. Seelen' s submittals:
PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - OVERVIEW
Date: August 6, 2010
1. Introduction
The idea of a permanent building committee for Hingham has been discussed for several years, and a preliminary study committee was established by the Board of Selectmen in 2008. This committee began the process of considering the change of Hingham's design and construction practice from project-specific building committees to a single standing building committee with responsibility for all significant Town construction, addition, and renovation projects. The results of its research, including recent updates, are described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Overview.
2. Rationale
Design and construction projects have become increasingly complex, and public/municipal projects even more so. A single, permanent committee to handle all of Hingham's design and construction projects has several advantages over the traditional process that Hingham currently uses, all of which would lead to more control over project quality, cost, and delivery:
a. Timeliness: When projects are authorized by Town Meeting, it takes 3-5 months to empanel a project-specific building committee, and it takes that new committee yet more time to get organized and fully functional. A permanent committee would be able to begin work immediately and effectively upon project approval by Town Meeting, thereby assuring more timely project commencement, and minimizing the added uncertainty, cost inflation, and exposure to costly Code changes associated with delayed project start-up.
b. Institutional Memory: A permanent committee would retain institutional memory of significant aspects of prior design and construction projects, what went right, what went wrong, etc. The current process relies on informal, ad hoc knowledge sharing, whose effectiveness decreases as the time between projects increases.
c. Consistent Performance: A permanent committee would minimize the learning curves associated with project-specific committees and provide more consistent management performance from one project to the next.
d. Knowledge of the Regulatory Environment: A permanent committee could keep better track of the regulatory environment critical to municipal building design and construction: local and state codes, ordinances, and approvals processes; state-mandated procurement processes; etc.
e. Establishment of Preferred Design and Construction Standards: A permanent committee could consider an organized approach to establishing locally endorsed standards for town buildings: Interior and exterior finishes, local design preferences, HVAC systems, roofing systems, energy efficiency and other green standards, uniform contracts and documents standards, etc.
f. Town Staff Work Load: Having a permanent committee could reduce the conflicting demands placed on various department heads to manage major renovation or major repair projects (e.g., re-roofing, HVAC equipment replacement, etc.). This would both increase the time available for department heads' primary functions, and decrease the delays to critical projects caused by lack of management time and attention.
g. Long-Term Planning: A permanent committee could establish an organized, long-term approach to planning for and managing our major building resources, from new construction to major renovations and significant maintenance projects, similar to the method we use in forecasting and planning for our other capital outlay needs.
3. Work Completed to Date
a. In January, 2008, a preliminary survey of 36 similar towns, including 16 of our typical benchmark communities, was conducted to determine how other similar towns manage municipal construction. Approximately half of the towns surveyed, including most of our benchmark towns and almost all of the triple-A rated communities in the group, reported using some form of permanent building committee for their municipal construction projects.
b. In the fall of 2008, 10 of the towns with permanent committees were contacted and committee chairs were interviewed for more detail on their individual processes.
c. Following the preliminary survey and follow-up interviews, on-line research of eight additional towns with permanent building committees was undertaken to broaden the analysis; the results were added to the preliminary findings.
d. Available by-laws from 14 other Massachusetts towns were copied and studied.
e. Following the individual surveys and by-law reviews, work began on constructing a draft by-law for Hingham's consideration. A proposed by-law outline is included at the end of this overview.
f. In the summer of 2009, Advisory Committee and the Board of Selectmen had an informal discussion about the notion of a new Town Facilities Study (similar to the earlier Hoyt and Gale reports), to help to serve as a basis for future building planning.
4. Proposed Time Line Going Forward
In order to achieve the goal of an acceptable article or articles for the 2011 ATM Warrant, the following tasks should be completed by the end of the year:
a. Begin to flesh out proposed by-law
b. Consider logistics, scope, and potential cost of a new Town Facilities Study
c. Meet to discuss by-law concept with:
Significant Town department heads (Accounting, Engineering, Public Safety, School, Town Administration, etc.)
