HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOS MINUTES 5-23-1984BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 3 1 1984
MAY 23, 1984 1
PRESENT: Selectmen John Dunn, Richard D'Onofrio, John McNair; Town ManagermW
1. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. and the Flag was saluted.
* MOTION: To appoint John Dunn Chairman for the evening.
D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 2 -0
2. Minutes of May 16, 1984
* MOTION: To approve the Minutes of May 16, 1984. D'Onofrio /McNair
Selectman D'Onofrio pointed out a typographical error in the
vote as recorded; Selectman McNair then said it should read
4:1 with McNair opposed.
VOTED to approve as corrected: 3 -0
3. Warrant #54
* MOTION: To approve Warrant #54 in the amount of $233,559.27, dated May 22,
1984, broken down as follows:
General Fund - $ 58,881.80
Revenue Sharing - 31.50
School Lunch Expense - 10,872.74
Special Revenue - 497.93
Recreation Revolving - 1,133.40
Motor Pool - 268.00
Sewer Enterprise - 1,939.66
Water Enterprise - 3,674.42
Electric Enterprise - 156,259.82
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
4. Licenses and Permits
a) Mr. William Beattie came before the Board to present documentation for
his Hackney License Application, as originally presented at the May 9,
1984 Board meeting: property at 4 N. Main Street, to be rented from
Albino Realty Trust: Agreement of Sale on a 1976 4 -door Dodge Dart;
lease agreement for a 2 -way communication system. Selectmen D'Onofrio
asked Mr. Beattie if he had any financial interest in the business, and
he said yes. They expect to be established effective July 1, 1984.
* MOTION: To approve the Hackney License Application for Sunshine Taxi,
effective July 1, 1984.
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 23, 1984
PAGE 2
b) Sewer Connection Application for Alan Atlas, 46 Henry Street. This is
an existing residence with a septic system problem.
* MOTION: To approve the Sewer Connection Application for 46 Henry Street.
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
c) Application for One -day Auctioneer License by Frank A. Ronne of The
Appraisal, Div. of E.I.C., 180 Bent Street, Cambridge, MA. for a real
estate foreclosure at 888 S. Main Street, Mansfield, June 12, 1984.
* MOTION: To approve the One -day Auctioneer License for Frank A. Ronne.
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
5. Industrial Development Finance Authority /Boston Envelope Co., Inc.
Francis Baldini, Chairman of the IDEA, met with the Board, together with
Richard Flynn, President, and Richard O'Neill of Boston Envelope Co., to
ask the Board's approval of his committee's Resolution approving Industrial
Revenue Bonds for the Boston Envelope Co., in the amount of $4,000,000.
Boston Envelope employs 240 people in their present Canton location, oper-
ates 3 shifts, and is the major independent_ envelope manufacturer in the
country. The new plant will be located in an already existing building,
down the street from Codex, and will take approximately 6 months to reno-
vate. Vazza Associates will purchase the building, to be sold to BECO
Realty Trust and leased to Boston Envelope Co., Inc.
* MOTION: To approve the Resolutionrregarding - certification for industrial
development facilities -by Vazza Associates to be sold to BECO
Realty Trust and leased to Boston Envelope Company, Inc., includ-
ing Industrial Revenue Bonds.
D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 3 -0
6. Self Help Appointment
The Clerk advised that there was one application for the vacancy on the
Self Help Board, for the joint representative for the towns of Mansfield
and Easton. He then read the information given on Theda M. Hornung's appli-
cation, which indicated she is well qualified. Mrs. Hornung was present.
* MOTION: To appoint Theda M. Hornung as the Mansfield /Easton representative
to the Self Help Board of Directors.
D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 3 -0
7. Public Hearing - American Legion Post #198
The Hearing opened at 8:00 P.M. with members of the Legion and residents
of the neighborhood present. The Clerk read a copy of the Notice of Public
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 23, 1984
PAGE 3
Hearing and the Petition from residents of the area. He then gave some
background on an earlier concern by at least one resident where use of
the Club License was questioned, and read from the Minutes of both Novem-
ber 30, 1983 and December 7, 1983 covering this. The Clerk also read from
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 138, Section 12, pertaining to a Club
License for guests only.
