The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-10-11 Board of Selectmen HandoutTOWN MANAGER'S REPORT . Tuesday, October 11, 2011 Administrative matters o Community Dialogue on Substance Abuse and Violence - third session 10-18-11 at RMHS Fieldhouse o Joint meeting with School Committee on 10-17 re full presentation of YRBS o Reading KS efforts and 10-20-11 event- Community Services e Biweekly Updates on Community Development issues o Flu Clinic are scheduled for: Clinic Dates & Locations Saturday, October 22 Age 18 and older Coolidge Middle School. 89 Birch Meadow Drive, Reading 10AM-1 PM Finance/Accounting o. Library o. Public Safety o RCA - Reading Community Alerts -Sign up for "opt in" feature Public Works o MWRA water interconnection with Stoneham o MWRA water redundancy project - under design o Fall leaf collection - 10/31-11/4, 11/14-11/18, 11128-12/2 o Sewer 1/1 smoke testing and dye testing to be conducted starting Monday, 9-26-11 Construction Droiects o Roadway Reconstruction --First streets . to be reclaimed: Causeway Rd. & a portion of Pearl Street. o Roadway Overlay: Done: Beaver Road and Dana Red gate and Old, Farm. Sanborn Street, Small portion of Forest Glen Rd. ♦ Micro-Seal - will not be done this year. portions of: Washington Street, Hopkins Street Charles Street. Superior is in prepping for micro-seal - assuming they complete the prep work this week, we expect them to start applying mix next week ♦ Memorial Park: Awarded bid to repair\rebuild loose masonry in the stream channel ♦ Haverhill Street Water Main: under construction. Franklin Street from Main to Haverhill Street will be closed tomorrow 10-12-11 Dates and Events: • Fall curb-side leaf collection - 10/31-11/4, 11/14-11/18, 11/28-12/2 • Event to assist Reading KS. October.20 • Town Meeting -11-14-11 • Tree Lighting - 11 -27-1 1 Comments on the Bi-Weekly Update of 10-06-11:. Great job..... thank you Gus Martinson' Well done, Maureen. Ron D'Addario Hello. I just want to let you know how much I appreciate these updates and I hope they continue! There is a lot going on in Reading and I don't think the newspapers are able to cover it all in such detail as you do in these bi-weekly updates and even though some of this info is mentioned during Ask the Town Manager on RCTV it is not always easy to catch that show at the right time. J don't know of any other way to get this information so please continue with it! Thank you, Lisa B. Johnson This update was amazing! Keep it coming Kelly, look at what is happening in our little town!!!! Again, thank you! Mary Gail Just wanted to say what a great job you do communicating what's going on here. Love your newsletters and emails. Thanks for doing this for the residents. As well as being clear and informative, your positive, upbeat attitude shines in all your communications. Thanks. Babs Ryan This is some nice to read. Keep up the good work. Thanks. Hyung-Jun Ahn DMD, PC Great to have these updates that can bring our community together as we learn about resources and supports! Monica Roisner You do a great job for the town Maureen... Susan Bowe D Property Location Map-Lotid T Assessed Value (fy12) Oakland Road Lots 27-405, 33-19, 33-21 $552,600 (approx.) Town Counsel: Some of Oakland Road appears to be tax title and it is unknown if it land of low value subject to the [tax title sales] procedure. If not, it can be sold. However, because there are abutting parcels, it may be more valuable for the Town to certify title to the whole parcel, and resubdivide, or sell the entire parcel. Certifying title will dissolve the paper streets. The town does not necessarily own paper streets or have any rights therein. In addition, I understand that there is some thought that the school department may have an interest in a.portion of one of the Oakland Street parcels. It would therefore be prudent to have the School Committee simply vote that the arcels are not needed for school purposes and resolve the issue once and for all. p Approximately 4.5 acres is available if lots are combined and paper streets are abandoned. The land has many rock outcrops and considerable slope in some areas. There are no known wetlands. Control i h i Board of Selectmen and possibly Schools Utilities t, Water service on Grandview and Oakland Roads; sewer nearby on Hillside Road, Ridge Road, and s. i Chestnut Road. r Zdnin : S-15 Min. lot size Frontage Setbacks M 15,000 sf 100' Front Side Rear a Lot circle dia. 20 15 20~Y , 60~ 410. ~y~ d Rq i Lot coverage ~ r6 b -zSF C f. a ,•Y^y"~' L t 8 c=' g,y y.,„, a v 9r. .7 6 .czTx -I.:;._s}1 `~S+ "^,,:,a t ~~4 yc o+.4 4 `4a q th ,-h F 4vt , 3 R F ~{I 7 L 'Y t 3J b , p 5 3 b 1j I ,af r'lRu,.,{ Fwi..;e 3: j, 0? 7- j,v ~ p yj- Uo}''*• j ~ r». 4 Y }>,r ~e~,. ~-["r 8 KH0 y S .~,~i .`a..- M ~.C}4J(-~~i (~f- ~ .~'s'U". r.~~ i s ~ v t' ~ S 1 kJ J~ ti iY Sewer Main R k e5^ a f2 \ i i ( _ q 5.oH Y f1 1t5 S ~ .,.-x•-~ ~ ~ 4 t } ~ ,0394 4 t ^Y a 7°P5 C'"~ f ° " . . o x n ~isJ® vtrater Main 4.. x I+ry"?r~ +~a~ ~~f t l11 t ~ M- i~ J 0 50 100 20D s Wow \3 1 j 1 ~ _ i4 i f''r . ' T • t w ~ ~'3? 't ~ ' . k ` ~ t ~ . -....:.1 t ( ° l{, > r 4 i a V 4 c* cS,c, ~"`r} xgya.* i Id + i t,,,,,,. x 8.23 • ` ffJ'J. f Kf 78 hCft~S y fu ~ ~ ~ , 4' "~4 9c Y Elie, q ~s dy 651 ~ r' 11' U. ' y~{[ y Y'k~r~fwM. wrk`1 UA i+•''`~1"~r~~~ n 5 4 ~d' ~ , ~ . I a . r U, , . w+t ' Y n . tl` G w .,a 3 r f v ~ a ~ ~ ~ a 1' My~ n b, i a 2 -G:_-~~.-_'~_•"". D a/ `fit. 1' ef1 27-405issplit by Oakland R08f). It and lot ,?q7-412 r J 1 'ate s' I +,f U~ ~ ~ I°} r arein the care and °ustody / ' .Tax Title,J y a e t~ ` " r of the S°hool Dept i I' `3 "!9 ° t iF ~R t w. a✓ 323a M} t ~ u" i E y t h~ I ~G+ , f ~ ti > t 6 d 3 }F f5*~r ~•~.'