ORDER-2017-45 : Petition of National Grid to Extend Gas Main 130' of 6 " Plastic to serve #85 Ferdinand St. as shown on Plan No. GP-MEL 1115681-16-152, dated 8-02-2016

Transcript (~18 min @ 23:48)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 23:45 Gail Infurna: all those opposed we have a public hearing on order number two zero one seven dash four five the petition of a national grid to extend to extend gas main 130 feet of 60 inch plastic to serve 85 ferdinand street um is there anybody here from um national grid sir if you would like to sit at the table introduce yourself and tell us um about the order hello my name is jesus call us

▶ 24:14 Speaker 2: um represent the national grid sure and this is for our main extension on ferdinand street of 160 feet uh six inch main and it's gonna serve number 85 i they're gonna extend the main to

▶ 24:36 Speaker 2: first service from them 85. they had to go on the same side as the existing main is right now

▶ 24:40 Gail Infurna: okay thank you if you could step back and i want to see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this order

▶ 24:54 Gail Infurna: is there anybody here this evening for or against this order doctor if you could have a seat sure

▶ 25:03 Speaker 7: thank you good evening i'm the owner of 85 ferdinand could you state your name and your

▶ 25:08 Speaker 7: address please for the record carl henriksen 85 ferdinand melrose mass owner of 85 ferdinand and looking to install nat gas for heat and um home cooking great thank you is there a motion to close

▶ 25:30 Gail Infurna: the public hearing so alderman mortimer makes a motion to close the public hearing seconded by alderman Boisselle all those in favor of closing public hearings say aye aye aye all those opposed the public hearing is now closed and sir if you could come to the table again and i'm sure the alderman will have some questions for you alderman Tramontozzi as the alderman in ward one

▶ 25:53 John N. Tramontozzi: the location yes thank you sir uh thank you for coming in um i do represent ward one uh ferdinand street is uh in ward one uh the uh the resident at 85 ferdinand street is uh was is here and has um confirmed and requested this uh uh pipeline for to uh serve natural gas to his premises is is 85 the only one on ferdinand street is um that has requested the natural gas yes at this point um the the cost to uh to to bring in the uh the the gas and run the lineup from the gas main

▶ 26:38 Speaker 2: is incurred by who is it by the gas company it's i believe usually the customer has paid for some of

▶ 26:48 John N. Tramontozzi: that yes so customers paid right so um so the uh the cost to the homeowner uh would be uh to run

▶ 27:00 John N. Tramontozzi: how many feet is that uh 160 i believe is that the closest to to make the connection that's the

▶ 27:02 Speaker 2: closest yes because the the main right now with dead ends in front of number 77. right

▶ 27:07 John N. Tramontozzi: for an end is a dead end street up to the top where that is um if there were to be other homeowners wishing to tie in at some later date do they incur additional costs or once the the homeowner of 85 incurs the cost does he get reimbursed i brought that to their

▶ 27:23 Speaker 2: attention years ago and um as as far as i'm concerned i mean i've been there 40 years and i believe that if somebody else would would attach to that line they should get the original owner should get something back but doesn't really that doesn't happen um the uh you were just

▶ 27:44 John N. Tramontozzi: presented with a memorandum dated december 5th 2016 that is from the city engineer have you had the opportunity to look at that i just gave it to her i just okay so it was just presented to you right there so what we normally do in these situations we put con conditions on the work uh and as you can see the um it's it's it's standard uh conditions pretty much i don't suspect that the um the national grid would have any problems with this no sir these conditions okay um one uh one question i have is that uh on um number six in the conditions where we talk about payment restoration yes so the pavement restoration is to be accomplished by grinding and inlaying at least one foot beyond the trench area to the nearest edge of the roadway again sometimes standard language the the cost for the restoration and the payment is that also

▶ 28:52 Speaker 2: incurred by the homeowner that i'm not too sure of on this particular packet but i'll definitely

▶ 28:59 John N. Tramontozzi: i could find out definitely um maybe if the homeowner can step forward for a minute

▶ 29:04 John N. Tramontozzi: it you don't think the reason i'm asking that is sometimes we have a seat sometimes we as a board uh request the national grid to sometime repave the street especially if it's a main street because of the heavy traffic uh curb to curb that's not required in this memorandum uh but i am i'm considering doing that however i don't want to assess the cost to the homeowner for curb to curb if that's that's the condition is that the homeowner is going to pay for that do you know do you know if what what the cost that Verizon obstructs like that National Grid has assessed to you do you know what that includes and they're comfortable with that up to I don't know if it does curb to curb I know that between Franklin and my property for the the existing six-inch pipe they didn't curb to curb they did um you know just covering the the damage to the road right and that's that's uh they're it's over as far as you can to the uh to the sidewalk area i i see that from the plans and the in in the memorandum is requiring just one foot beyond that back to the edge so um if you're comfortable with the cost incurred in that i will not request additional curb to curb to add additional cost to the homeowner yeah i mean it um was it wasn't mentioned