Former chairs of project specific building committees
Government Study Committee
Capital Outlay Committee
Advisory Committee
d. Periodically update BoS
e. Vet draft by-law(s) with Jim Toomey
f. Complete proposed by-law(s) by Warrant article deadline (confirm date)
5. Permanent Building Committee By-law: Outline
This outline is based, in part, on a review of similar by-laws from the following 14 Massachusetts towns, some of which are our bench mark towns: Belmont, Canton, Dedham, Falmouth, Hopkinton, Lexington, Littleton, Needham, Norwood, Plymouth, Scituate, Wakefield, Wellesley, Weston.
This outline also is based on the structure of some of our own by-laws. The text will be fleshed out over the course of the next several months.
a. Intent and Purpose
Describe the rationale of the By-law and its general purposes.
b. Definitions
Define the key terms used throughout the By-law.
c. Applicability
Establish the types of projects for which the permanent building committee (Committee) would have authority.
Majority of towns with permanent committees include all Town projects in Committee purview.
d. Membership
Establish the size of the Committee, appointing authorities, qualifications for membership, lengths of terms, etc.
Committees in other towns range in size from 5 to 12, with most being 7 or 9.
Hingham's traditional project –specific committees have had 7 members.
Appointment authorities typically include BoS, School Committee, and Moderator; some towns also specify particular department heads as committee members.
e. Committee Duties and Responsibilities
Define the Committee's duties and responsibilities, including:
- Commissioning of Town facilities study, and preparation and periodic update of Town Facilities Plan
- Committee's role in feasibility studies by other Town agencies
- Committee's role in execution of construction and renovation projects within its jurisdiction
- Maintenance of project records
- Preparation and maintenance of Committee manual of practice
f. Project Process Description
Define the process by which typical projects would proceed, including:
- Project initiation
- Feasibility studies
- Project authorization
- Project execution
- Project close-out
g. Miscellaneous Provisions
Define miscellaneous provisions, including:
- Provision of staff support
- Meetings and voting procedures
- Relationship of Committee to existing and/or on-going projects
- Severability
PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS – Attachment #1
Subject: Preliminary Survey
Date: January 9, 2008; Revised, August 6, 2010
Following is a preliminary survey concerning the methods other towns use to execute municipal construction projects. A list of 42 towns that are similar to Hingham in size, socio-economic characteristics, and/or location was assembled, starting with 17 of the towns against which we normally benchmark Hingham; benchmark cities, or benchmark towns with city types of government, were not included. The following towns were either contacted directly or the relevant information was found on their web sites; our benchmark towns are highlighted in bold italic type, and triple-A rated communities are marked with *. Sizes of these towns range from approximately 7,200 (Cohasset) to approximately 41,300 (Billerica):
Acton Amherst Andover Arlington* Belmont* Billerica Burlington Canton Chelmsford Cohasset Concord* Danvers Dedham Easton
Foxboro Hanover Hopkinton Hull Lexington* Lincoln Littleton Lynnfield Mansfield Marblehead Marshfield Milton Natick Needham*
N. Reading Norwell* Norwood Reading Rockland Scituate Sharon Stoneham Stoughton Wakefield Wellesley* Weston* Westwood Winchester*
The purpose of this survey was to determine the general process by which similar towns undertake their municipal construction projects; follow-up research on the specific details of the individual processes for 18 of these towns is covered in Attachment #2. Note that many of these towns have not experienced the sustained level of municipal construction activity that Hingham has in recent years. However, it was apparent that there are three broad models for municipal construction projects, and that most of the towns use one of these three models, though several use a combination:
1. Permanent Building Committee: In this model, the towns have a permanent or standing building committee, composed of qualified volunteers appointed by Selectmen, Moderator, and/or School Committee. Most towns using this model have a single committee for all construction projects; a few treat school projects differently from other municipal projects. The following 23 towns use this process for some or all of their projects:
Arlington*, Belmont*, Canton, Dedham, Easton, Foxboro, Hopkinton (except school projects), Hull (school projects only), Lexington*, Littleton, Mansfield, Needham*, Norwell*, Norwood, Rockland, Scituate, Sharon (school projects only), Stoughton, Wakefield (except school projects), Wellesley*, Weston*, Westwood, Winchester* (school projects only).
2. Individual Project Building Committees: This is the process similar to Hingham's, wherein individual building committees are formed for each distinct construction project. The following 17 towns use this process for some or all of their projects:
Burlington (school projects only), Chelmsford (school projects only), Cohasset, Concord*, Danvers, Hanover, Hopkinton (school projects only), Lincoln, Lynnfield, Marblehead, Marshfield, Milton, Natick, N. Reading, Sharon (non-school projects), Stoneham, Wakefield (school projects only).