~Cht'~ t 15.E ~ ''S ~i7+~ k-''- ,ri ,tiT+ fr ! t_.. ',i ti 'ti YY i 3 i ' r } ~ f r r J . vc AS_ f v f , ,Jr'' µ t „'~i )f79r Xb ~ 4.5 awes total •''r. 1"i- ~ • ,U, ~ '.^i' f. :r'JT 75.590 / D f r,y~n`u.:i:•v hG F.,ae+i L f.,1•-,'e~"~ ~ 4f , x;+y r w m , ,y 1'. «a,2a.? Sw, Tit H O 1I ~ r ~ 810 ~a7 ~ ~,L . 57. .y~ i;. 'i 2 f ~r ~ _~~~^i ~ , ~ ~ yti{ ~ r,• --r: , . .tt 0 b 5 3 2 .!'rr . )Lp ~-y L Y t r A 9 ^ i ~i ~ a f-d..~S,73, ° ~y~' 2V~~ a + K' • v.4 R`o5; S }t 5~+5~ ty T •.T '13tQ p,+ , . % " ' ' ' ss fi zo} • F ~ ' . ~i ss : ~ ~ ' a~ ` , . : + R . ` . H , , ` _.,.:j "I Recommended Actions Research parcel boundaries and control • Have School Committee vote that the parcels are not needed for school purposes • Certify title to the whole parcel Resubdivide or sell entire parcel 10/4/2011 Z_,,,^. 12 ~J DEC JAN FEB MAR :APR..,. MAY JUN. 875 260 :5 1 2 JUL 485 3 AUG 215 1 SEP 1,340 OCT 2,365 NOV 3,200 $ Total 82,740 2009 5,935 16,955 220 17 2,400 285 3 4,240 285 6 3, ;470 . 1 2 19,500 14,180 81595 , 1,815 1 21090 1,420 1,415 1,485 $ 81,070 2010 2011 3,780 2,490 , 18,225 , 3,820 , 5,500 15;270 9,2704. 12,240 2,720 2,610 972 1 2,650 803 $ 1 890 $ 1 343 $ 2 $ $ 74,795 80,946 Avg $ 4,068 $17,467 $ 3,168 $ 5,342 $19;080 $12,237 8,903 $ 2,673 $ , , , , $ 24,703 $ 40;220 Depot Compost -Coinposf Compost Rough Estimates: RES IDENT ACCESS STICKER REVENUE ] Depot Compost $ $ ,703 . 4024,220 25,000 20,000 z 15,000 w ~O Q 10,000 5,000 DEC JAN FEB -MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NUV MONTHLY REVENUE Mix $ 16,023 $ 80,946 0 2009 E2010 ❑ 2011 At $20 each (avg) Depot 1,235 Compost 2,011 Mix 801 DPW Compost Permits ,2nna 2010 2011 .p # distribute d: # distribute d:: distributed January 4 5 3 February 3 0 1 March . 18 26 14 Aril 50 84 36 May. 41 19 42 June 11 10 17 July 4 8 11 August 11 10 6 Se tembe 3 3 4 October 4 2 November 22 3 December 0 0 Total 171 170 134 e-day as 9 6 6 5.00 full pr 00 senior 126 36 122 42 44 84 171 170 134 0 Resident Access Stickers - Year Round Parking and Compost o Rnvnnua Revenue 2009 2010 2011 Year to Date 4022 $ 81,562 3929 $ 78,875 3742 $ 76,020 20.28 20.08 20.32 Approx. Sales b type Full price 2800 Senior 1000 Multiple 100 DwnTwn/re lace 100 READING MBTA PARKING LOTS VACANCY RATE NIBTA Parking Lots: 5-day sample WOBURN ST LOT VINE ST LOT TOTAL SPACES 71 42 VACANT REVENUE VACANT_ REVENUE 9/16/2011 0 $ 244 _ 37 $ 20 9/19/2011 7 $ 256 35 $ 28 9/20/2011 7 $ 256 33 $ 36- 9/21/2011 18 $ 212 36 $ 24 9/23/2011 16 $ 220 - 38 $ 16 _ $ 1,188 $ 124 Annual $ 61,776 $ 6,448 perspace $ 870 $ 154 (~6 W Legend J f tc A SST MEMORIAL 4.. w Town Owned Land Parking Regulations c S`~'' Sr < < PARK s~ Buildings 30 MIN PARKING AUREL HILL } `i, t o^ go Town Building 2 HR PARKING - r EMETERYO Other 2 HR PARKING or EMPLOYEE PERMIT S < y 0 - i Railroad DAILY COMMUTER PARKING (META) FIR TATION Driveway RESIDENT PERMIT PARKI Roads & Parking EMPLOYEE/MERCHANT MONTHLY PARKING r'i-a 1 , z IOC Paved ® NO PARKING 6:00 AM -10:30 AM _ { 1 } 1 t \ iS Unpaved ® NO PARKING r -77 44 -IT ;4 C, ION' ~ i ~ ~ l P :KING"-~~-, t~., 1 ~ • r r V l J~ b0E LOYE ELRC AN H IVIOITHLYKINGj 5-1 iz ' r~l J` Is EMPLOYEE/MERCHAN iwz PARKING 4! Ii ARKINtJ r L+` + t 1 f ( i t{ r + ~ly PARKER S ' t.. l _ . r' MIDDLE SCHOOL -EMPLOYEEPE. 1~` t "7 `z of lop" ~NG(hj~ O v e ;Gtr 0.., t r n w fZ s t4 ~15 r Lr L rL{3 ~I i V: 1 o. JL1L}Gl.~ i. 1- ' -i. !'i J -tn- G~ 1-1'1-t L:,I-(:.~ DOWNTOWN PARKING <'3 `r 1 REGULATIONS 0 100 200 400 N 7 - ~ ~ ` L;'-lr 1~ ~ ~,~t i✓1 ~ - Feet W E 'f 4 Map by Town of Reading. S Map date: 12/29/10. Planimetric features from aerial photos taken in WASHINGTON p`/E! 2008. Parking regulations are subject to PARK change. Data are for planning purposes only. UNN I SAVE _ us . /0' William C. Campbell Woburn City Clerk September 23, 2011 Laura A. Gemme, Town Clerk Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Clerk Gemme: RECEIVED TOWN CLERK READING. MASS. :2011 SEP 29 P b: 5-U Enclosed please find a proposed Resolution in support of H1972 "An Act Regulating Election Primaries" now pending before the General Court at the State House. I request that you forward this matter to your Board of Selectmen for placement on their agenda for action. Adoption of H1972 will ensure that the votes of our troops serving overseas will count on election day and will save taxpayers at least $8,000,000.00 by streamlining elections. The Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), in written testimony supporting the bill, noted that the bill is in line with federal law and is also in line with a number of states that have recently moved their primary elections earlier in the year to comply with the federal requirement. The FVAP testimony concluded "passing HB1972 will si nificantly improve voter success for man milita members overseas voters and-their families." In the 2010 State election, the Commonwealth requested a waiver from the federal MOVE Act, which requires that, at least 45 days before an election, ballots be sent to Americans overseas. The only reason for the Secretary's waiver request was "due to a late primary." The temporary solution was a bill that allowed our troops to vote by fax or email, but the voter was required to sign a statement waiving his or her right to a secret ballot. Deadlines for the 2012 election are approaching quickly. To be effective, this bill has to be passed soon. The support of our Board of Selectmen now will move the bill forward. It is important that our state legislators hear from their constituents of their support for H1972. More importantly, our troops deserve to know that their votes count. A bill summary and a copy of the FVAP testimony are enclosed. If I can provide any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your support in moving