More than you really want to know about Natick, Mass.
Update (9/29/22): Indeed, the water ban will lift as of the end of this week.
Natick, which put restrictions in place on non-essential outdoor water use during mid-summer in light of the drought, plans to discuss a lift of that ban on Wednesday at the Select Board meeting.
Thinking we might need to put up a “Town water in use” sign in our yard (not that we water the lawn anyway).
It might not have surprised some if the Natick Select Board went right ahead on Wednesday night during its meeting and made a decision about the Charles River dam’s fate. After all, earlier this month it had been handed a detailed report with a clear recommendation to remove the spillway (aka, waterfall) by the Charles River Dam Advisory Committee, a town administrator-appointed group that’s been working on the matter since last year.
But Select Board Chair Paul Joseph made clear from the start of the agenda item that he wouldn’t be entertaining a motion to make a decision during the meeting. The focus of what turned out to be a 2-hour-plus session (start at the 1-hour, 33-minute mark of the Pegasus recording) was to be on receiving a recap of the report from those involved in putting it together, allowing board members to ask questions, and then letting the public speak (civilly).
Town Administrator Jamie Errickson kicked things off with a short history of the current version of the high hazard dam, built in 1934. His timeline jumped from then into the 2000s, when the state upped its dam inspection efforts and Natick began thinking more seriously about its property. The town headed down the road of repairing the dam, but after concerns were raised by the public about trees atop the dam needing to be removed, Natick began exploring the alternative of removing the spillway.
As Joseph said leading into board discussion, “My understanding is that in either scenario there is significant work to be done and significant dollars to be spent whether we keep the dam or remove the dam, there’s massive engineering work to be done, design work as well as construction,” he said. “I think one of the most uncomfortable outcomes from this and the fact that we need to make a decision is the fact that we do not and will not have all of the facts… We’re not going to be able to wait ’til we know what the final dollar figure is to make a decision.”
New decisions could be made down the road as well as exploratory work is done, said Joseph, who acknowledged there’s work to be done over years to come.
Board member Michael Hickey asked when the town is actually obligated to take some action on the dam by state. Errickson said the state has asked Natick to take action by early 2024, but has indicated that as long as the town moves forward towards the permitting and design process as it is doing, then the state will work with it, extending deadlines as needed. Based on an order from the state, the town’s already on a more frequent inspection schedule in the wake of its dam rating falling from fair to poor, McDowell said. The state is looking for a plan from the town on its dam by year end, he added.
Hickey also pondered the origin story of the dam breach idea, which several town employees said really came to light in 2019 when a person stood up at a public meeting about the dam attended by McDowell and others from the town. This look back at the breach idea’s origins led the board at its meeting on Wednesday to then get into a bit of a soul searching discussion on the power of speaking up, plus some acknowledgement that breaching had actually been considered earlier by town employees, but never rose to the level of public discussion.
In that spirit of speaking up, a bit earlier in the meeting board member Kathryn Coughlin said she had read through the dam inspection reports as well as dam correspondence she had requested from the state. She asked why the town hasn’t done more work to fix issues (fallen trees, erosion, an upstream warning buoy, etc.) with the dam getting similar unfavorable inspection reports from the state in 2017 (“fair” rating) and again late last year (“poor” rating). Errickson said there has been permitting and design work done.
(Coincidentally, I’d reached out to the town this week, too, to ask about why there are no warning signs above the dam, given the town’s concerns about liability. As a boater, if you didn’t know the spillway was there, it’d be too late once your vessel was upon it.)
Town Engineer Bill McDowell said there has been a lot of back and forth between the town and the state on on the dam reports to help the town understand how to get permission to get work done. He said in years past a dam failure didn’t seem imminent. “So there was no compelling reason to move forward with maintenance at that time,” McDowell said. “What we’re seeing now with these more anomalous weather events is that this is becoming more and more of a problem.”
Coughlin also raised a question about the town exploring further the possibility of partial spillway removal, an issue raised in the emails she went through. McDowell said that partial removal could result in a lower elevation dam with less water impounded behind it, and this could mean the dam would be reclassified from a high hazard dam to just a dam. The question was how much would need to be removed to release the structure from Natick’s jurisdiction, and that would be about two-thirds of it, McDowell said. “Which is essentially total removal of the spillway…” he said.
Early during the discussion, new board member Rich Sidney said: “Between the report and the presentation it seems clear to me in my opinion this is as much emotional as it is fiscal and we really have to hear from the public at large to gauge the emotional content.”
The first speaker lamented the loss of the Natick Tab newspaper and other such forms of communication to help get the word out to Save Natick Dam well beyond the South Natick area (Ahem, I guess we need to do a better job of promoting Natick Report, which has written dozens of posts about the dam over the past two years.).