3. In-House Staff: In this model, town employees manage, or assist in managing, some or all of their municipal construction projects. Responsibility for this task varies from town to town; in some, the Town Administrator's office is in charge, while in others, there is a separate facilities management department. The following 12 towns use this process for some or all of their projects:
Acton, Amherst, Andover, Billerica, Burlington (non-school projects), Chelmsford (non-school projects), Hull (non-school projects), Needham*, Reading, Stoughton, Weston*, Winchester* (non-school projects).
Conclusion:
A significant number of the towns surveyed (approximately half), including most of our benchmark towns and all but one of the triple-A rated communities, use permanent building committees for some or all of their municipal construction projects; fewer towns use the model similar to Hingham's for some or all of their municipal construction projects. Approximately 30% of the towns have in-house staff to manage their municipal construction or to provide professional support to the volunteer building committees. The numbers summarized above total more than the number of towns surveyed due to the fact that some of the towns use more than one of the methods described; see the detailed town-by-town description in the following pages of this Attachment for more information.
The extent of the permanent building committee model in other towns similar to Hingham suggests that this model represents an emerging "best practice" approach, and would be worth Hingham's consideration.
Attachment #1, Continued - Detailed Summary of Towns Surveyed
Town Population Bond Rating
Acton, 978-264-9611. 20.5K. AA+
Acton has a Director of municipal properties (staff) responsible for maintenance, construction, etc., for non-school properties and projects. Director provides support for individual building committees that are assigned for specific projects.
Amherst, 413-362-1855). 34.0K. Aa3
Amherst has a Director of facilities, Ron Bohonowicz (staff), responsible for maintenance, construction, etc., for school and most municipal properties. Director provides support for individual building committees assigned to larger projects, frequently chairing the committees; building committees not assigned to smaller projects, renovations, etc.
Andover, 978-623-8280. 33.4K. Aaa
Andover has a Director of facilities/DPW, Joe Piantedosi (staff), responsible for maintenance, construction, etc., for all municipal properties and projects. Individual building committees may be assigned to large school projects, but the Director of facilities provides support, plus there is a set of overall design/construction standards for town projects to which the building committees must adhere.
Arlington, 781- 316-3010. 41.0K. AA
Arlington has a permanent building committee for all municipal construction projects. The committee is composed of citizen volunteers, various department heads and the Town Manager.
Belmont, 617-993-2610. 23.3K. Aaa
Belmont has a permanent building committee for all municipal projects, Pat Brusch chair (617-489-3778). The building committee is involved from the most preliminary needs assessment stage of each project, and it is supplemented by appropriate departmental representatives for specific projects.
Billerica, 978-671-0942. 41.3K. AA-
Billerica has an engineering department that handles most municipal construction projects. A large school project might have a dedicated volunteer building committee, but the engineering department would provide guidance and support.
Burlington, 781-270-1600. 24.9K. AA+
General municipal projects are handled by the Town Administrator's office. School projects are done through the School Department; major new school construction projects have dedicated building committees.
Canton , 781-821-5000. 21.8K. AA+
Canton has a permanent "Building Renovations Committee"; sub-committees for individual projects are drawn, at least in part, from this permanent committee.
Chelmsford, 978-250-5201. 33.7K. AA
Chelmsford handles most small to medium sized construction projects through the Town Administrator's office. Large ground-up projects, such as new schools, have dedicated building committees; the Town Administrator's office provides support.
Cohasset, 781-383-4105. 7.2K. AA+
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Concord, 978-318-3000 . 16.8K. Aaa
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Danvers, 978-777-0001. 25.8K. AA+
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Dedham, 781-751-9100. 23.6K. AA
Dedham has a permanent building committee (Building Planning and Construction Committee) for general municipal construction projects, and a separate permanent building committee for school projects. They also have a municipal facilities manager who handles smaller projects directly.
Easton 23.2K. A2
Easton has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Foxboro, 508-543-1200. 16.3K. Aa3
Foxboro has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Hanover, 781-826-2261. 14.1K. Aa3
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Hopkinton 14.4K. AA
Hopkinton has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, excluding schools.
