Conference 7.286::maynard

    
    I'd like to know more about what will happen if the Thompson
    Farm proposal to drain into the school wetlands fails.  
    
    Would the development be stopped if the proposal is voted down ?
    Do the Thompson Farms developers have an even uglier contingency plan ?
                                     
    -Joanne

RE: .1 "Do the ... developers have an even uglier contingency plan?"
    
    No, the developer's alternate plan is less ugly than draining into the
    school land.  It does not put the wetlands at risk, but it has some
    disadvantages.  However, there is also a better way of doing the
    drainage: a retention pond. So you can say "no" to the proposal
    (Article 21) at Town Meeting without worry. 
    
    First, let me back up a bit: 

    If the proposal to drain into the school land fails, then the developer
    has two choices:
    1. Tie into existing storm sewers. I have been told that the closest
    storm drain with adequite capacity is on Parker Street.
    2. Dispose of the water on the site.

    Choice 1 is likely to be very expensive, so the developer has made no
    mention of it.  The typical way of doing choice 2 is a retention pond:
    A low spot made to collect water.  The advantage of this is that the
    water is absorbed close to where it always has been, so it is less
    likely to create new problems than piping the water elsewhere. The
    problem with 2, from a developer's point of view, is that a pond
    may take up space where they could put a house, reducing the profit.
    
    The developer does have an alternate proposal for drainage.  It
    involves catching the water in large undergrounds tanks, and letting it
    absorb into the ground from there.  For the developer, the problem is
    still that the tanks still take up space, and may limit houses; the
    problem for the town is that the tanks silt up, and they would need to
    be pumped out periodically.  I heard that the town owns no machinery to
    do this. 
    
    Why did the developer propose these tanks? Why not a retention pond?
    Consider this: I was at the DPW meeting when the developer brought the
    alternate plan in. The DPW, who would have to maintain the tanks,
    predictably did not like it.  They preferred the proposal to drain into
    the school land, since maintenance is less.  Now, it is distinctly
    possible that the developer brought in a deliberately ugly plan, so
    that the DPW would recommend the plan which allows the developer to
    make the most money, draining into the school land.  Had the developer
    proposed retention ponds as an alternate proposal, it is possible that
    the DPW might felt differently.  Retention ponds are commonly used,
    well understood, and probably the best way to go if the Thompson Farm
    development ever happens. 

    -Steve    

In the tradition of late notes, I'd like to ask a few questions of folks who 
might have been good and gone to some of the preliminary meetings.

The prop 2-1/2 override was soundly defeated in the town elections on May 1,
but the selectmen have decided to keep it on the warrant for the town meeting
next week (which contradicts what they had said previously, but never mind 
that).

I have no doubt that the present police and fire station is too small to house
both services.  However, my (admittedly superficial) impression from the space
needs flyer that was sent around some time ago is that the proposed police 
and fire stations are pretty elaborate.  Does anyone know how the estimated 
$3M pie gets sliced up as far as specific areas of usage in either building?  
I'm especially interested to know how much the pistol firing range will cost in
the police station.  

I'm also wondering if what police chief Tibbits said in his letter to the 
Beacon editor yesterday was true: have they been trying to get out of that
building since the 1970's?  If so, how often have they gotten as far as 
working up a proposal like this year's and why do we keep voting them down?  
Last year everybody got mad about them trying to move into the Coolidge school
(see note 93.*) because it would disrupt the residential neighborhood.  I tended
to agree with that thinking.  This year, from the people I've talked to, the
consensus seems to be that the proposal is overdone and would cost too much.
Another concern is that the Roosevelt building is just too big to house only
the police, and some effort should be made to share it with other town 
departments.  Has this been considered?

After the prop 2-1/2 override was defeated in the town elections, the fire chief
was quoted in the Beacon as saying something to the effect "You can't buy
a Cadillac for the price of a Chevy." (I don't remember the exact wording)

Well, I don't need a Cadillac, and I don't want to buy someone else a Cadillac.
Is the proposal a Cadillac?

    From what I understand (and I may be totally wrong), the police
    department is required by the state to have some of the elaborate
    features they have included in their proposal (i.e. access to a firing
    range).  While they do have access today, there is some controversy
    surrounding it.

    If I'm correct, I think it is time to write to our State Rep. to see if
    these requirements can be changed, and/or, look into the possibility of
    'regionalization' of some of these features.  I can understand that in
    larger cities and towns in the state it makes sense for the police to
    have their own private firing range, but in a small town like Maynard,
    with 26 officers on the force, this requirement is absurd.

    I too would like to know more about the breakdown of the $3million
    price tag.

    -joanne
    

    
      Yes, it is true that they have been working this issue since
    the early 70's.  The Maynard Community Center (aka. Boys Club)
    was suppossed to be the new Public Safety (police/fire/C.D.)
    building, but since they had more support and DEC $$ for the
    Boys Club I guess that won out.
    
      It really is a shame to see how the Maynard Police operate. I
    understand that Pepperell just converted a building much as
    Maynard proposes and it turned out great.
    
      If anything is to be done though, it needs to be a long-term
    fix, not a bunch of little fixes to do it the right way.
    
      I think that properly planned Roosevelt would be great.  Room
    for police administration, operations, firing range, storage,
    related work.  Room to offer special classes, i.e. defensive
    tactics, informational sessions, etc....
    
      If the town doesn't take the opportunity presented now, it
    could be mandated later due to regulation or incident.
    
                             Mark
    

    Last year there was a presentation by the company who would do the
    renervations.  The company chose Coolege over Roosevelt for the police
    because of size (Coolege is smaller) but had a number of alternatives
    to present.  If I recall, the Town Offices were going into one or
    the other, leaving the town building for our very small library to
    expand.  I remember it being said that ALL police officers are
    required to re-qualify on pistol use every X amount of time.  If
    Maynard had a range, we could allow Acton and other towns to use
    it at a fee.
    
    There was also discussion on what companies could bid to do state/city
    work.  If Co. A could do it for pennies and Co. B would charge dollars,
    we were compelled by some (state, federal?) law to use Co. B if
    they were on the approved list.
    
    Who else remembers that meeting?  The Town Hall was packed.
      

    I was at the meeting last year. I think it was Selectman George Shaw
    that brought up the cost issue.  I believe he was referring to the
    state's prevailing wage mandate, which requires municipalities to use
    union contractors on public works projects. Union contractors pay
    higher wages to their employees, and are therefore more expensive. 
    Only contractors that can demonstrate they pay prevailing wage can
    submit bids for public projects. Shaw believed that the town suffers by
    being required to pay union wages -- rather than asking for bids in a
    truly competitive market.  
    
    This whole issue was the subject of a referendum question in last
    November's election.  The unions successfully rallied voters to prevent
    repeal of the prevailing wage law. You may recall the bumper stickers on
    every pickup truck: "Vote no on 2, it's bad for you."  
    
    Joe
    
    
    
    
    

    You're right.. I remember it now.
    
    Thanks.