Monthly Archives: April 2012

Sen. Timilty seeks full clean up of MSH & state funds

Senator Timilty’s (1) email to Shawn Colins today and (2) letter to Governor Patrick about the proper clean up of the Medfield State Hospital -

=============================

Dear Mr. Collins,

Thank you for your email.  I have attached a letter I recently sent to Governor Patrick outlining my serious objections  to the current plant for a partial cleanup of the Medfield State Hospital site.  Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require more information.

With every good wish,

State Senator Jim Timilty

============================

MASSACHUSETTS SENATE
SENATOR JAMES E. TIMILTY
Bristol and Norfolk
STATE HOUSE, ROOM 507
BOSTON, MA 02133-1053
TEL. (617) 722-1222
FAX (617) 722-1056

April 28, 2012

His Excellency Deval Patrick
Governor of the Commonwealth
State House, Room 360
Boston, MA 02133

Dear Governor Patrick:

I write today regarding the disposition of the site of the former Medfield State Hospital. After years of involvement with this issue, I remain outraged and extremely concerned about the Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance’s current Phase IV remediation plan for the site. Under the plan, DCAM would not fully remove all of the hazardous materials (including, among other toxic substances, construction and demolition debris and hospital waste) from the land on the banks of the Charles River.

First and foremost, as a Commonwealth we share a moral imperative to ensure that residents are able to live and raise their families in a safe, clean  environment. Massachusetts has long been a leader in environmental stewardship, and I believe the incomplete cleanup planned for Medfield State Hospital site is inconsistent with the stated goals of the Administration to move toward a greener future.

Specifically, the Climate Change Adaptation Report, required under the Global Warming Solutions Act of2008 and issued in September 2011, identifies restoring  and managing flood plains as a priority in protecting the Commonwealth from impacts of climate change. The Report notes the risks posed by former landfills and other contaminated sites with respect to flooding, recommending that the health of flood plains be preserved and restored in preparation for rising water levels in order to limit the potential economic and environmental damage flooding may cause. The Medfield State Hospital site sits on 3.2 acres of flood plain along the Charles River, putting the watershed and community at risk under DCAM’s current plan. This has implications not only for Medfield but also for homes and businesses in municipalities all along the Charles.

In terms of cost, the expense of a total removal of hazardous materials from the site would be a comparatively modest increase over the current remediation plan. The Fiscal Year 2013 budget engrossed this week by the House of Representatives is over $32 billion; the estimated difference between DCAM’s current Phase IV remediation plan and the cost of a total cleanup is $5 million. Certainly, $5 million is no small amount in this economy, but given the grave implications of leaving toxic materials at the site and in comparison to the overall budget, it is absolutely our duty to protect the well-being of those who choose to make Medfield their home.

Most importantly, nothing short of complete removal of all toxic material will guarantee the safety of current and future residents. Labeling town land in close proximity to residences and water resources labeled as limited use, with the potential for severe environmental problems 10, 20, or even 50 years down the road, is simply unacceptable, particularly given the site’s location in Zone II of the town well. And, as you might imagine, it is incredibly frustrating to have the same entity responsible for polluting the site make the decisions as to how to address the problem. If a private company were in the same position, I would argue any cleanup plan addressing less than 100% of the waste left behind would not be approved by state regulators charged with upholding strict environmental protection standards.

Many town residents with professional expertise in environmental matters strongly disagree with DCAM’s current plan and with the rationale behind the plan, and I wholeheartedly share their concerns. I do intend to seek funding for this project during the Senate budget debate next month, and I am hopeful I will receive support from my colleagues in the Legislature and from the Administration in doing so. We must put our words into action and affirm our commitment to a clean and healthy environment by restoring the Medfield State Hospital site to a fully accessible, useful, and beautiful property.

Thank you for your attention to this extremely important matter, and I look forward to working with you to resolve this problem in a way that appropriately protects the citizens of Medfield and surrounding communities.

With every good wish,

James E. Timilty
State Senator
Bristol & Norfolk District

Town’s MSH clean up supported by State’s s own flood storage initiatives

The town’s newly hired attorney for the environmental issues at the Medfield State Hospital site sent the following email to Senator Timilty explaining why the state should follow the state’s own report on climate change, to remove all the waste so as to recreate the flood storage misplaced by that dumped waste.