▶ 30:31 Speaker 7: to me to include that what was mentioned was uh the six inch pipe uh 160 feet i noticed on that plan there it says one and a half inch pipe not that that makes a significant difference in cost but i'm i'm unaware of having to pave the whole road right okay no all right there's i i would

▶ 30:57 Speaker 2: definitely i'll talk to uh supervisor there tomorrow and recommend you know that he shouldn't

▶ 31:08 John N. Tramontozzi: be charged for it regardless i don't think i i would agree with that i mean if we're going to ask national grid to uh pave and to uh to settle and grind and make good the street and the condition it's in uh now and not to to deteriorate it any further i don't don't think the homeowner should be assessed any of that would you agree with that i agree sir yes all right

▶ 31:37 John N. Tramontozzi: mr alderman i'm finished at this point you could just follow up with that with um dpw

▶ 31:40 Gail Infurna: and a national grid on that to help out um and did you want to submit this memorandum into yes

▶ 31:51 John N. Tramontozzi: the time that we are yeah i can make a motion at this time to incorporate the memorandum dated december 5th 2016 into the uh the order second second alleman termitose makes a motion to um

▶ 32:01 Gail Infurna: put the memo from december 5th from elena paracas ellis the city engineer into the records that was seconded by alderman mortimer on discussion seeing on all those in favor of submitting this in the order all those opposed this order this memo will be put into the order

▶ 32:24 Speaker 7: thank you i'll yield the floor to further discussion okay and i think i had alderman

▶ 32:31 Robert A. Boisselle: Boisselle followed by alderman mcintyre margolis okay uh the memo indicates 130 feet right uh you mentioned 160 is that changed on this one but I'm looking at the print

▶ 32:44 Robert A. Boisselle: right here it says 130 okay my next question is you are only creating a trench of 130 feet this is not going to be connected to the home according to

▶ 32:56 Speaker 2: this plan trench is not no sir that's gonna be a separate trench so you're

▶ 32:59 Robert A. Boisselle: going to be coming back for a second permit exactly all right I just want to

▶ 33:07 Speaker 2: make sure the homeowner's advice should all go on the same permit because it's a main extension in the service but then you're cutting up the street across then

▶ 33:13 Robert A. Boisselle: yes sir that doesn't show that it's only says proposed right but they I mean

▶ 33:18 Speaker 2: that's the only we're gonna get it to this to get the service there so no I'm

▶ 33:23 Robert A. Boisselle: just trying to clarify according to what you're saying right this permit or this diagram doesn't represent what you're considering what's it's proposed right once we get the main

▶ 33:30 Speaker 2: in there first and then we come back and do the service form has to go in there first okay so

▶ 33:37 Robert A. Boisselle: you're not going to do the main and the extension to the is home at this time uh meaning was we're

▶ 33:46 Speaker 2: going to get it done as soon as possible before the winter time hopefully but this plan is only

▶ 33:54 Robert A. Boisselle: showing 130 right 130 feet if you're coming back for another permit to do the 50 feet or 60 feet you're going to need another plan to show that usually when

▶ 34:05 Speaker 2: we have a main extension with the service it's all included in the same

▶ 34:14 Robert A. Boisselle: well this the plan doesn't say that no so what this document is you're showing doesn't represent what you're seeing both of these right here that I had and

▶ 34:26 Robert A. Boisselle: also did the register you should have a register engineer stamp on this on this

▶ 34:36 Speaker 2: plant some sort of stamp by the engineer mr. can't own as far as I know it's

▶ 34:43 Gail Infurna: aware of this okay well at this point excuse me alderman Brazil I mean he still has to go through the city engineer before he starts anything okay

▶ 34:48 Robert A. Boisselle: well I just want to make everyone aware that what they're saying doesn't represent what you see on this map. It only indicates a 130-foot trench and then a proposed extension. It doesn't say if it's gonna be done next week or a month later or next year.

▶ 35:09 Robert A. Boisselle: So according to the documentation and from what's being discussed, I can't vote for this.

▶ 35:17 Gail Infurna: Thank you. Thank you. Alderman McAteer-Margolis.