along this important legislation. Very truly yours William C: Campbell P.O. Box 2, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 wcampbeII40@yahoo.com 17 SCIA 1 RESOLVED Whereas, according to the Department of Defense Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), there are 11,691 active military duty Massachusetts residents residing overseas; and Whereas, for the November 2010 election, Massachusetts requested a waiver from a requirement of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act) to send absentee ballots to Americans overseas at least 45 days before an election "due to a late primary"; and Whereas, a report by the Secretary of the Commonwealth revealed that in the November 2010 election only 400 ballots from Massachusetts active duty military personnel stationed overseas were counted; and . Whereas, the General Court is considering H1972 "An Act Regulating State Primaries", a bill, that moves the state primary to allow Massachusetts residents residing overseas to vote privately and securely, and combines the presidential primary with the state primary to save taxpayers at least $8,000,000.00; and Whereas, a number of states have moved their primary dates earlier in the year to comply with the federal MOVE Act and to provide relief to taxpayers by reducing the cost of elections; and Whereas, the Massachusetts state primary scheduled for September 18, 2012 stands alone as the last state primary in the country in 2012; and Whereas, in written testimony the FVAP concluded "passing HB 1972 will significantly improve voter success for many military members, overseas voters, and their families"; and Whereas, HB 1972 simplifies the election process, decreases the opportunity for "voter fatigue", reduces the cost of elections for.taxpayers, and establishes fairness among candidates; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by-the of the [Town/City] of that the [Town/City] of supports the adoption of BB 1972 "An Act Regulating Election Primaries" pending before the 187th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and directs the [Town/City] Clerk to transmit a copy of this action to the municipality's State Delegation and to the Joint Committee on Election Laws. 18 H1972 - An Act Regulating Election Primaries Executive Summary Purpose: 1. To increase the time between the State Primary and State Election so that military personnel and Massachusetts residents residing overseas can vote without having to waive their right to a secret ballot. 2. To save the Commonwealth and communities at least $8,000,000.00 by consolidating elections. 3. To simplify the election process, decrease opportunity for "voter fatigue" and establish fairness among candidates. Executive Summary: Moves the state primary to the first Tuesday in June. This will increase the'time to mail ballots to military personnel and other residents of Massachusetts stationed or residing overseas. The trend across the country has been to move the primary earlier in the year to comply with the requirements of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act). The MOVE Act requires that absentee ballots be transmitted to voters- at least 45 days before an election. 2. Moves presidential primary to the first Tuesday in June. Combining the state election and presidential primary into one day will result in savings of at least $8,000,000.00 ($3,500,000.00 for the state according to testimony of the Secretary of the Commonwealth before the General Court and a minimum of $4,500,000.00 based on the State Auditor's reimbursement to municipalities following the January 2010 special election). This will place Massachusetts towards the. end of the presidential primary schedule and could draw the attention sought in the event of a primary season without a clear front-runner in the major parties: In 2008, the election was moved from March to February so that the primary. coincided with the so-called Super Tuesday. It did not have the anticipated effect of drawing attention to the state in view of the large number of primaries held on that day. California has moved its presidential primary and state primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June for fiscal reasons. Combining the state primary with the presidential primary in Massachusetts makes fiscal sense. 3. Establishes a new method of selecting political party ward and town committee members and eliminates the primary ballot method of selecting the ward and town committee members. The outdated primary method is costly in that it requires significant ballot design and voting machine programming expenses. For example, looking at voting machine coding costs in the .2008 election cycle, the City of Woburn paid $1,474.00 for coding the September primary, $1,330.00 for coding of the November general election, but the February presidential primary with ward committees on the ballot cost the city $3,807.00 for voting machine coding. The 19 0 Sd3 H1972 An Act Re6ulating Election Primaries - Executive Summary state committeeman and state committeewoman will continue to be selected by primary ballot. The respective state committees will then oversee the selection of ward and town committee members based on a system of rules and procedures established by the party and filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 4. Brings greater consistency to deadlines relating to elections and nominations across all elections and for all candidates. 