==============================

From: Margaret Stolfa
Date: Apr 27, 2012 9:09:59 AM
Subject: Medfield State Hospital
To: James.Timilty

Senator Timilty

As mentioned at Tuesday’s meeting of Medfield’s State Hospital Environmental Review Committee, below is a short description of the Commonwealth’s Climate Change Adaptation Report and how it supports Medfield’s position that DCAM should commit to a more thorough cleanup at the landfill/dump on the State Hospital property.  The Administration’s Climate Change Adaptation Report includes specific suggestions on how best to manage just such a situation as this one. DCAM should embrace the recommendations in this report.  The Commonwealth has the opportunity to restore needed flood plain, protect the water supply and prevent future flood damage by cleaning up this property. (See http://www.mass.gov/eea/air-water-climate-change/climate-change/climate-change-adaptation-report.html)

The Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the Global Warming Solutions Act in August of 2008.  Section 9 of that Act directed the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, and an advisory committee, to analyze strategies for adapting to predicted impacts of climate change.  The resulting Climate Change Adaptation Report was issued in September 2011.  This comprehensive Report provides both short term and long term suggestions on how to prepare for and how to adapt to, the effects of climate change.  The Report details the climate change impacts already observed and documented and includes specific examples of the impacts these changes have had on the Commonwealth’s economic, transportation and local infrastructure as well as on natural resources.  The strategies recommended include cost-effective and risk based approaches to address known risks and vulnerabilities.  Included in the identified risks and vulnerabilities are increased damage due to lost flood storage, the location of “old” landfills/dumps near rivers or in wetlands, and flood impacts to water supplies, transportation infrastructure and businesses.

The Report specifically identifies the need to restore flood plains in order to better manage floods that impact the Commonwealth’s economy.    The Report notes the risk posed by landfills/dumps that sit in flood plains in terms of lost flood-storage capacity as well as the risk they pose in releasing debris during floods.  The Report references successful storm management projects that manage flooding by maintaining (and restoring) the health of wetlands and flood plains and that are credited with saving millions in flood damages.   One of these projects includes portions of the Charles River.

Here, the State Hospital’s landfill/dump is located on 3.2 acres of flood plain along the Charles River.  It consists of approximately 12-15 feet of mixed wastes that include incinerator ash, construction and demolition debris, and hospital wastes.  It sits not only in the flood plain but also in groundwater within the zone II, the area of contribution for Medfield’s water supply. The landfill inhibits 12.5 million gallons of flood storage – meaning that 12.5 million gallons of flood waters that would normally occupy that space end up somewhere else.

The current DCAM proposal does not restore this flood plain and leaves the majority of the landfill/dump in place.   Instead, DCAM should implement the recommendations in the Administration’s own Report and remove the landfill/dump from the flood plain.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like additional information.

Thank you, Margaret R. Stolfa, Esq.

Cherry Sheets – based on House budget numbers

Below and at http://medfield02052.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20120427-cherrysheet-housenumbers.doc

From -

Massachusetts Department of Revenue

Division of Local Services

FY2013 Local Aid Estimates

 

MEDFIELD

 


 

FY2012 Cherry Sheet Estimate

FY2013 Governor’s Budget (H2)

FY2013 HWM Budget

Education:
  Chapter 70

5,620,214

5,620,214

5,730,534

  School Transportation

0

0

0

  Charter Tuition Reimbursement

965

1,765

60

  Smart Growth School Reimbursement

0

0

0

Offset Receipts:
  School Lunch

10,893

10,116

10,116

  School Choice Receiving Tuition

0

0

0

Sub-Total, All Education Items

5,632,072

5,632,095

5,740,710

General Government:
  Unrestricted General Government Aid

1,137,437

1,137,437

1,226,088

  Local Share of Racing Taxes

0

0

0

  Regional Public Libraries

0

0

0

  Urban Renewal Projects

0

0

0

  Veterans’ Benefits

520

13,884

13,333

  State Owned Land

31,347

31,357

31,357

  Exemptions: Vets, Blind, Surviving Spouses& Elderly

26,482

26,472

26,472

Offset Receipts:
  Public Libraries

13,336

13,728

13,728

Sub-Total, All General Government

1,209,122

1,222,878

1,310,978

 