Ken Fraser, one of the signers of the petition, spoke concerning the exces-
sive noise, litter, fights in parking lot, when the Legion rents the hall
to rock bands. Other residents substantiated this; some residents voiced
strong concern for the Board considering revoking the license; all they ask
for is control of the noise, perhaps cutting the hours of the license.
Selectman McNair clarified one point, namely that the hearing was about
whether the Board should take disciplinary action only, not to revoke the
license at this time. Selectman D'Onofrio spoke about the Legion's assur-
ance that they were adhering to the rules and regulations of the License,
but said he feels there is apparent mistreatment, as evidenced by the Guest
Register, which was obtained for the hearing. He feels the concerns stem
from rock bands and that the residents have a legitimate concern.
Robert Payden, Secretary of the Building Corp., American Legion Post #198,
objected to the handling of this matter by the Press. Stanley Hayner, Presi-
dent, spoke of the need to raise money for the community needs which the
Legion supports through renting their hall to such bands. He said they al-
ways hire two policemen on Friday and Saturday nights when the hall is
rented, and members of the Legion and Legion Auxiliary are always present
to spot trouble, which is reported to either the police or the bartender.
The Right Reverend David L. Blessinger, Senior Vice President of the Build-
ing Corp., and Building Manager, elaborated on their handling of under age
patrons, those patrons who have had too much to drink, etc. He advised the
Board that some under age patrons bring their own liquor /beer in, although
the Legion does what it can to stop this, and if it is seen, it is confis-
cated.
Mrs. Hayner, President of the Legion Auxiliary, said she would like to see
the residents and the Legionaires sit down together to try to solve the
problem, rather than bringing it to the Board. President Hayner said they
are welcome to attend their meeting any time, the second Monday of each
month.
The Chairman reiterated the Board's concern that the rules and regulations
for a Club License are being adhered to. He also asked President Hayner
if they intended to continue to rent the hall to rock bands; the answer was
no. The hearing closed at 9:00 P.M.
* MOTION: That the Board take this under advisement.
D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 3 -0
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 23, 1984
PAGE 4
8. Correspondence
a) Letter from Chairman of the Library Trustees announcing the appointment
of Dinah Amsden to the position of Library Director.
b) Federal Legislative Alert re: Congressional amendments that would affect
Blue Cross /Blue Shield payments.
c) Letter from DEQE re: Priority funding for EPA Construction Grant projects.
This program does not affect current projects, but in accordance with the
new regulations, future extensions and rehabilitation would not be eli-
gible.
d) Letter from Mansfield Jaycee Women requesting support from the Board of
Selectmen for their Jail Day, to be held on the South Common June 16th.
* MOTION: To proclaim June 16, 1984 Jaycee Women Jail Day.
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
e) Copy of letter from the Planning Board to Allen Willis re: Unauthorized
changes made in his approved subdivision.
f) Letter from Cable Vision Industries re: Addressing their request for a
transfer of their license; it has been withdrawn.
g) Copy of letter from Mass. CATV Commission re: Concerns relative to the
proposed transfer of license for Mass. Cable Vision.
h) Three Dept. of Public Utilities Public Hearing Notices re:
1) Adoption of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Regulations for the
Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and Licenses.
2) Certificate as a Radio Utility for operation of Mobile Radio Utility
for T -COM, INC.
3) Tariff by Western Union Telegraph Co.
i) Memo from Police Chief re: Liquor disturbances and radar violations.
j) Letter from Margot Jellinek re: Use of title Construction Engineer.
k) Copy of suggested letter to Gov. Dukakis re: Codex Corp /Prowse Farm.
* MOTION: To send the letter to Gov. Dukakis re: Codex Corp /Praise Farm.
McNair /D'Onofrio VOTED: 3 -0
9. Workshop - Sanitary Landfill and Rubbish Collection
The Chairman opened the session stating that the Town Manager has put to-
gether a package of material covering the two subjects, in an effort to
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 23, 1984
PAGE 5
bring the Board up -to -date concerning both the sanitary landfill and the
current rubbish collection situation, to discuss where we go from here,
with the hope of coming up with some alternative directions.