Resident Saul Beaumont, who has submitted a Town Meeting article regarding dam repair (see also “South Natick dam drama continues”), raised concerns about the make-up of the Advisory Committee, which includes a handful of government employees among its members. Errickson said they were included because of their areas of expertise, such as parks/recreation and the public works.
Another resident asked about what those living downstream of the dam can expect in terms of water flow if the spillway is removed. As a run-of-the-river dam, the structure was not designed to actively control water flow, town officials have consistently said, and McDowell maintained that at the Select Board meeting. Though he did allow that the spillway does create some drag that can meter the water. The aggregate flow of the water will not change much, however, he said.
One river neighbor urged the board to consider an engineering study from consultant Stantec that was revealed in late June, and argued that it may not have been given full attention by the committee. In short, it indicated water depth could plummet several feet in a lengthy section above the dam. “This is a treasure of Natick and it’s too important to make a decision without knowing all the relevant information that we can. I know it’s not possible to know everything but this is new information and we found it out at the 11th hour,” she said. (Natick Director of Sustainability Jillian Wilson-Martin said most members did appreciate that the river would change significantly and that the committee had a couple of meetings to deliberate after that study was available.)
Questions and comments came fast and furious. Resident Leonard Bernheimer asked the board how it would factor the aesthetic value of the spillway into its decision. Diane Young wanted to know why the town isn’t taking down the trees atop the dam right now if they’re such a possible threat to safety. Brad Peterson asked if upon the town possibly going through the start of a pre-removal process whether it would revisit such a decision if it finds through required studies that “it’s not as environmentally wonderful to remove the dam as the committee assumes it is.”
The board has been fielding plenty of emails, too, and Joseph invited the public to send more (consolidating comments and questions where possible if groups are coordinating).
There will be more opportunities for public input. The board plans to pick up the issue again at its Sept. 28 meeting.
Disclaimer: We’re a river neighbor.
For those who have religiously followed the Charles River Dam Advisory Committee meetings since last year, or binge watched the dozen-plus episodes after the fact like I did 2008’s Breaking Bad, there may have been a letdown when the group largely concluded its work earlier this month by sending its crystal clear recommendation to the Natick Select Board.
You may have found yourself asking: What to watch now?
Better call Saul…
Resident Saul Beaumont (et al) submitted a Citizen Petition supporting dam repair for consideration by Fall Town Meeting, and you can catch a recording of the Natick Finance Committee’s Sept. 13 meeting mainly focused on this.
Article 29 reads: “To see if the Town will vote to appropriate funding to repair and maintain the Natick Charles River Dam substantially in its current location and configuration for a period of a minimum of twenty-five years.” The point of the article is that Town Meeting in 2018 and 2019 had overwhelmingly approved appropriations to fix the iconic but deteriorating town-owned South Natick Dam—so let’s get on with it already before we’ve got “Breaching Bad” on our hands.
(The more specific motion language presented to the Finance Committee can be seen in the documents embedded below, but the key piece is a request that the town spend about $925K already appropriated for rehabilitating the dam.)
Natick’s Finance Committee, which vets and shares its take on articles in advance of Town Meeting, spent nearly two hours on Article 29 (starting at about 43 minutes into the Natick Pegasus recording). Part of this time involved a public speak section with people commenting for or against the article, with some sharing very personal stories.
As Finance Committee members pointed out, a lot has changed since the earlier dam repair appropriations were approved. Numerous town officials now back a plan to remove the spillway (aka, waterfall) for financial, legal, environmental, and cultural reasons. They point to information that has surfaced over the past couple of years about what repair would really entail, including removal of a bunch of trees. They say they hadn’t realized spillway removal was an option back then, and it wasn’t a choice put before Town Meeting. Whether new revelations about the river and dam will emerge in coming years and change opinions drastically again, maybe we’ll see.
The Select Board will have the final say on this matter, though Natick Spring Town Meeting could also be called to weigh in again when it comes to funding. Town counsel shared its opinion on the article and emphasized that appropriations are not mandates for the town to spend the money, that the Select Board will make its own decision.
This Finance Committee meeting was no consultant-led Dam Advisory affair, with ice breakers about favorite desserts or vacation spots. Even before Beaumont stated his case for bringing the article forward, Finance Committee member David Coffey proposed a motion to postpone the group’s hearing on the matter. “[W]hile I understand people feel aggrieved by this and want to speak their mind, we’re going to spend a couple of hours debating something which is ineffectual, and I just don’t see the value of that other than making people feel good,” he said.