 

 

 

Total Estimated Receipts

6,841,194

6,854,973

7,051,688

 

FY2013 Local Aid Assessments

MEDFIELD

 

 

FY2012 Cherry Sheet Estimate

FY2013 Governor’s Budget (H2)

FY2013 HWM Budget

County Assessments:
County Tax

106,268

108,925

108,925

Suffolk County Retirement

0

0

0

Sub-Total, County Assessments

106,268

108,925

108,925

 

 

 

State Assessments and Charges:

 

 

  Retired Employees Health Insurance

0

0

0

  Retired Teachers Health Insurance

0

0

0

  Mosquito Control Projects

51,322

60,936

60,936

  Air Pollution Districts

4,200

4,280

4,280

  Metropolitan Area Planning Council

3,735

3,788

3,788

  Old Colony Planning Council

0

0

0

  RMV Non-Renewal Surcharge

6,220

6,560

6,560

Sub-Total, State Assessments

65,477

75,564

75,564

 

 

Transportation Authorities:

 

 

  MBTA

246,561

254010

254010

  Boston Metro. Transit District

0

0

0

  Regional Transit

0

0

0

Sub-Total, Transportation Authorities

246,561

254,010

254,010

 

 

 

Annual Charges Against Receipts:

 

 

 

  Special Education

0

0

0

  STRAP Repayments

0

0

0

Sub-Total, Annual Charges

   0

   0

   0

 

 

 

Tuition Assessments

 

 

 

  School Choice Sending Tuition

33,593

10,000

10,000

  Charter School Sending Tuition

10,073

11,136

0

  Essex County Tech Sending Tuition

0

0

0

Sub-Total, Tuition Assessments

43,666

21,136

10,000

 

 

 

 

Total Estimated Charges

461,972

459,635

448,499


 

Town’s future cost for employee health care

This is a report titled “Town of Medfield Other Post-Employment Benefits – Actuarial Valuation – 1/1/2011.”  The report projects the cost to the Town of Medfield of the future health care costs already earned by the town’s current employees and retirees.  Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) are employee benefits that have already been earned.  In our case these are obligations for which the town has not set aside any funds to pay those future costs.  This unfunded town liability on 1/1/2011 appears to have been estimated by the consultant in this report to stand at $39,775, 805.

http://medfield02052.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20110101-actuarialvaluation-opeb.pdf

From the report -

Summary of Actuarial Results
The actuarial values in this report were calculated consistent with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, issued June 2004. Values at two discount rates are presented. The 7.50% discount rate represents the expected rate .of return for a funded plan with a longer-term investment horizon. For an unfunded plan, the GASB Statement No. 45 calls for the use of a discount rate approximating the rate of return of Medfield’s general assets. The rate we recommend for Medfield is 4.25%. The OPEB liability is extremely sensitive to this assumption. Use of the unfunded rate instead of the funded rate causes the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), Accrued Actuarial Liability (AAL), and the Normal Cost to increase dramatically.

The summary results are as follows:
• Actuarial Accrued Liability (” AAL”) is the “price” attrbutable to benefits earned in past years. The total AAL as of January I, 2011 (at 4.25%% discount rate) is $39,775,805.  This is made up of approximately $22.3 million for current active Medfield employees and approximately $17.5 million for Medfield retirees, spouses and survivors.
• The Normal Cost is the “price” attributable to benefits earned in the current year. The Normal Cost as of January 1, 2011 (at the 4.25% discount rate) is approximately $1.9 million.
• Based on a twenty-eight year funding schedule (at the 4.25% discount rate), the Fiscal 2011 contribution would be $3,503,030. This figure is referred to as the Annual Required Contdbution (ARC). This figure should be contrasted with the ARC using the fully funded 7.50% rate and a thirty-year funding schedule of $2,432,940. These compare to the pay-as-you-go contribution of the existing costs for current retirees of $1,234,867. For an illustration of how payment of the ARC impacts the funding of the plan over time, please refer to the “mustrative Funding Schedule” discussion beginning on page 15 and the accompanying table on page 35. The following table shows the breakdown of the Actuarial Accrued Liability between future retirees and current retirees, as well as the normal cost, at Medfield’s different discount rates:

[SEE THE REPORT FOR THE CHART (it did not copy well below)]

Actuarial Results as of ,January 1, 2011 7.50% Rate 4.25% Rate

Current Actives                                                       $12,922,731   $22,309,068

Current Retirees, Beneficiaries, Vesteds ~  $12,881,239 ;  $17,466,737
and Survivors

Total AAL .                                                                  $2~,803,970   $39,775,805

Normal Cost                                                                $979,396            $1,889,948

ARC (uses 28 year amortization for

Unfunded, 30 years for Funded) .                       $2,432,940      $3,503,030

Dover still studying Bay Colony Rail Trail

The following was issued today by the Dover Rail Trail Committee -

=======================================

To the residents of Dover:

At the May 7 Town Meeting, Article 11 will request $5000 to continue the study of converting Dover’s rail bed into a rail trail. The presentation to be given at Town Meeting is an enhanced version of the one presented at the Warrant Committee’s Open Hearing on March 19 , which has been  on the Town website since then (scroll down the home page and then scroll through the Open Hearing presentations). The Dover Rail Trail Committee would like to provide some background information to you prior to Town Meeting.

Activity regarding the rail trail began 2 years ago.  In November 2009 there was a presentation to the Dover Board of Selectmen and abutters (over 80 had been notified by mail of the meeting) by the Bay Colony Rail Trail Association (BCRT), a non-profit formed to explore a rail trail in Medfield, Dover and Needham. Other than requesting that the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization  do a no-charge feasibility study there was no official action by Dover until June 2011, when  the BOS created the Dover Rail Trail Committee (RTC) with the charge to “develop a recommendation for the conversion of the Bay Colony rail bed into a recreational trail by working with all relevant boards, committees and departments in Dover…The final product should be a thorough report presenting a balanced discussion of the pros/cons of the conversion and suggested policies for all issues that must be addressed.”

In the Spring of 2011, the Planning Board released the results of the Master Plan Survey that had been distributed to all Dover residents during the winter. 681 citizens of Dover responded to the rail trail question:  Would you favor converting the unused rail line passing through Needham, Dover, and Medfield into a “rail trail” for walking and biking across the three towns? 

No                                                                                          159         24%

Yes, if private property can be protected             263         40%

Yes, if funded privately and/or by grant                                240         36%

Blank                                                                                       19

In addition, the BCRT sponsored a booth at the past two Dover Days Fairs and has accumulated a list of almost 100 Dover residents interested in a rail trail. Clearly, there was interest by Dover’s citizens to explore a rail trail and the BOS responded by creating this committee.

Since June 2011, the activities of the RTC have been discussed at 17 Selectmen’s meetings, including numerous pleas for volunteers (pro, con and neutral) to join the committee, a message that was also on the Dover website for months; two articles appeared in Globe West; and discussions were held with the Conservation Commission and Open Space Committee. Minutes have been posted promptly on the Dover website. And, finally, for those interested in learning more, the RTC committee members have been available to speak to anyone interested in our progress.

The RTC requested that the Selectmen put this article on the Warrant in order to obtain a small amount of funds in case we need them as we conduct the study. We are NOT asking for a vote to build a rail trail. This warrant article only asks for funds to study the issue so Dover’s citizens can be presented at the May 2013 Town Meeting (the current target date) with a complete study that addresses all the questions raised by Dover’s residents, boards and committees. It will be fact-based and comprehensive.

The RTC does have a few working assumptions that have been publically discussed:  the trail will NOT be paved, will fit into the rural character of Dover, and will cost the citizens of Dover very little money.  Donations, grants, volunteer support and other non-profit opportunities are anticipated to cover the vast majority of the cost. Development of a detailed financial plan will, of course, be part of the study.

Although there are already  60 questions on our list to study, the committee will be reaching out to everyone in Dover for input. The more questions the better. The questions will be researched, looked at from a Dover-centric perspective, and information will be obtained from the many communities in Massachusetts that have dealt with these issues so we can learn from those who have already completed the process of making a decision about a local rail trail in  their community.

This is a complex issue. The study should be done because over 700 citizens, through the survey and BCRT, have expressed their opposition, support or desire to truly understand the project before voting on its possible implementation. We urge you to support our efforts to provide you with a complete and thoughtful study and recommendation.