The Town Manager then reviewed his Memorandum, dated May 23, 1984, in some
detail, covering the period from 1969 until today, from open -face burning
to the sanitary landfill as it exists today. The first operational plan
was prepared, by Pavlo Engineering, in 1973; this plan was approved, but
the State required a re -use alternative for the site. Fourteen acres were
acquired to the east of the existing landfill site for expansion purposes
in 1974. In 1976 Whitman & Howard was engaged to make a study of the im-
pact of the landfill on the groundwater. In 1979 Dunn Engineering prepared
an amended plan for the future expansion of the landfill, which was ap-
proved by the DEQE. In 1983 the Town engaged Lycott Engineering Research
to conduct an evaluation of the landfill based upon previously installed
monitoring wells. A 1984 field survey of the landfill operation, made by
the DPW, showed the top elevation of the existing operation is consistent
with the plan approved in 1973; however, the town was not maintaining the
elevations out as far as they should in order to develop the recreational
facility as shown on the original plan. This shows that on the perimeters
of the site an additional 8 -12 feet of trash can be added within the limits
of the originally approved plan.
Camp Dresser & McKee conducted a study in 1980 for a site for a landfill
facility for sludge disposal; that is, one lined and underdrained to handle
leachate.
The Town Manager went on to cover operational problems (outlined in the May
23, 1984 Memo attached). These include side slope requirements, sealing off
completed sections with clay, personnel, equipment, and shortly the avail-
ability of cover material. The clay barrier must be done and is costly;
therefore, money must be budgeted, he advised.
The rubbish collection contract expires on August 1, 1984, and because the
primary deposit of rubbish at the landfill is done by the rubbish collection
contractor, alternatives to prolong the life of the landfill should be con-
sidered. One the Town Manager mentioned would be to have the rubbish
trucked out of town; this would increase the value of the contract markedly.
Another would be to charge for rubbish collection.
Considerable discussion followed on the various issues, with DPW Director,
Joe Zeneski, present with input as needed.
Selectman D'Onofrio raised the possibility of incineration which, in turn,
might be used for an energy source. The DPW Director said he could look
into this.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 23, 1984
PAGE 6
10. Adjournment
MOTION: To adjourn at 10:36 P.M. D'Onofrio /McNair VOTED: 3 -0
MINUTES APPROVED:
f
er;
Date signed
TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
50 West Street, Mansfield, MA 02048
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of S e men
FROM: Town Mana
DATE: May 23, 1984
RE: Workshop Session on Sanitary Landfill and Rubbish Collection
A. Introduction
This Memorandum is presented in response to the Selectmen's policy to
establish workshop sessions to discuss major issues for which the Board
will have to establish a formal public policy. The question of sanitary
landfill and rubbish disposal has been selected as the first major issue
because it is a major utility which provides a significant service to
the Town, and a formal plan for the future of this facility has to be
developed. This plan would be similar to plans that we have developed
in the past for improving our water system and our wastewater treatment.
It is not expected that the Board will develop a formal policy after the
initial discussion; however, a formal direction should be established
relatively soon as to how we will be addressing this situation. Items
for consideration include the following:
1) Understanding of the rubbish collection and disposal situation and
what it means to the Mansfield community.
2) Historic perspective of sanitary landfill.
3) Review of operational procedures of the sanitary landfill, including
Board of Health operational standards.
4) Review of alternatives for disposal of refuse.
5) Review of contracts of rubbish collection and future options available
for the town.
B. Background
1) Until late 1969 the Town of Mansfield operated an open -face burning
dump at the East Street site. The site was ultimately comverted to
a sanitary landfill operation in response to local citizens concerns,
as well as to amendments to State law relative to open burning.
MEMO to Selectmen
May 23, 1984
Page 2
2) In 1973 the Town had prepared, through Pavlo Engineering, the first
operational plan for the sanitary landfull. This plan provided for
the raising of the disposal levels to an elevation of 162 feet above
sea level. The plan was approved, but the State required the town to
develop a reuse alternative for the site. This reuse plan proposed
the development of a recreational facility which would have one regula-
tion baseball field and one softball field.
3) In 1974 the Town acquired approximately 14 acres to the east of the
existing landfill site for the purpose of expanding the landfill. The
Town has subsequently learned from DEQE that expansion on this site
would have to be done in accordance with new landfill regulations which
require the landfill area to be lined and underdrained for leachate
collection. In addition, the current zoning by -law does not allow for
the development of the landfill facility in the watershed area. Our
existing landfill site operates in that zone as a non - conforming use.