▶ 35:21 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: So that was actually a part of my question also. The trench is on one side of the street, but the home is on the other side of the street, correct? Yes. Okay, so it appears as though this is not complete. And I don't wanna hold up Mr. Hendrickson, but I think before I vote on it, and as Alderman Boisselle, because that's gonna affect the rest of the paving, because right now the conditions of the memo state that the trench just has to be like within a foot of the repaving has to be within a foot of the side you know with the edge of the street and if you're crossing the street that's kind of a different story you know that's a whole different ball game depending on when that street was originally done over if it was in the last five years and you've got to do the whole street and obviously we don't want Mr. Hendrickson to be including you know incurring costs that he's not expecting um how close is this service to the franklin street intersection that i'm not sure it's i'm a little disappointed that you

▶ 36:26 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: that this is doesn't appear to be a very well um presented plan this evening i don't know if they called you at last minute or that's what happened yesterday yeah yeah so i i would prefer personally need to make a motion to put this on hold until we have some further

▶ 36:47 Gail Infurna: information I could just draw your attention to item number two on the memo and it shows that the Elena puts here that these records are however lacking in detail and will require verification in the field prior to any excavation it is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that such verification is performed so according to this memo well true you have to report still to our city engineers to tighten up some of the details on it I mean there's nothing in

▶ 37:19 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: here about public safety if this mr. Hendrickson I'm sure you can tell us where your house is in relation to Franklin Street yeah it's it's it's at

▶ 37:27 Speaker 7: the far end of the dead end right next to the conservation so it's quite far away the the main line was put up Ferdinand probably four years ago just before we moved in but I respect all your considerations well I just I you

▶ 37:45 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: know if it's that's a can be a busy street there in the mornings with people commuting and after school and if in any way the work is going to impact that end of the street then we should have something in the memo that refers to you public safety but if it's way at the other end of the street and there's already a line there

▶ 38:07 Speaker 7: it's it's at the far end it's at the dead end the line is already i do think that yeah there's already a moratorium on on the mainline insertions in the fall uh so i don't think there's a temporal

▶ 38:21 Michael P. Zwirko: item number five in the memo public safety yes right so we're on the job site yeah so i think

▶ 38:28 Gail Infurna: really everything is in this memo um and they still have work to be done but that they can work that out with our department of public works and city engineer so um are you all set thank you

▶ 38:44 Monica C. Medeiros: mackenzie margolis alderman Medeiros thank you i'm just on discussion too i i would support an motion to hold this until we got a more updated plan i think that would really we should be voting on what we're looking on we've had a public hearing on it obviously if people don't realize that's not complete then there's not they may or may not know that that's what they were looking at as we see the homeowner here and this memo did just come out today so i know not all of us have had a chance to look at it thoroughly and certainly not the homeowner not not even national grid and it it might be you know i i would like to see especially where it looks like the homeowner is going to incur some of these costs and we're asking a little bit more than what maybe was anticipated that you have time to to really take a look and see what that cost would be and whether or not it really is absolutely something you can before we go and open up the street let's make sure that you know you feel comfortable with what the cost is and that it's actually beneficial to move forward so uh you know for that reason i i would support holding for now what is the will of

▶ 39:56 John N. Tramontozzi: the committee motion the whole um motion to let's see can we uh refer it to the we actually i believe

▶ 40:03 Gail Infurna: we need a motion to remove it from the table at this point yeah motion to remove the order from

▶ 40:11 Gail Infurna: the table second man uh Tramontozzi makes a motion to remove the order from the table seconded by alderman mortimer all those in favor removing the order from the table say aye aye all those opposed the order is removed from the table a motion to return to the table alderman Tramontozzi makes a motion to return it to the table second second by alderman MacMaster margolis purposes to get

▶ 40:33 John N. Tramontozzi: the discussion yeah the purpose is to get clarification and additional um clarification in order from the city engineer

▶ 40:46 John N. Tramontozzi: and yeah national grid we've concluded a public hearing but i think we uh we'll get national grid

▶ 40:52 Gail Infurna: back in uh with the city engineer so you're you're making a motion to table it to our next meeting next meeting yeah which would be 19th december 19th and we asked that national grid come back

▶ 41:10 John N. Tramontozzi: before us at that time right i mean we don't want to delay uh unnecessarily the uh the project but i think in the in the homeowner's best interest in the in the city's interest that we need this

▶ 41:22 Gail Infurna: clarification all those in favor of the motion to table the order all those opposed motion is tabled and we'll see you again on december 19th and i think in the meantime you should meet with city engineers to tighten up some of the questions that the board members