HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-13-2011 pw reportTown Council
Town of Watertown
Committee on Public Works, Meetings March 16 and 29, 2011
Report: April 13, 2011
The Committee met March 16th at 9:30 am in the Council Chambers. Present were: Susan Falkoff,
Chair; Steve Corbett, Vice -chair; Vincent Piccirilli, Secretary; DPW Superintendent Gerald Mee; DPW
Clerk Mary Haley; Steven Magoon, Director of Community Development & Planning; Town Auditor
Thomas Tracy; Bicycle -Pedestrian Committee Chair Steve Engler; and Ernesta Kraczkiewicz.
1. Fire Sprinkler Service Charge
Mr. Piccirilli summarized the request to change the charge, which is currently a flat rate for all users, to
a prorated fee based on the size of the pipe, to give some relief to smaller building owners. (see
attached) Mr. Mee said there are currently 163 sprinkler connections being assessed a fee. He agrees
that it would be fair to charge based on pipe diameter, but it will take some time to visit each location
and determine the service pipe size, since many older buildings do not show the size in the water
system records, and he does not think the DPW could complete the analysis in time to set the water
rates effective July 1, 2011. Mr. Tracy suggested that the new fee structure could be instituted effective
January 1, 2012.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the DPW proceed with collecting information on
pipe sizes; and that the DPW present its preliminary findings at the water rate hearings for FY12; and
that the DPW phase in the new rates effective January 1, 2012.
2. Road Construction Update
Mr. Mee reviewed the plans for summer 2011 projects which were contained in the CIP
recommendations presented at the March 8th Council meeting. He expects the Roadway Pavement
Management reassessment to be done in August, to determine what roads will be redone in 2012. For
this summer, the focus will be on trench patching, as well as the $384,000 selective mill and overlay of
the worst potholed areas. The DPW will be doing a road survey for this work and putting this out to bid
soon.
Ms. Falkoff asked whether paving short dead-end streets like Hawthorne that are in very bad shape,
gets postponed because of the cost to install granite curbs. The curb ordinance allows the
Superintendent to request exceptions if he justifies it in writing and the committee expressed support for
the concept of exempting such streets from the granite curb requirement. Ms. Falkoff also asked about
the deterioration of the new concrete sidewalks on Capitol St and Elliot St. Mr. Mee is investigating.
This might be the result of a bad batch of concrete or poor workmanship, and the work is still covered
by a one year warranty.
3. Mount Auburn Street
The Committee discussed the Mt Auburn St Corridor Phase 1, Feasibility Study & Conceptual
Design that was presented on March 7, 2011. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that
the DPW proceed with Phase 2, Functional Design Report and Design of Early Action Projects, using
state Chapter 90 funds as identified in the FY2012 Capital Improvement Program, using option 3, with
single through lane in each direction east of Common St and dedicated left turn lanes at key
intersections.
Page 1 of 2
Committee on Public Works Report — April 13, 2011
4. Driveway Paving Permits
Mr. Mee provided an update. The DPW fine has increased from $50 to $250 for paving driveways
without a permit. Mr. Magoon said he will look into new state laws that could allow the fine to be
enforced through an administrative hearing instead of the district court. The permit is actually for
crossing a sidewalk with heavy equipment. DPW waives the fee if only non -motorized equipment (such
as wheelbarrows) is used. The DPW is focusing on education, to get the word out to contractors. He
will forward the materials they have developed to this Committee and to members of the stormwater
advisory committee for review.
Mr. Magoon said the newly hired Zoning Enforcement Officer will spend more time in the field looking at
violations. The Zoning Department must approve requests to expand driveways beyond the existing
boundaries to insure they comply with the zoning ordinance, however if a zoning violation has existed
for more than ten years ago, the Town cannot enforce its removal. The zoning department advises
applicants for building permits when they also need to get a permit from the DPW for sidewalk crossing.
Committee members asked what criteria are used for granting a variance for additional paving and Mr.
Magoon said it varies depending on how the Board of Appeals decides each case. The Committee
would like to have some discussion about this with the new zoning officer once he settles into his
position.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 am.
The Committee reconvened March 29th at 5:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Present were: Susan
Falkoff, Steve Corbett, Vincent Piccirilli, Gerald Mee, Mary Haley, Steven Magoon, Tree Warden Chris
Hayward, and Deputy Fire Chief Tom McManus. Also present were Council President Mark Sideris,
Councilor Cecilia Lenk, members of Trees for Watertown and other members of the public.