The motion was not allowed, and Beaumont took the floor. After running through the numbers on the amount the town was appropriated to borrow to pay for repairs, he expressed surprise that the Select Board wouldn’t have authorized spending on the dam repair after it had indicated support of the previous articles. After citing the 1,700-plus signatures on the Save Natick Dam petition, Beaumont argued for giving the public, via Fall Town Meeting, a chance to share its current opinion on the dam repair vs. removal debate (Beaumont, by the way, is no Citizen Petition newbie—he introduced an article at the 2019 Spring Town Meeting to amend the definition of “dog kennel” in the town zoning bylaws. No action was taken on Article 26.)
“If you were at 2018 or 2019 Spring Annual Town Meeting you probably voted in favor of repairing the dam. Nothing has really changed since then except there is more to rehabilitate because of the passage of time. But no matter what it takes to repair the dam, it remains the obligation of the town to maintain as it has done since it was done in 1934. There’s no reason to force residents to sacrifice a beautiful feature of the town because the town would like to save a few dollars…” he said, citing an overall repair cost of about $2.7M per the Natick Department of Public Works. Beaumont said he understood that the Select Board would have ultimate authority over how to proceed on the dam, but said passage of this article could smooth funding repairs if the Board goes in that direction.
Town Administrator Jamie Errickson was called on by the committee chair to help clarify what happened between the time of the last Town Meeting vote for a dam repair appropriation and the decision to hold off on the repair direction late that year. He said the town did go forward with a full design for dam replacement, and during that process it was brought to the public’s attention the trees atop the earthen dam would need to be removed, sparking a closer review of the project, including formation of the Advisory Committee.
Finance Committee members questioned Beaumont on issues such as environmental considerations of going the repair route, the historical value of the dam, and the basic math of how the previous appropriations would possibly cover a project that the town says will cost a lot more than initially thought. Beaumont matter-of-factly answered questions, often referring back to the earlier appropriations approved by Town Meeting and supported by town bodies.
Residents shared their thoughts during public speak, some for, and some against dam removal.
One speaker who lives along the river questioned assurances that river quality will improve if the dam is removed, especially once more research is done on sediment, and documented the vibrant wildlife that lives above the dam. “[T]hey will be destroying a vibrant ecosystem if they take down that dam,” Anne Geissler said.
Retired geologist Sara Hanna, who relayed that she spent her career in the hazardous waste site cleanup business, warned that environmental regulations are only going to get tougher, and that will mean ongoing expenses related to dam repair. “It’s not just repair it and it is done…” Hanna said. “I strongly want to reiterate how if you look over the decades how much more we’ve learned about the environment and therefore a greater amount of work needs to be done to keep things in order.”
(Disclaimer: We are river neighbors but did not speak.)
The Finance Committee made two motions regarding Article 29, one to indefinitely postpone it and a second refer it back to the sponsor, Select Board, and Town Administrator. The first passed 11-0, the second failed, 4-7.
Before the vote, FinCom Chair Linda Wollschlager said she appreciated everyone who spoke at the meeting, and was touched by stories about the river.
“But I think one thing that’s been a little lost is that we can’t keep things as they are. We’ve been told that repairing the dam as is, is not an option. All of the trees have to come down…,” she said.
Natick’s dam drama isn’t over yet. Next up: The Select Board is slated to discuss the Advisory Committee report at its meeting this Wednesday, Sept. 21.
Please send tips, photos, ideas to natickreport@gmail.com
Natick Town Administrator Jamie Errickson told the Select Board in March that hiring the town’s first chief diversity officer (CDO) wouldn’t be happening “right around the corner” despite the availability of funding and the board’s desire to make it happen.
“With all of our job positions we’re finding that the applicant pool is pretty slim. It’s not unique to the chief diversity officer…” Errickson said in March. “A lot of towns are finding for CDO-type positions, and they’re titled differently in every town, that it’s taken especially long for some towns to find applicants that are qualified for the job.”
Six months since that meeting, we figure we’re well past the corner Errickson mentioned and at a good time to check on the town’s search.
During the summer and fall of 2020 following George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis and the protests that took place locally and across the country, Natick and other communities vowed to take steps toward ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all they do.
Natick celebrated its selection for a coveted Racial Equity Municipal Action Plan (REMAP) grant from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and its partners as a way to create a DEI roadmap. Separately, local clergy urged the town that June to form a DEI committee, and in July the Select Board indeed called for the creation of an 11-member Equity Task Force. There was no shortage of candidates, and Natick had momentum.