Also acquired in 1974 was approximately 19 acres southeast of the land-
fill site. This acquisition was made for conservation purposes.
4) In 1976 concern was raised about the pollution levels which could be
developed as a result of the landfill. The Town engaged Whitman &
Howard to make a study of the impact of the landfill on the ground -
water. The Whitman & Howard report is attached as Exhibit A.
5) In 1979 the Town engaged Dunn Engineering, of Foxboro, to prepare an
amended plan for the future expansion of the landfill. The amended
plan was approved by DEQE. It should be noted that the amended plan
was not consistent with the plan originally approved by DEQE in 1973.
6) In 1983 the Town engaged the services of Lycott Engineering Research
to conduct an evaluation of the landfill based upon the monitoring
wells that had been previously installed by Whitman & Howard. A copy
of the Lycott report is attached as Exhibit B.
7) In early 1984 the DEQE issued to the Town a deficiency report in the
operation of the landfill. These deficiencies were corrected and the
town is now proceeding to operate the landfill in a more acceptable
manner. It should be noted that the DEQE requires that the person
responsible for the operation of the landfill be a Registered Engineer.
Until the hiring of the current Public Works Director in 1983, the
town did not meet its obligation in the regular reporting procedures
required by the DEQE. A copy of the original deficiency report of the
DEQE, the DPW Director's response, and the most recent monthly report
are attached as Exhibit C.
8) In the Spring of 1984 the Public Works Department conducted a field
survey of the landfill operation to determine exactly how the contours
of the current landfill operation relate to the approved plans. The
survey completed shows the following -- The top elevation of the exist-
MEMO to Selectmen
May 23, 1984
Page 3
ing operation is consistent with the plan approved in 1973; however,
the Town was not maintaining the elevations out as far as they should
have in order to develop the recreational facility as shown on the
original plan. When the current operation is compared to the proposed
plan, it shows that on the perimeters of the site an additional 8 -12
feet of trash can be added within the limits of the originally approved
plan.
9) In 1980, as part of a Camp Dresser & McKee report, they conducted a
study in Mansfield of potential sites for the sanitary landfill facil-
ity for sludge disposal. The proposal was to develop a sludge land-
fill operation that would be consistent with the current requirements
of DEQE. That is, having a new landfill facility developed that was
lined and underdrained to handle the leachate. There were many sites
considered in Mansfield, and a copy of their report regarding site
selection is attached as Exhibit D.
Operational Problems
In reviewing the current operation, the following are noted:
1) Although we have not exceeded the elevation limits on the originally
approved plan, the current operation is not following the original
plan in that the trash is not spread out to be consistent with the
Recreation Reuse Plan approved in 1973. It should be noted that the
1973 plan was prepared in accordance with State specifications at that
time which permitted side slopes of 2 -1. Current State regulations
for landfill operation require side slopes of 3 -1. Meeting the current
side slope requirements may necessitate the adjustment to the plan so
that the reuse option of a recreation facility is no longer viable.
2) As part of the 1972 -73 plan and consistent with the recommendation of
the Lycott report, the Town did not seal off the completed sections of
the landfill with clay. The clay barrier helps to control the leachate.
3) The Town had been seasonally disposing of sludge from the wastewater
treatment plant at the landfill site. The disposal of the sludge was an
acceptable practice and, in fact, the sludge is less of a pollutant to
groundwater than the trash that is disposed of on the site. The sludge
disposal had become an objection to the neighbors, and the Public Works
Department has ceased to dispose of the sludge in the landfill. Dis-
posal of the sludge at the wastewater treatment plant is now composted
at the treatment plant site.