5. Requires unenrolled candidates for office to meet the same filing deadlines as for party candidates. For example, currently, party candidates for statewide office have to file nomination papers in early May while unenrolled candidates have until early August to file nomination papers. This proposal would create consistency among all candidates as well as ensuring that ballots can be printed and transmitted to be sent out in compliance with the MOVE Act. 6. Most community polling places are located in schools. Every election day causes disruption to the educational process and increases security issues in the schools. Although relationships are cooperative, many municipal chief election officials have been advised by their local school departments that alternative locations other than the schools should be sought. Limiting the number of elections held in a year could reduce this friction and reduce these concerns. 7. March is a challenging month to conduct elections as the election' is held early in the month and winter weather conditions such as snow and ice are still a concern. In addition, the vast majority of poll workers are retired citizens, many of whom travel to Florida and other warm weather locations during the winter months. Election officials often struggle with filling the void created by so-called "snow birds" for March elections. Labor unions, political parties, stay at home mothers and senior citizens for many years filled the role of poll workers. However, as cultural conditions have changed the bulk of election workers now come from the retired citizens pool. Prepared by William C. Campbell, Woburn City Clerk Woburn City Hall -10 Common Street Woburn, MA 01801 Tel: (781) 897-5850 Email: wcampbell@cityofvoburn.com Rev.Septenzber 6, 2011 20 FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Department of Defense _ g Rosslyn'Plaza North R-DEVtf.60UXGRS9-;TP.11r--E -RUGFiLm 1777 North Kent Street le Floor, S66 14003 Arlington, VA 22209-2162 May 10, 2011 The Honorable Barry Finegold Senate Chairman, Joint Committee on Election Law The Honorable Michael Moran House Chairman, Joint Committee on Election Law Commonwealth of Massachusetts State House, Room 443 Boston, MA 01233 Re: Attached Written Testimony in Support of BB 1972 Dear Senator Finegold and Representative Moran: Attached please find a copy of written testimony. from Scott'Wiedmariin, Deputy Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program in support of HB 1972, which'we understand-will be . heard tomorrow in the Joint Committee on Election Law Many thanks for your. consideration of our testimony.' Sincerely, Q01NN. uMEROUr.1397~54a5670 MMML CAMERON. • ou.DoD Dwc=us.o.uL-DODHR , otwPKl(I,ou=DDOHR0. P.1397545870 D..201 1.0S.10 WSSW -Ma' Cameron P. ,Quinn Senior Policy Analyst 21 iN S~ FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Department of Defense Rosslyn Plaza North - RIAP ft rzuMmkv.zsmunrfrzciranu 4777 North Kent Street 440' Floor, Suite 44003 Arlington, VA 22209-2462 Written Testimony May 2011 In support of HB 1972 From Scott Wiedmann - Deputy Director Federal Voting Assistance Program U.S. Department of Defense The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) of the US Department of Defense presents this written testimony in.support of a bill before the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to move its primary from September to June of federal election years. FVAP was created to assist military and overseas civilian voters to effectively cast a ballot and to have it counted. We submit this testimony in an effort to assist our targeted voting population during elections in Massachusetts the 11;691 men and women of the armed services, and their 3,899 spouses and voting age .dependents, as well as those citizens of Massachusetts who are overseas on Election Day, whether federal workers, Peace Corps Volunteers; business men and women, missionaries or students abroad. Late last month FVAP sent letters to Speaker DeLeo, Senator Murray, and Secretary of State Galvin in which FVAP outlined three legislative initiatives that are recommended, but still. lacking,. in Massachusetts Code. Adoption-of BB 1972 would significantly improve the possibility that Massachusetts' military and overseas citizens will be able to successfully mark and return a ballot and have it counted in the upcoming presidential elections in 2012. The Problem' As President Truman recognized in 1952, the men and women of the armed forces, "in many cases risking their lives, deserve above all others to exercise the right to vote."' For over half a century, this still remains a significant problem for this nation. Congress has determined that it is the right of absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot in all elections for federal office. Congress has codified this right through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (UOCAVA), as amended in 2009, by the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act 'March 28,'1952 letter from President Truman to Congress, contained in the 1952 Report of the Subcommittee on Elections, Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of Representatives. 22 (P 5j (MOVE Act), and by other federal legislation. As Congress has stated: "All eligible American voters should have. an equal opportunity to cast a vote and have their vote counted. "Z Military and overseas voters still face many challenges almost 60 years after President Truman' s. concern. FVAP's 2008 Report to Congress indicates the existence of a significant discrepancy in the number of successfully returned ballots between the stateside non-UOCAVA absentee voting population (91%o return rate) and the UOCAVA absentee voters, of whom only 67.