The Task Force did its work throughout the end of 2020 and into 2021, when it requested a consultant to help with its research and to no one’s surprise, recommended formation of a standing DEI committee. Task force member Guimel DeCarvalho said during the Select Board meeting at which the recommendation was delivered that the committee would not be tasked with doing it all—that the Council on Aging, Sustainability Committee, and other groups would also be natural partners “by default.” She added: “Equity encompasses everything.”
The recommendation for a committee followed the Select Board’s assertion over the summer of 2021 that it would sponsor a Fall Town Meeting article that would pave the way for Natick to hire its first chief diversity officer. Board member Paul Joseph said “If we want to demonstrate our sincerity about addressing this issue there’s no greater way to make a statement than hire somebody at that level.” (The Board wound up recommending no action at Town Meeting because American Rescue Plan money had become available to fund the position.)
While Natick appeared well positioned heading into this year to take the steps its leaders and many in the community supported, challenges have surfaced.
Finding enough good candidates for the standing 7-member committee that the task force recommended proved to be a tough task. The Select Board decided in March to hold off filling out the committee—the roster page on the town website remains blank— until after a chief diversity officer was in place or in three months, whichever happened first. The thinking was that having such a leader in place might attract a strong pool of committee candidates.
Meanwhile, the job description for Natick’s chief diversity officer, dated March 2022, has since been revised to a director of equity, inclusion & outreach, based on community input and that from partner organizations. Errickson said the revised title would better describe the scope of the job, and have a more proactive and inclusive feel to it.
In an email to Natick Report this week, Errickson says Natick has not yet listed the position, but expects to do so “in coming weeks.”
He cites a number of reasons for the delay, including the town’s overall hiring challenges. “[W]e have needed to work through an unusually greater number of job openings this past year, many that we have had to post multiple times to fill. The capacity of our HR staff is limited so our entire recruitment and hiring processes for all positions has been delayed,” he wrote.
Back in March, when the prospects of hiring a full-time CDO anytime soon looked bleak, Select Board member Joseph raised the idea of the town possibly hiring a contractor to fill the role temporarily, in order to address the “urgency” of matters such a town official would handle.
Natick is not unique in struggling to find strong candidates, especially in fields where the private sector can pay more and offer benefits beyond those municipalities can provide.
A quick search for local jobs featuring terms such as “diversity” and “equity” bring up openings at communities such as Boston and Falmouth, big companies like Takeda Pharmaceutical, tech firms, health care outfits, colleges, K-12 schools, and more.
“Nearly all parts of the Town government have been impacted by the increasingly competitive job market and trends, including Police, Fire, DPW, Libraries, Community/Economic Development, Finance, Facilities, Rec & Parks, and others – all of which have open positions at the moment. As is the current experience throughout the economy, there are limited interested/qualified candidates to fill open positions,” Errickson says.
While it remains unclear how long it will take for Natick to hire a director of equity, inclusion & outreach, Errickson points to multiple efforts that will address DEI issues. These include hiring a communications director to help the town better reach the community and eventually work closely with the diversity director (that hiring has been years in the making). The Select Board has also appointed a Town Governance Study Committee to review Natick’s current organizational structure, which Errickson asserts “will have a focus on equity.”
One possible silver lining to Natick’s delay is that it can learn from the experiences other communities have had on their first (or second or third…) go-arounds hiring chief diversity officers. As GBH News reported last month, many communities have had a rough go of it, with rapid turnover and a lack of impact.
A group dubbed the Massachusetts Municipal DEI Coalition has formed to address just such issues and to help municipalities and their DEI administrators share best practices and learn from each other. The coalition has a launch event scheduled for later this month to formally introduce a 2022 DEI Guide.
Natick officials no doubt hope they’ll soon have a dedicated DEI colleague who can join right in.
Suzanne Ianni, the former Natick Town Meeting member who was arrested early last year for her alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots, pleaded guilty this week to disorderly conduct in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia. A plea agreement with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia reduces three charges to one, and if a judge agrees to the deal, Ianni could serve up to six months in jail and pay $500 for damage done at the Capitol.
Ianni is described in the U.S. Attorney’s office Statement of Offense as “the contact person for and organizer of bus transportation from Boston, Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C. for members of ‘Super Happy Fun America’ to transport other members to protest Congress’ certification of the Electoral College.”
According to the statement, “the defendant admits that she willfully and knowingly entered the U.S. Capitol Building knowing that that she did not have permission to do so. The defendant further admits that while inside the Capitol, she willfully and knowingly uttered loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engaged in disorderly or disruptive conduct with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress.”
A federal judge in April denied Ianni’s claims that charges were brought against her due to discrimination for her political views.
Sentencing for Ianni is slated for Dec. 2.