1. NStar Application for Electric Utility Tree Pruning
Mr. Hayward made a presentation about NStar's application to prune trees around power lines. A copy
of the presentation and the NStar 3-9-11 Pruning Letter are on the Town's website www.watertown-
ma.com under Document Center > Community Development & Planning > Tree Warden.
Mr. Hayward answered many questions from the audience. He pointed out that this is the first
opportunity that the Town has had to review an application from NStar under the new tree regulations
that were just published last fall. Councilor Lenk asked if Mr. Hayward could give a report to the Town
Council on how the process worked after the work is complete. Mr. Hayward said he would try to keep
the Town website updated with the progress of the NStar pruning.
2. Other Business:
Jim Louglin asked about the process for cutting down a tree in Arsenal Park. Mr. Mee assured the
Committee that the DPW coordinates with the Tree Warden about parkland trees before cutting them
down, unless there is an imminent danger to public safety.
Nick Timperio asked about the status of Summer St parking. Mr. Mee said the engineer is working on a
design, as discussed in an earlier meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 pm
Report prepared by: Vincent Piccirilli
Page 2 of 2
March 8, 2011
To: Town Manager Michael Driscoll
Council President Mark Sideris
From: Vincent Piccirilli, District C Councilor
CC: DPW Superintendent Gerald Mee
Honorable Town Council
Re: Request to restructure the fire service water fee in FY2012
As a follow up to the discussions held on the FY11 budget hearing on June 1, 2010, I would like
to restate my request for the Department of Public Works to present a volume -based fire service
charge for the Town Council's consideration in setting the FY12 water/sewer rates. Last year
this issue was raised too late in the budget process for the DPW to provide the information, so I
want to make sure that the DPW has enough advanced notice this year.
The fee is assessed for an automatic fire sprinkler connection to a building. Currently, only
residential buildings of 4 or more units require sprinklers, as do commercial buildings. The issue
is the fairness of the fee, which is currently $243 per quarter, regardless of the size of the pipe.
Thus, a 4 unit residential building with a 2" pipe is assessed the same fee as a shopping mall,
which may have an 8" pipe. The $243 fee is to guarantee the flow of unmetered water for
firefighting purposes. An 8" pipe can deliver about 16 times volume of water as a 2" pipe, yet
both customers pay the same amount.
I propose that we institute a volume -based rate structure, with two elements:
1. The fee would be based on the pipe diameter, as a proxy for volume of water used.
2. The change in the fee structure should be arranged so that it is revenue neutral.
Using the example below, a 2" pipe fee would be $50 and an 8" pipe fee would be $806.
Pipe
Size
(in)
Pipe
Area
(sq in)
Number
of
Services
(example)
Total
Area of
Service
(sq in)
Current
Quarterly
Charge
Current
Total
Revenue
Revenue
per sq in
Pro -
rated
Revenue
By Pipe
Area
Pro -rated
Total
Revenue
2
3.14
10
31.40
$243
$2,430
$50.38
$503.78
3
7.07
50
353.25
$243
$12,150
$113.35
$5,667.53
4
12.56
120
1507.20
$243
$29,160
$201.51
$24,181.46
5
19.63
30
588.75
$243
$7,290
$314.86
$9,445.88
6
28.26
40
1130.40
$243
$9,720
$453.40
$18,136.10
7
38.47
0
0.00
$243
$0
$617.13
$0.00
8
50.24
5
251.20
$243
$1,215
$806.05
$4,030.24
255
3862.20
$61,965
$16.04
$61,965.00
In order to make a decision on this issue, the DPW would need to provide the total number of
fire service connections, and the pipe size of each connection. This information can then be
entered into a spreadsheet to calculate the true pro -rated revenue by pipe area.
This issue was raise by Mr. Robert Tanis, a constituent who purchased one of units in the new
four -unit condo property at 14-20 Myrtle St, as well as by Mr. Amleto Martocchia, who manages
that property. I will forward copies of their correspondence for your use, as they also include
rates charged by neighboring communities.
I believe this is an issue of fairness, and deserves serious consideration by the Town Council.
When we look at fees for utilities and similar services, the amount of the fee should be related to
the amount of the service used, which in this case is the volume of water. This avoids burdening
small property owners with a high fee that would be insignificant to a large commercial
operation.
I will send a copy of the spreadsheet and correspondence under separate cover.
Thank you for considering this, and please let me know if you need any additional information.
Vincent Piccirilli