Hull, 781-925-2000. 11.2K. A+
Hull does school projects with a permanent school building committee; other non-school projects done through the town manager's office staff.
Lexington. 781-862-0500(276) 30.2K. Aaa
Lexington has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Lincoln , 781 259-2600. 7.9K. AAA
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Littleton 8.7K. AA
Littleton has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Lynnfield, 781-334-3180. 11.4K. AA
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Mansfield, 508-261-7370. 23.1K. A1
Mansfield has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Marblehead, 781-631-0000. 20.2K. AA+
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Marshfield, 781-834-5563. 24.8K. AA-
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Milton, 617-898-4848. 25.9K. AA
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Natick, 508-647-6410. 31.9K. AA+
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Needham, 781-453-8040. 28.4K. AAA
Needham has a permanent building committee, with permanent staff support (Steve Popper director).
N. Reading, 978- 664-6010. 14.0K. A1
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Norwell, 781-659-8000. 10.4K. AA+
Norwell has a permanent building committee.
Norwood, 781-762-1240 28.4K. AA
Norwood has a permanent building committee.
Reading, 781-942-9043. 23.1K. AA
Reading does projects through the town manager's office, with support from the town's facilities management department (which is part of the school dept.). Volunteer building committees are appointed, but they are advisory only.
Rockland 17.9K. Baa1
Rockland has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Scituate, 781-545-8741. 18.1K. Aa3
Scituate has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools.
Sharon, 781-784-1500. 17.1K. Aa3
Sharon has a permanent building committee for school projects; other projects ad hoc.
Stoneham, 781-279-2600. 21.5K. A1
Specific individual committees for each significant construction project.
Similar to Hingham.
Stoughton, 781-341-1300. 26.9K. A1
Stoughton has had a permanent building committee in the past, but has done no significant construction projects for some years. Stoughton has some in-house engineering expertise that they rely on.
Wakefield, 781-246-6390. 24.6K. Aa3
Wakefield has a permanent building committee for general municipal projects; school projects may be done by separate committees.
Wellesley, 781-431-1019(2206) 27.0K. Aaa
Wellesley has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools, Kathy Mullaney chair.
Weston, 781-893-7320(305) 11.7K. AAA
Weston has a permanent building committee that does all municipal projects, including schools, with support from dedicated town staff.
Westwood, 781-251-2581. 13.8K. AA+
Westwood has a permanent building committee.
Winchester, 781-721-7133. 21.1K. Aaa
Winchester has a permanent building committee for school projects, but most construction is managed by town staff.
PROCESS FOR MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS – Attachment #2
Subject: Follow-up Research
Date: January 9, 2008; Revised, August 6, 2010
Following the preliminary survey described in a separate document, a questionnaire was developed to determine the specific details of various towns' permanent building committee organizational structures and practices. In August, 2008, these questionnaires were sent to representatives of the towns with permanent building committees, and responses were received from the following 10 towns: Arlington, Belmont, Canton, Dedham, Falmouth, Foxboro, Needham, Wakefield, Wellesley, Winchester.
In order to provide more comparative data for better analysis, relevant information also was taken, where possible, from the written by-laws of an additional 8 towns with permanent building committees: Easton, Hopkinton, Lexington, Littleton, Plymouth, Rockland, Scituate, Weston.
Dashes (--) indicate that answers were not given or could not be determined from reading the by-laws.
1.What is the structure of your Permanent Building Committee (number of members, terms, project-specific members [if any], etc.)?
Arlington: 9 members: Representatives of School Superintendent, Town Manger, DPW, School Committee, plus 5 at large members appointed by a committee consisting of the Chairs of the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee and School Committee.
Belmont: 7 members, 3 year terms.
Canton: 12 members, 3 year terms.
Dedham: 7 members (plus Dept. head, ex officio, non-voting), 3 year terms; 3 at large, plus representatives of BOS, ConComm, PB and ZBA.
Easton: 9 members, 3 year terms.
Falmouth: 7 members, 3 year terms.
Foxboro: 9 members, 3 year terms.
Hopkinton: 5 members, 3 year terms; plus up to 3 temporary members for each specific project.
Lexington: 5 members, 3 year terms; plus up to 2 temporary members for each specific project.
Littleton: 7 members, 5 year terms.