% were able to successfully return their ballots in U.S. elections. The overwhelming area of failure in the absentee voting process for UOCAVA voters, comprising the military, their spouses and voting age dependents and overseas citizens,. was not registration problems or absentee ballot application failures, but, primarily, ballot return problems arid, secondarily, voted ballots that were returned by UOCAVA voters, but not counted, usually because they arrived back too late. In fact, FVAP's surveys indicate that over 78% of all UOCAVA voting problems fell into these two areas. FVAP's goal is that military and overseas voters have the same absentee ballot return and acceptance rate as the general absentee voter population. Towards that end, States need to address a variety of problems facing UOCAVA voters, such as: ® Difficulty in registering to vote from outside the State; 0 Frequent address changes among military voters; ® Slow mail delivery that causes ballots and ballot applications to arrive late or not at all; m Difficulty in obtaining information about candidates or issues from outside the State, particularly when internet access is spotty or non-existent; ® Inability to comply with witness -or verification procedures in places where there may not be other Americans, much less voters from the same State; and ® A voter's unintentional failure to properly comply with seerningly insignificant requirements to vote absentee, such as the use of "8 1/2 x 11" size paper, in a location where the available standard paper size is different. The challenges to voting presented to military and overseas citizens are myriad. Finding the forms to register or to apply for an absentee ballot, whether on paper or online, and then returning these forms can be a challenge. Even more difficult, however, is timely receipt and return of absentee ballots. Many of the problems faced are often not the fault of the military or overseas voter; these can be, for example, postal delays when a Peace Corps volunteer uses foreign postal services, or postal delays for military serving on the front lines or on ships at sea, when the military postal service is also the transportation/delivery network for food, ammunition, medical supplies and other wartime essentials. Other minor challenges, but still significant barriers to participation when they arise, include the inability of the voter to find a proper witness under state law, the inability to properly print forms when the paper available overseas does not match stateside paper size or layout, difficulty in determining who is the proper local election official, or who the general election political nomiinees.are when access to the internet is minimal or non-existent. Different military and overseas voters face unique challenges, and, therefore, the best solutions are multiple solutions. Providing emailed blank ballots assists some voters; z Pub. L. 107-107 Page 2 of 3 Written Testimony of Scott Wiedmann, Deputy 2DSirector, FVAP ' - `*~7 making blank ballots available for a military or overseas citizen to access online and print -out at the cyber-cafe, simplifies the voting process for other voters; some voters can use fax, but many cannot. Most overwhelming are the logistical challenges presented by the transit by mail of paper applications and ballots. FVAP acknowledges that there are significant logistical challenges for state officials to send ballots at least 45 days in advance. Yet, for some UOCAVA voters, ballots sent 45 days in advance by mail, may still not give them enough time to vote. In November 2008, MPSA, the military postal service agency, recommended on its website the'allowance of a period of 28 days for a one-way transit of mail to Iraq and Afghanistan. The average Priority mail delivery times to aircraft carriers frequently exceed two weeks; and carriers are the first stop in mail distribution to the smaller ships in a carrier battle group. If a soldier or sailor is at the end of this logistics distribution chain and cannot open, act upon and return mail during the short time that the mail delivery personnel are in the area, it . can be weeks before this voter is again able to post his/her ballot for return FVAP does want to acknowledge the hard work and innovative comprehensive plan for UOCAVVA voters that was implemented in 2010 by Massachusetts' elections officials. Use of priority mail both to voters and for voters to return their ballots did assist in allowing more voters than otherwise would have been able to successfully participate in the 2010 elections. Even though this had some positive impact, however, due to the challenges outlined above priority. mail only improves delivery times by a very small margin. Despite the hard work and significant'resources devoted to this solution, it pales in . comparison to moving the primary date back sufficiently to ensure ballots are mailed at least 45. days in. advance of the general election: Moreover, while Massachusetts requested and. was granted a waiver under the MOVE Act for the 2010'election cycle and met their commitments under their comprehensive plan, each election cycle requires a new waiver request, and there is no guarantee that future waiver requests will be granted. Potential Solution HB 1972 proposes moving Massachusetts' September primary back into June. This is in line with the recently passed federal amendment to UOCAVA in the 2009 MOVE Act. It is also in line with a, number of states that have recently moved their primary elections earlier to more easily comply- with the new federal requirement; and would provide ample time for Massachusetts' election officials to certify a ballot and ensure it is mailed at least 45 days prior to Election Day. Conclusion Military sacrifice should not include sacrificing the right to vote. Passing HB 1972 will significantly improve voter success for many military members, overseas voters, and their'families. Many thanks for your consideration of FVAP's testimony. Page 3 of 3 Written Testimony of Scott Wiedmann, Deputy Director, FVAP 24~ Resident Depot/Compost Access Stickers Financial Forum September 2010 Increasing depot parking fees ranked 5t" behind cell towers; advertising; rental of existing space; PR for economic development Decisions 1.) How many types of stickers? 