55°
At the Finance Committee meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 12, I, Roger Mathieu and Barry Gallant, members of the “Mitchell Team” appeared to give the reasons for our warrant article to build a revised DPW facility at either the Providence Road or Fletcher Street site.
The chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. D’Amato, a committee unfortunately of one, made it clear that there was some type of process that had to be followed, despite our work being pro-bono and donated to the town. He also advised that we had to produce a letter from the Attorney General approving 44E and stamped drawings to be used under 44E.
He made it clear that he “knew 44E” despite our advising him that stamped drawings were not required up front and that Town Counsel had already spoken to Debra Anderson in the Attorney General’s office and sent a letter to the town manager that 44E could be used to build a DPW.
Then at the BPCC meeting on the following night he again said that a process had to be followed.
In an earlier article on this web site these comments were made: “There are people out there trying to overshadow the legitimate process you have followed, D’Amato said. He warned that any DPW proposal that hasn’t followed process will not get Finance Committee recommendation at the Oct. 23 Fall Town Meeting.”
What arrogance. That is the reason for my original comment above about a committee of one. Since when does any chair of any committee speak for the committee?
We are obviously those “people” he speaks about and it is extremely insulting to be treated like we were trying to sell the town insurance rather than build a first class DPW facility.
The process line is what has been used from day one to try and cut off any use of the plan to build first at the WWTP and now at either there or Fletcher street. It is bogus. The process was followed completely after the volunteer work was completed. The BPCC had all documents turned over to them before the fall town meeting in 2010 and they voted unanimously to approve the project. Mr. D’Amato and Mr. Nolan used that “process” card at their meetings and at town meeting to sway enough voters that we did not get the two-thirds vote needed.
The Board of Selectmen voted 3 to 2 to support and the Fincom changed their 7 to 0 vote against to 3 to 3 when they were given more documentation the night of the town meeting, including copies of all letters or emails from the Attorney General, Natural Heritage, Town Council and the Providence and Worcester railroad. One member of the Fincom even gave an impassioned plea on the town meeting floor for passage.
What more process is required when something is done pro-bono, free, no charge, no $800,000 fee to design a DPW that met the entire program of the department, added a new, safe entrance to the wastewater treatment site and replacement of a dangerous railroad crossing with dual gates?
The BPCC has been given an alternative to the $8.5 million plan that would cost the town under $2 million. Rather than continue to work against people trying to help the town, why isn’t everyone working together to come up with the best plan at the best cost? Let’s all work together.
Something Mr. D’Amato and his followers have refused to do. What a shame.
Jack Davis
Comments (4)
Have a feeling the Taxpayers may never support an $8-$10 Million Dollar DPW proposal!
Juggy,
Looking into the future.......................If the Mitchell Plan is implemented at the WWTP site one of the projects that should be on the future agenda items is the multi-million dollar clean-up of the former DPW facility.
How much will that cost as a result of "saving" $6M. ? Inquiring minds want to know what will come of kicking this known problem down the road rather than grabbing the bull by the horns and taking care of the issue now.
Who is kicking the known problem down the road, J-A-G?
Where did you come up with your "multi--million dollar clean-up"?
HKT's 8.5 million dollar proposal, defended by the chairman of the finance committee, did not include the entire clean-up as they made it clear furthur study had to be accomplished to define the actual cost.
The Town Manager at the last BOS meeting made it clear that the clean-up would be handled by a separate warrant article in the future.
You cannot be saying that a 1.8 million dollar facility without the costs of clean-up is more than an 8.5 million dollar facility without the costs of the clean-up?
Maybe you should attend a finance committee meeting and explain your math. Better still, go on camera at citizens forum and let the entire town know how 1.8 million will cost more than 8.5 million when your "multi-million" is added to both.
Other inquiring minds want to know.
'Great Letter.' Mr. Davis;
Plus the Town still does not know how much it would cost to 'Clean Up' Fletcher Street where the present DPW is now. 'Strange' you would think the Town would have received a price to 'Clean Up' Fletcher Street. Before the Town paid almost $80,000 -$86,000 to do a study for a new DPW Facility at Fletcher Street. Did the Town ever talk to the DEP or the EPA about Fletcher Street clean up, seek any advice, or discuss putting a new DPW on Fletcher street?
We don't need a DPW like Upton, Uxbridge, Oxford, a Blue Plate Special, we want one like Weston, Dover, Lexington, Andover?..lol. It may appear our Town Hall is so out of touch? With what Senior Citizens on fixed incomes, those struggling in these hard economic time's are living with on a daily bases.
I have a feeling the great Taxpayer's, Citizens, of Northbridge can see through this $8.5 Million plus Cadillac Plan. Plus they will support Warrant Article #17, the $1.8 Million Dollar Mitchell Plan at the Fall Town Meeting and at the Ballot Box in November.
Plus the Taxpayers know their is other projects on the Town plate in the near future they may also have to pay for.