Needham: 7 members, 3 year terms.
Plymouth: 9 members, 3 year terms.
Rockland: 7 members, 3 year terms.
Scituate: 5 members, 3 year terms; plus 2 temporary members for each specific project; TA ex officio member.
Wakefield: 9 members, 3 year terms.
Wellesley: 5 members, 3 year terms, they are assigned as liaisons to projects but entire committee oversees every project. Plus one school-appointed member for school projects.
Weston: 5 members, 3 year terms; plus 1 temporary voting member for each specific project; plus additional project-specific temporary members who are non-voting.
Winchester: 11 members, 10 with 3 year terms, one is the School Superintendent. The Committee must include at least one architect and one engineer.
2.Is your Committee established by town By-law? If so, please provide a copy if possible.
Arlington: --
Belmont: Yes.
Canton: Yes.
Dedham: Yes.
Easton: By Town Meeting Warrant article.
Falmouth: Established directly by vote of Selectmen; Mission statement only.
Foxboro: Yes.
Hopkinton: Administrative order promulgated by Town Manager.
Lexington: Yes.
Littleton: Yes.
Needham: Yes.
Plymouth: Yes.
Rockland: Yes.
Scituate: Yes.
Wakefield: Town Meeting article.
Wellesley: Yes.
Weston: Yes.
Winchester: Town Meeting article.
3. What is the process for appointment of Committee members (note requirement of MGL c. 71, § 68 for school committee designee for school building committees)?
Arlington: (See Question #1)
Belmont: 6 members appointed by Town Moderator, 1 by Board of Selectmen.
Canton: 6 appointed by Town Moderator and 6 appointed from town departments.
Dedham: Appointed by Town Administrator.
Easton: 5 appointed by Board of Selectmen, 2 by School Committee, 2 ex officio department heads (DPW Director and School superintendent).
Falmouth: Appointed by Board of Selectmen.
Foxboro: Appointed by Board of Selectmen.
Hopkinton: Appointed by Board of Selectmen (both permanent and temporary members).
Lexington: Full members appointed by Town Manager; temporary members appointed by affected department, board, or committee.
Littleton: Appointed by Board of Selectmen, with at least one member being a designee of the School Committee.
Needham: Town Manager, plus 6 members appointed by a committee consisting of various Town officials.
Plymouth: Appointed by Board of Selectmen.
Rockland: 5 members appointed by Town Moderator, 1 by Board of Selectmen, 1 by School Committee.
Scituate: Appointed by Board of Selectmen.
Wakefield: Appointed by Board of Selectmen.
Wellesley: Appointed by Town Moderator.
Weston: Appointed jointly by Board of Selectmen and School Committee.
Winchester: 6 members appointed by Town Moderator, 1 by Board of Selectmen, 1 by School Committee, 1 by Advisory (Finance) Committee, 1 jointly by BOS and SC.
4. Is your Committee responsible for all construction projects in your town, or are some categories (e.g., schools) handled outside of your Committee? Any minimum cost?
Arlington: All.
Belmont: All, except some DPW type work; $50K, min.
Canton: All new construction (not renovations).
Dedham: No; Schools have separate committee.
Easton: All; $50K, min.
Falmouth: Not schools.
Foxboro: All.
Hopkinton: Not schools.
Lexington: All; designs subject to approval of Board or Committee affected.
Littleton: Has authority for all, but Town Meeting can establish project specific committees at its discretion; project-specific committee shall include at least one member of permanent committee.
Needham: All; $500K, min.
Plymouth: All.
Rockland: All.
Scituate: All.
Wakefield: All; $100K, min.
Wellesley: (Refer to By-law)
Weston: All; $25K, min.
Winchester: The permanent building committee in Winchester is for schools only.
5. How is a Town department that is most affected by a particular project represented within the Committee structure?
Arlington: --
Belmont: Three members of the PBC serve on a building committee for each specific project, along with Departmental representatives.
Canton: The permanent committee may invite representatives of the particular department to serve as ad hoc members.
Dedham: --.
Easton: --.
Falmouth: Departmental liaisons appointed by project.
Foxboro: The permanent committee invites representatives of the particular department to serve as ad hoc members; these representatives are non-voting, but their input is taken seriously.