Thank you.

 

The Dover Rail Trail Committee

April 27, 2012

Proposed zoning changes at 4/30/12 Town Meeting

There is an Annual Town Meeting warrant article that proposes changes to the use table under the Town of Medfield’s Zoning Bylaw.  The zoning bylaw use regulations in section 5 of the Town of Medfield’s Zoning Bylaw are proposed to change as per the additions (in green), deletions (in gray), and changes (in yellow) noted in the attached material.

http://medfield02052.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20120427-atm-proposed-zoning-changes.doc

MMA Alert this afternoon on budget passed by House

HOUSE PASSES $32.4B BUDGET

KEY LOCAL AID ACCOUNTS GAIN MILLIONS

PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL AID IS A TOP PRIORITY IN SENATE BUDGET

As the clock neared midnight on Wednesday, April 25, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass its version of the fiscal 2013 state budget, increasing key local aid accounts by $105 million compared to the budget submitted by the Governor in January.   The Senate Ways and Means Committee is expected to release its own budget proposal in mid-May, and full Senate debate will begin on May 21.

The House budget would increase municipal and school aid by $105 million above the amount proposed by the Governor in January (H. 2).  The House Ways and Means proposal guarantees funding for unrestricted municipal aid at $899 million, adding $65 million to the base Cherry Sheet distribution; adds $18.5 million to Chapter 70 to guarantee $40 per student minimum aid for all cities, towns and school districts; increases the SPED Circuit Breaker by $8.4 million; fully funds homeless student transportation at $11.3 million; and increases regional school transportation by $2 million.  This is great news and a clear sign of the strong commitment of the members of the House to local government.

The Division of Local Services (DLS) has released updated preliminary Cherry Sheets for fiscal 2013 showing aid amounts for individual cities, towns and school districts based on the House budget committee bill.  Local officials can view their preliminary House Cherry Sheets at http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-data-and-financial-management/cherry-sheets/2013-cherry-sheets/

During the three days of debate in the House, members several passed pro-municipal amendments.  Two stand out.  The first is a comprehensive plan to update and fund the Community Preservation Act (CPA) filed by HW&M Vice-Chair Stephen Kulik and House Minority Leader Bradley Jones.  The CPA amendment would allow cities and towns to use funds to repair and upgrade existing recreation areas, expands the qualifying sources of local fund that can be used for a state match, and increases funding for the state share of the CPA with an annual transfer of $25 million from any end-of-year state budget surplus into the CPA Statewide Trust Fund rather than an increase in the registry of deeds recording fees.  The second amendment would increase funding for the Shannon Anti-Gang program from $2 million to $5.5 million.

In addition, the House members rejected several amendments opposed by the MMA, including amendments that would have diverted local aid to fund the state share of the police career incentive pay program, and another amendment that would have expanded collective bargaining by overriding existing management rights regarding the appointment, promotion, transfer and removal of employees.

The House-passed budget represents real progress for cities and towns, and it is imperative that the Senators embrace these investments in their version of the budget as well.  Vital local aid decisions will be made in the Senate over the next several days, and we are asking local officials to contact their Senators today to make sure that local aid receives the highest priority.

PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS AND ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL AID LEVELS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

HERE ARE THE KEY POINTS TO EMPHASIZE:

$65 MILLION FOR DIRECT MUNICIPAL AID: The House budget funds the Unrestricted General Government Aid account at $899 million, increasing the base appropriation on the Cherry Sheet by $65 million.  The Governor proposed level-funding UGGA at $834 million, and tentatively providing a later supplemental distribution of $65 million in October if the state ends fiscal 2012 with a surplus.  But with fiscal 2012 state revenues coming in below expectations, the $65 million is not guaranteed under the Governor’s plan, and communities wouldn’t have any idea how much aid, if any, would result in October, making it impossible to include the funds in fiscal 2013 operating budgets.  The House budget would solve this problem by making the $65 million permanent and adding it to the base so that cities and towns can make full use of the funds for ongoing operations and essential services in their fiscal 2013 budgets.

After a municipal aid reduction of nearly $500 million since fiscal 2009, this increase is vitally needed to allow cities and towns to maintain municipal services and avoid higher reliance on the property tax.  It is also important to note that the Committee’s recommendation recognizes the projected increase in state Lottery revenues for fiscal 2012 and 2013, and makes sure that cities and towns receive their Lottery dollars as intended in state law.