2.) What is the right price(s) for the sticker(s)? Timeline for Decision • Any changes easiest to implement on January 1 St or July 1 St • 2012 calendar-year stickers go on sale December 1St Allow time to broadcast information to the public Basic Facts Proof of residency; $25/vehicle plus $10/additional at same time; $15 discount for age 65+ ci l~ N Resident Depot/Compost Access Stickers Approximately 4,000 stickers sold raises $80,000 in annual fees Stickers Sold Average Price 2009 - 4, 022 2010 - 3,929 2011 - 3,742 to date Prices $25 full price (2,800 stickers) $15 and $10 discounted (1,000 stickers) 2009 - $20.28 2010 - $ 20.08 2011 - $20.32 Free parking for certain downtown residents (no compost use) Free one-day compost passes (no depot parking) RESIDENT ACCESS STICKER REVENUE 25,000 20,000 Z 15,000 O 10,000 5,000 _I !y Py AI F~! LL , I 1 'J~ ~J~ PJC~ O~~ ~pJ ~QA MONTHLY REVENUE 2009 i 2010 2011, Question: Why do residents buy? Answer: 3-year averages of When they buy December $ 41068 January $17,467 Depot usage $217535 - 1,077 stickers (27%) April $19,080 May $12,237 June $ 8,903 Compost usage $40,220 - 2,011 stickers (50%) Other Months $19,191 - 960 stickers (23%) Town of Reading Compost Center Cost of Running Compost. Center - $51,278 in wages plus other expenses Cost varies with volume, not with # of trips Cost varies inversely with local economy Strong - inexpensive to run: landscapers & comm'I buyers of compost Weak - expensive to run: more local volume & hard to resell Seasonality - 42,000 trips/season SPRING: April & May (5,478 trips/month) SUMMER: June to September (3,391 trips/month) FALL: October & November (8,689 trips/month) Compost Center trips 2011 to date - slower pace (curbside pickup?) 2010 - 42,847 2009 - 40,554 2008 46,102 2007 - 43,428 2004 - 41,332 2001 - 34,711 2006 - 43,464 2003 - 43,279 2000 - 37,172 2005 - 45,591 2002 - 32,812 1999 - 43,195 Town of Reading Compost Center Compost Center Vehicle Trips 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 02® 1 02010 o 2009 0 002 Downtown Parking Regulations Leee~a - - ,t, o. a Fait Inm RmOUiatlumc raEPARK L PARK ® 30 ]AIN FARMKf BUBCIIW¢ ~JLF9RE'1 i-IEIP i„ y TV,vn 6isAUL-xP 23iR P~tAK1K~ - ~i. ~+GE67 E?E3R4"~/-~ ~ . Q~SIG( 2HR PYtRKIfc.±OiEMFLCYEE FE=A.t1~ ,YtF. Ra[1maC Cv'ALX reTAS U7SR. PACKING CMBF.ty FIR'F~TLimOM DPlLY41}~ NSE.-")ENT PERtAET PARKING. } - _ _ _ iSaade b F'msfC)n0 - - EMPIOYEE.TAETCHK%M AACN LY ~ARKIN3 ( Ilr ' - _ Q P>~rtl KO PYaRKINTa. E~R./4A1 - 10:3s A ® U Pa+CC ,y h _I JN j 7- - 1 l i Z ra - r,I ~4 : ' _ aim. LICE Ir o s om ~nE cnrr`L' cb.2JHR PFH29QWG ,`r~'"e' ETd Pi.Q Eft . ~L~ ~ 1 ~ -E MDti-FF~i.YYAiZEC[NG .g'a E7@PLOYEFJTaERCifi1.31~' PAPACER 2 iin PAR Fa _ - +~`f#F 1 1 - 1 - fd{627fl.E 3GiCYOL EMPL4Y£E PERIAF"Y . A 2. ,i Fri O' TO Yaffe RARiI G ~Y 'mil RHGd. LA.77ONS 0 ,®Ft t - - - - y ffaF ar TO-AM ca lzeaatng. s 'SiL~N7V1'Sa7'E, AMC - W"> a~ o~ .:::I I• iI a~l5ge~~are°sari~n 3F~Ee cnh•a, Resident (compost/depot sticker) Commercial (Leased) Non-resident (MBTA) Depot Parking Town of Reading (Resident) • Estimated 500 spaces available are 100% utilization on weekdays • Woburn, Wenda, Prescott, Washington, Green, Vine & train parking lot • Primary use of sticker: 500 by spaces or 1,077, by seasonal sales • Estimated annual revenues $10,000 to $21,535 MBTA (Non resident or infrequent resident) • Woburn St. lot 71 spaces 84% utilization generates $61,776 • Vine St. 42 spaces 15%o utilization generates $6,448 • Estimated annual revenues $68,000 Town of Reading Leased Spaces Reserved 58 spaces at $30/mo. = $20,440/yr. High St. 41 spaces leased for $14,760/yr (4 businesses) Hamden Yard 13 spaces leased for $4,200/yr (5 businesses) (8 spaces are discounted because they are tandem) Brande Court 4 spaces leased for $1,440/yr Unreserved 170 spaces at $20/mo. = $48,960/yr. `Blue Zone' - sell -20% over capacity (170 spaces but 204 stickers) `Atlantic' lot (85); Town Hall (17); Gould St (16); Senior Center (14); Haven St. (12); Woburn St. (10); Pleasant St. (9); Chapin Ave (7). Summary o Parking Rates .Estimated annual revenue per space MBTA parking - 113 spaces • $604 Non-resident/infrequent resident $870 Woburn St. lot - 71 spaces (84% full) $154 Vine St. lot - 42 spaces (15% full) Town Business parking - 228 spaces (100+% sold) • $352 Reserved - 58 spaces • $288 Unreserved =170 spaces Town Residential parking - 500 spaces (100+% sold) • $43 purchased in December & January only • $20 maximum daily usage Next Steps: Reading Compost/Depot Stickers Factors - Compost Center low price - Encourage use by residents higher price - Need. for revenues; higher cost to operate risk - Not so high as to encourage waste dumping in other spots other - offer a commercial rate? Cost: $51 k wages + benefits + tax workers + expenses Revenue: $60k to $70k based on 3,000 to 3,500 stickers 42,000 seasonal trips: $1.43 to $1.67. per trip Next Steps: Reading Compost/ Depot Stickers Factors - Train Depot Parking low price - Encourage use of public transportation by residents low price - Residents pay taxes - have a right to receive a benefit high price - Need for revenues; offset cost of parking enforcement high price - Should all residents subsidize 500-1000 commuters? risk - Not so high as to encourage parking in neighborhoods other - purchase MBTA lot to increase revenue base? Next Steps: Town should purchase Vine St'. lot while MBTA is cash-poor Today: More Parking Revenues Non-residents - undercut M BTA $4/day - or agree none allowed (MBTA consolidates to Woburn St.) Affordable daily residential rate Higher leased business rate Next Steps: Town should purchase Vine St. lot while MBTA is cash-poor a_ y _ . Today: More Parking Revenues :y Non-residents undercut MBTA $4/day t- y - or agree none allowed MBTA r ~4 1 consolidates to Woburn St.) F r Affordable daily residential rate F.