4) There has been, for several years, a concern relative to the impact of
the landfill on the municipal water supply. The Lycott report shows
that the primary groundwater flaw is in a southeast direction from the
landfill. The Town has well fields developed approximately 6,000 feet
from the landfill site. The Lycott report states that based upon the
a R
rays Y
h ry
ao <S M i
" w N
/ x Bc ess 6
1
• n
r0ry r�
11 w
0
V N i
f92 M
O � O
y o
o l O
l�a r �
I6'FS
O PoF5
O a
OD 0 [
m O Q
N •� �z s
f B9F 6gf<I m ♦r w
In
- W w
b/9
26
TFFZ 1p �o ��
9CSR �
q
O
A
N\
zz
B�
d ♦4
H v
N
3
o
J X\
r
l °
Q
J
{ pw
\ `V
O
OA
+ p
w O w
U
I
Oh
K p
o•�
O . 0
r o�
i 5
Ctq i
O+ `l�
MEMO to Selectmen
( May 23, 1984
Page 5
current information, groundwater pollution does not appear to be a
problem; however, they have recommended an extensive monitoring pro-
gram be established in order to alert the town to any subsequent prob-
lems. The 1984 Annual Town Meeting appropriated funds for conducting
this program. Attached, as Exhibit E, is the definitive proposal and
how the study will be completed.
5) Personnel - For the past several years the Town has operated the land-
fill with an equipment operator responsible for covering the trash on
a daily basis as well as supervising who dumps at the landfill and who
does not. While this operational process is relatively inexpensive
for the town, in the long run it would probably be more prudent to have
more control to monitor who dumps at the landfill. In recent months
the Department of Public Works has called for a detail officer to ran-
domly be on duty to check permits.
6) Equipment - The capital equipment that is used to operate the landfill
is the one bulldozer that is approximately six years old. Because of
the constant use of the bulldozer and the heavy use it gets in a land-
fill situation, the town has invested substantial sums of money for
repairs over the past two years. The cost effective alternative is to
replace the equipment, as opposed to continue to invest more in repairs.
In addition to the bulldozer, the town has, on occasion, had to rent
equipment while the bulldozer is down for repairs, and it supplements
some of the equipment requirements with the front -end loader from the
Public Works Department.
7) There will shortly be a major problem with the availability of cover
material. For the past three years we have been fortunate to have pri-
vate contractors donate cover material to the landfill. This was done
in conjunction with their work in the industrial park. There is limited
cover material presently available on site. The town does have cover
material available at the earth removal operation adjacent to the Public
Works garage. The trucking of this material to the landfill site will
be an additional expense to the Town, primarily because Town personnel
who would be handling the material would have been assigned to do other
work had they not been moving the material to the landfill site.
8) State law requires that the Board of Health maintain the regulations
for who disposes of what at the landfill. The Board of Health is in
the process of reviewing their regulations; however, their current regu-
lations are attached, as Exhibit F.
D. Rubbish Collection
The Town is in the third year of a three -year rubbish collection contract
The current contract expires on August 1, 1984. We are in the process of
reviewing the specifications for the new proposal. Consideration on the
new specifications is as follows:
MEMO to Selectmen
May 23, 1984
Page 6
1) An option for having the contractor truck the material out of
Mansfield.
Serious consideration should be given to this option because the primary
deposit of rubbish at the landfill is done by the rubbish collection con-
tractor. If the town requires that the trash be trucked out of town, the
life of the landfill can be extended; however, the cost of maintaining
the rubbish collection contract will be substantially greater. Attached,
as Exhibit G, is the current rubbish disposal contract.
Other communities have in place programs whereby they bill directly for
the trash collection service, and the users pay directly to the community
a fee for the service. Last year we had estimated for the cost of the
trash collection contract that each household served would have to pay
$15.00 per year to maintain trash collection.
In other communities the towns license collectors that collect the trash
and bill the local residents for the service. The town, in this instance,
also charges the collectors a fee for disposing of the trash at the land-
fill.
Future Options
1) Develop an acceptable closure plan for the current landfill facility
which would extend its life for several years while, at the same time,
looking for long range options which could include:
a) Other sites in Mansfield
b) Transfer station at the existing site in Mansfield
c) Permanent disposal at a site outside Mansfield
2) Closing the operation within the next year and developing an immediate
alternative, either within the town or outside the town. If this option
is considered, then efforts have to begin immediately to locate an addi-
tional site within the town.
3).Develop a closure plan which would consider providing for expansion of
the existing site to its ultimate capability, as well as to provide for
expanding on the adjacent property purchased in 1974.
WCM:ebh
Attachments