MINIMUM AID FOR CHAPTER 70: The House added $18.5 million to Chapter 70 school aid to ensure that all municipalities and districts receive an increase of at least $40 per student next year – under the Governor’s budget only one-third of communities and school districts received any increase, and this plan ensures that every district would receive a boost

SPED CIRCUIT BREAKER: The House added $8.4 million to the special education “circuit beaker” account to get closer to full funding.  Under the Governor’s budget, the state would reimburse only 62% of eligible costs instead of the 75% in the law.  The $8.4 million would increase the reimbursement rate to 68%.

FUNDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOMELESS STUDENTS: The House budget fully funds the $11.3 million mandate for homeless student transportation costs triggered by state acceptance of the federal McKinney-Vento Act.  Without this new line-item the state would fail to end this new unfunded mandate.

SUPPORT THE CPA AMENDMENT: The House plan would increase CPA funding by $25 million, and allow cities and towns to leverage their own resources to improve existing recreation areas, purchase open space, protect historic assets, and expand affordable housing.  The amendment reflects popular legislation that a majority of the Senate has co-sponsored in separate legislation.

No mosquito spraying this year, for now

Notice from Norfolk County Mosquito Control says it is too dry to make aerial larvacide spraying logical -

The State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board
NORFOLK COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
61 Endicott Street, Building #34, Norwood, MA 02062
(781) 762-3681 fax: (781) 769-6436
http://www.norfolkcountymosquito.org
DAVID A. LAWSON
Acting Director

To: Boards of Health
From: David A. Lawson, Acting Director
Date: April 3, 2012

RE: Aerial Application 2012

The Norfolk County Mosquito Control District has utilized aerial larvicide as a strategic tool in helping to control mosquitoes for many decades. Specifically, we have consistently conducted a county-wide aerial larvicide for the last 11 years. This year, we have been presented with a unique situation.  Southeastern Massachusetts has experienced the driest first 3 months since records have been kept.  This situation has caused many of the wetlands of our district to dry up completely and some to have very low water levels.

We have conducted larval mosquito surveys and have concluded that it would be irresponsible for us to conduct an aerial larvicide at this point. We believe that the natural conditions alone will control more mosquitoes than we could hope to in a ‘normal’ year, and to expend the funds we normally use for this application would not be the best use of the funds the towns contribute for the operation of the District.

We will continue to monitor the environment and if any significant rains arrive we may have to respond with aerial larvicide at a later date. If significant rains do not arrive in the next few weeks, we may have one of the lightest mosquito emergences in a long time. Due to some very warm early weather in March, the mosquito larvae that are present are more advanced than in most years. With some warm weather, we may see adult mosquitoes out earlier than normal possibly in late April or early May, when we normally see them in mid to late May.

In the meantime, we are currently hand larviciding smaller sites. Be reminded that our truck mounted ULV spray program is temperature dependent and will likely still begin around Memorial Day as night-time temperatures are high enough. If you have any questions, please do contact us.

Town seeks experts to evaluate its purchase of MSH

The town is seeking residents with real estate development expertise, who are willing to assist the town in the process of evaluating whether the Town of Medfield should purchase the former Medfield State Hospital site from the state.  Within the past month DCAM made known that it is willing to sell the site to the town, on terms yet to be worked out.  Therefore, the town now needs to determine whether it is in the best interest of the town to purchase that site.

To evaluate the possible purchase of the former Medfield State Hospital site, the Board of Selectmen are seeking to recruit residents with real estate development experience to advise the town.  If you have skills that can assist the town in this process and if you are willing to volunteer some time, you can let me, Mike Sullivan and/or Kristine Trieweiller know of your interest.

DCAM is proceeding with the feasibility study of uses for the former Medfield State Hospital sits that it commissioned from Jones, Lang, LaSalle.  We are told that feasibility study should be finished in 60-90 days.

Annual Town Meeting warrant articles and motions

Mike Sullivan today circulated the attached list of the Annual Town Meeting warrant articles and the supporting motions for each, which contains greater details.   http://medfield02052.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20120409-sm-2012atm-motions.doc