- Higher leased business rate Tomorrow: Provide Services Charge your electric car Kiosk for Town business Next Steps: Reading Compost/ Depot Stickers Factors - Train Depot Parking low price - Encourage use of public transportation by residents low price - Residents pay taxes - have a right to receive a benefit high price - Need for revenues; offset cost of parking enforcement high price - Should all residents subsidize 500-1000 commuters? risk - Not so high as to encourage parking in neighborhoods other - purchase MBTA lot to increase revenue base? Non-residents $600/space (MBTA) Commercial $300-$350/space (leased) Residential $20 to $40/space Next Steps: Reading Compost/Depot Stickers Decisions 1.) How many types of stickers? status quo - one sticker for both uses each sold separately; discount if buy both continue multi-vehicle and/or senior discounts? 2.) What is the right price(s) for the sticker(s)? October 11, 2011 The Reading Cultural Council was very busy over the last year. We discovered from the results of the our community input survey that communication about who we were was somewhat lacking. The charge, with tremendous effort, was successfully led by our past Chair Vicky Schubert. A 9 minute You-tube video was the result. It is quite an accomplishment of a seven member volunteer organization; with the editing help of a Reading Memorial High School student Julia Finlayson. The Reading Cultural Council Grant of $4620 will be distributed in FY 2012. The deadline for grant applications is October 15. Please view Reading Cultural Council Promotion: https://www.mass-culture.org/Reading Thank you again for your support, Lynn Cassinari Co-Chair Lorraine Horn Co- Chair Reading Cultural Council 1 f l a L. ~ ~ ~i FISCAL 2012 CLASSIFICATION HEARING Presented t the Board of Selectmen the card of Assessors .October 119 2011 c~ DETERMINATION OF VALUATION BY CLASS Each year, prior to the mailing of the first actual tax-bill, the Board of Selectmen holds a public hearing to discuss and decide on the distribution of the tax burden among the various classes of property. The Assessors finalize all assessments and group them into four classes of property. The values are used to. determine the allocation of the tax burden among the three classes of real property and one class of personal property. The Reading property value totals-by property class from 2009 through 2012 are as follows PROPERTY VALUATION CLASSIFICATION HIS TORY FY 2009-FY 2012 PRELIMINARY FY 2012 FY 2011 FY2010 FY 2009 ASSESSED % OF ASSESSED % OF ASSESSED % OF ASSESSED % OF PROPERTYCLASS VALUATION TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (R) $3,388,834,287 90.06% $3,373,086,171 90.01% $3,308,115,508 90.74% $3,401,468,484 91.44% OPEN SPACE (O) $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% TOTAL R O : $3,388,834,287 90.06% $3,373,086,171 90.01% $3,308,115,508 90.74% $3,401,468,484 91.44% COMMERCIAL (C) $320,112,476 8.51% $319,506,376 8.53% $270,816,033 7.43% $262,919,463 7.07% INDUSTRIAL (1) $9,648,700 0.26% $9,658,200 0.260/6 $21,050,500 0.58% $21,161,400 0.57% PERSONAL (P) $44,393,800 1.18% $45,295,130 1.21% $45,778,760 1.26% $34,298,590 0.920/6 TOTAL C I P : $374,154,976 9.94% $374,459,706 9.99% $337,645,293 9.26% $318,379,453 8.56% TOTAL TOWN : $3,762,989,263 100.00% $3,747,545,877 100.00% $3,645,760,801 100.00% $3,719,847,937 100.00% * Fiscal Year 2012 analysis assumes that the tax rate will be based upon a uniform single rate EVALUATION OF EXEMPTION OPTIONS In addition to deciding the share of the levy to be incurred by the residential, commercial, industrial, and personal property classes, the Classification Hearing allows the Board of Selectmen to consider alternatives with respect to alternative property tax exemptions and discounts. The four votes needed to be taken by the Board of Selectmen are as follows: ®Vote of a Residential Exemption eVote of a Small Commercial Exemption ®Vote of an Open Space Discount ®Vote of a Residential Factor Information concerning each alternative, as well as a list of communities which have implemented an exemption and/or discount, follows. RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION Adopting the Residential Exemption would allow the Selectmen to exempt from qualified Class I properties a percentage of the average assessed value of all Class I properties. The exemption can be as high as twenty (20%) percent of the average assessed value of all Class I properties, or as low as five (5%) percent, and in between in multiples of five (5%) percent. To compensate for the reduction in valuations of Class I properties receiving the exemption, the tax rate for the residential class must increase. This is because the total taxes to be levied on Class I properties must remain within that class of property, and cannot be shifted into properties classified as Commercial, Industrial or Personal Property. . RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION (C NT) . Currently, thirteen Massachusetts cities and towns have adopted the Residential- Exemption. The Residential Exemption is used in Barnstable, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea; Everett, Malden, Nantucket, Somerset, Tisbury and Watertown. In general, a majority of the residential