Hopkinton: Project-specific temporary members, with full voting rights on the specific project.
Lexington: Project-specific temporary members, with full voting rights on the specific project.
Littleton: --.
Needham: User Agency appoints two representatives, who have voting rights.
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: Up to 3 project-specific temporary members may be appointed by the Moderator.
Scituate: 2 project-specific temporary members appointed by BoS.
Wakefield: Town general government departments are formally represented during the feasibility study stage only (see question #6, below). School projects have more extensive representation on the permanent committee throughout the project process, including some voting rights.
Wellesley: All have a representative appointed to the committee and participate in all elements of projects (except votes). Only the School Committee representative actually has a vote.
Weston: Project-specific temporary members.
Winchester: NA, since all are school projects anyway.
6. Is your Committee responsible for all phases of major construction projects (feasibility study, design, construction)?
Arlington: Yes.
Belmont: Yes, including oversight of feasibility studies and advocacy at Town Meeting.
Canton: No advocacy for projects; involvement begins after project is approved by TM.
Dedham: No advocacy for projects; involvement begins after project is approved by TM.
Easton: Seems to be.
Falmouth: No advocacy for projects; involvement begins after project is approved by TM.
Foxboro: The Committee gets involved from project inception by a board or department and assists from design forward. The Committee reviews feasibility studies and assists if requested.
Hopkinton: Yes, though there are a number of possible exceptions.
Lexington: Yes.
Littleton: Yes.
Needham: Yes, except User Agencies provide functional program and initial statement of need to the Building Committee.
Plymouth: Yes.
Rockland: Yes.
Scituate: Yes.
Wakefield: Feasibility and programming studies are prepared by separate project advisory committees that include PBC members plus representatives of the affected Town agencies. These project advisory committees report to the PBC.
Wellesley: The Proposing Board does the Feasibility Study, informs PBC. PBC reviews the Study for its completeness and then works with proposing board to develop reasonable funding request for further work.
Weston: Yes.
Winchester: Yes, responsible for all phases.
7. Does your Committee manage building maintenance projects, such as re-roofing, as well as major construction and renovation projects?
Arlington: No.
Belmont: Town has Building Services Department for most maintenance projects.
Canton: No.
Dedham: Larger renovations, not periodic expected maintenance.
Easton: Determined by minimum cost of project.
Falmouth: No.
Foxboro: All significant capital projects are managed by the Committee; small maintenance projects managed within Department budgets normally handled by the Department.
Hopkinton: Yes.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: Yes.
Needham: Everything over $500,000 in estimated project value.
Plymouth: Yes.
Rockland: Yes.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: Everything over $100,000 in estimated project value.
Wellesley: It depends upon the size of the project. Sometimes a board requests and PBC approves that they oversee the work. This has been done by our DPW and School Com. We are revamping our Facilities Dept and more is falling on our shoulders because of that.
Weston: Everything over $25,000 in estimated project value.
Winchester: Yes, but COC also does some.
8. Does your Committee prepare and maintain a long-term plan and/or forecast for all of your town's real estate assets (similar to a capital outlay plan)?
Arlington: No.
Belmont: Committee works regularly with Finance Committee, COC and BOS to plan.
Canton: 5- and 10-year capital plans.
Dedham: No.
Easton: Yes, in concert with DPW Director.
Falmouth: No.
Foxboro: No, Town Finance Director does this.
Hopkinton: Yes.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: --.
Needham: --.
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: Yes.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: No, other Town agencies and the COC are responsible for these plans and forecasts.
Wellesley: No. The Advisory (Finance) committee oversees the preparation of a 5 Yr capital plan.
Weston: Yes.
Winchester: 5-year and 10-year plans.
9. Does your Committee maintain an organized data base of significant project features, such as typical project costs, preferred project components (roofing types, HVAC systems, etc.), quality of various vendors and consultants, significant regulatory processes and requirements (State and local), important lessons learned, etc.?
Arlington: Nothing formal.
Belmont: Nothing formal.
Canton: Nothing formal.
Dedham: No.
Easton: --.
Falmouth: Nothing formal.
Foxboro: No, but based on the size of the board and the terms, there has always been a significant knowledge base on the board so that previous lessons learned are incorporated in current projects in a semi-formal fashion.
Hopkinton: --.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: --.
Needham: --.
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: --.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: Nothing formal as yet; considering doing so.
Wellesley: Nothing formal, beyond a list of things to remember from one project to another.
Weston: --.
Winchester: Most such info is collected in a semi-formal fashion, not in a formal data base.
10. Do you have permanent staff (clerical, management, engineering) to support your Committee's efforts? If you have permanent staff, do they take a leadership role in the process or a support role?
Arlington: No.
Belmont: No.
Canton: Limited clerical assistance.
Dedham: --.
Easton: DPW provides support as needed.
Falmouth: No.
Foxboro: No, minutes are maintained by committee members and if outside resources are needed on a project the cost is built into the project budget and subcontracted on an as-needed basis.
Hopkinton: --.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: --.
Needham: Public Facilities Department provides support???
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: --.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: The PBC has no paid staff. However, Wakefield has a Town Building Manager assigned to the Department of Public Works with several full-time tradesmen (carpenter, plumber, electrician) working for him. The Building Manager takes a leadership role and he is a valuable asset to the Permanent Building Committee.
Wellesley: One full time Projects Administrator, who is also appointed to the School Building Committee along with a member of the PBC. Staff may be added to deal with new $110M HS.
Weston: Weston has a Director of Facilities.
Winchester: No permanent staff.
11. Do you have an in-house Owner's Project Manager for major construction projects, or do you hire one for each project as required?
Arlington: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Belmont: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Canton: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Dedham: --.
Easton: --.
Falmouth: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Foxboro: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Hopkinton: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: --.
Needham: Outside, project-specific OPM.
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: --.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: Outside, project-specific OPM. Project management for school construction projects must also now conform to MSBA requirements.
Wellesley: Outside, project-specific OPM for major projects. Town Facilities Director is the OPM for smaller projects.
Weston: --.
Winchester: Outside, project-specific OPM.
12. What tools are used for construction project task and financial tracking and reporting (e.g., specific software), and do you have a single member of your committee responsible for implementation of the tracking and reporting?
Foxboro: The Town's financial package tracks project cost and reports to the Committee. The Committee maintains project specific spreadsheets with amounts authorized and committed track PO's issued and bills approved.
Wakefield: Generally the OPM and the Architect track costs formally. Committee members track costs informally as their expertise allows. Town Accountant also provides assistance.
Wellesley: All reporting comes from the Project manager for each project and through the Town's Financial Services Dept.
Winchester: Generally the OPM and the Architect track costs formally. One committee member tracks costs informally.
13. If these questions do not relate to your process for municipal construction and real estate management, please elaborate.
Wellesley: PBC does not manage real estate. Wellesley has a Facilities Dept. that manages its real estate.
14. Do you have any general suggestions regarding management of municipal construction projects and real estate assets, based on your Committee's and/or Town's experience?
Canton: Good experience on school projects, mixed experience on other projects.
Foxboro: A permanent Committee made up of individuals with construction backgrounds with no specific ties to a department can give the Town good checks and balance. This type of Committee is able to confront problems with GC and OPM's on an active and informed basis. They are able to look for cost alternatives and evaluate objectively cost/benefit concerns.
Wakefield: Call it the Hingham Building Committee.
Winchester: Make sure everybody on the committee understands the public bidding laws (MGL Chapter 149).
15. How much unanticipated personnel turn-over do you have on your committee? Do you have term limits?
Arlington: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
Belmont: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
Canton: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
Dedham: --.
Easton: --.
Falmouth: --.
Foxboro: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
Hopkinton: --.
Lexington: --.
Littleton: --.
Needham: --.
Plymouth: --.
Rockland: --.
Scituate: --.
Wakefield: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
Wellesley: Minimal unanticipated turnover, despite weekly evening meetings. No term limits.
Weston: --.
Winchester: Minimal unanticipated turnover. No term limits.
16. How much construction (new and major renovation) has your town done recently?
Arlington: Significant school construction.
Easton: Significant school construction.
Foxboro: Significant construction in recent years, including school renovation and new construction projects, and new joint public safety building (police and fire).
Wakefield: The Building Committee was created in 2003; not much new construction since its creation.
Wellesley: Significant construction in recent years, similar in scale to Hingham's.
Weston: Significant school construction.
Winchester: Significant construction in recent years, $8M currently in progress.