taxpayers .in Reading would qualify for this exemption. We estimate that as much as 98 percent of Reading's residential taxpayers would qualify for this exemption. It will decrease the tax burden on Reading residents up to the town-wide average assessed value. The adoption of this option results in a higher tax rate for the Residential class of property. It will increase the tax burden on all non-residents of the community as well as the owners of all vacant land and apartment building properties. It will also increase the tax burden on Reading residents entitled to the exemption if the assessed value of their dwelling is greater than the town-wide average assessed value. The Residential Exemption tends to be adopted in communities which have a high percentage of apartments and seasonal homes and other investment property. SMALL COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION The Board of Selectmen can elect to grant an exemption to the owners of commercial, property valued at less than $1,000,000 as of January 1 and occupied by business with an average annual number of employees of ten employees or less. The source document for this information is the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The maximum amount of the exemption is ten (10%) percent of the assessed value of the qualified property. An adoption of this provision will result in a higher tax rate for all Commercial and Industrial properties, but would have no effect on the Residential, Open Space or Personal Property classes of property. While the eligible, business does not have to own the building, all occupants of the commercial portion of a building must qualify. As a result, most of the multi-tenant commercial property owners are ineligible. Ten cities. and towns adopted this exemption for FY 2011: Auburn, Avon, Bellingham, Braintree, Dartmouth, New Ashford, Seekonk, Somerset, Westford and Wrentham. Each of these cities and towns had significant commercial development that the community wanted to tax at a higher tax rate. This exemption limit tends. to diminish the attractiveness. There are forty-six (46) commercial properties in Reading for FY 2011 that would be eligible for this exemption. The total assessed value for these eligible properties is $21.3758 million, which results in a_ potential total assessed value of $2.13758 million that.may be.eligible for the Commercial Exemption. OPEC! SPACE DISCOUNT A maximum exemption of 25% may be adopted for all property that is classified as Open Space as determined by the Board of Assessors. The Board of Assessors further refines this definition to be privately held parcels which are in excess of an acre and not buildable. The Board of Assessors has not .classified property as Open Space since 1991, as few parcels qualify. In FY 2011 one community (Bedford) adopted this discount. Owners of comparatively larger parcels can place their property in one of the chapter alternatives to receive advantageous tax benefits. Any discount to owners of land granted an Open Space discount, is raised by the Residential class of taxpayers. SUMMARY E EXEMPTIONS AN DISCOUNT Residential Exemption Small Commercial Exemption Open Space Discount Principally domiciled Class 0 (commercial) property Residential Properties, in an residential home owners with fewer than 10 employees open and natural state as whose assessment is at or <$1,000,000, and employing determined by the ,assessors, under the break even fewer than 10 employees will not including Chapter Land valuation will benefit from benefit from the adoption. Program participants, or the adoption. properties with a perpetual deed restriction will benefit from the adoption. The voted % is removed The voted % is removed from The voted % is removed from from the taxable valuation. the taxable valuation. the taxable valuation. The allowable exemption The allowable exemption up to The allowable discount up to range is from 5 to 20% of 10% of the assessed value of 25% of value may be exempt the average of residential the qualifying property under this provision property typ es assessment Residential Class I Commercial and Industrial Residential Class I pays for properties pay for the Classes III + IV pay for the the Program Program Program 10 Communities adopted 10 Communities adopted the 1 Community adopted the the exemption for FY 2011 exemption for F`( 2011 exemption for FY 2011 The following tables show compared communities that are located adjacent to Reading, are part of the Middlesex League, and have a CIP ratio of ten (10) percent or less of total value. LYNNFIELD - 11.14 11.06 11.08 14.61 1 13.49 1 8.12 NO READING 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 14.00 13.00 READING 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.80 13.80 9.99 STONEHAM 1.55 1.53 1.50 19.63 12.21 11.78 WAKEFIELD 1.75 1.75 1.75 23.32 11.46 15.77 WILMINGTON 1.75 1.75 1:75 28.10 11.88 25.74 WOBURN 1.75 1.75 1.75 26.34 10.30 29.62 Middlesex CIP SHIFT: FY-11 Tax Rate FY11 CIP% League FY09 I FY1 0 FY11` CIP' ICES of Total ARLINGTON 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.41 12.41 6.01 BELMONT 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.24 13.24 6.12 BURLINGTON 1.66 1.70 1.68 30.80 11.50 35.53 LEXINGTON 1.70 1.70 1.70 27.28 14.40 12.79 MELROSE 1.50 1.47 1.48 19.01. 12.46 5.91 READING 1.00. 1.00 1.00 13.80 13.80 9.99 STONEHAM 1.55 1.53 1.50 19.63 12.21 11.78 WAKEFIELD 1.75 1.75 1.75 23.32 11.46 15.77 WATERTOWN 1.75 1.75 1.75 25.87 13.92 19.41 WILMINGTON 1.75 1.75 1.75 28.10 11.88 25.74 WINCHESTER 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.10 12.10 5.51 WOBURN 1.75 1.75 1.75 26.34 10.30 29.62 Communities- a e C9F SHIFT FY11' Tax Rate FYI1 CIp%` n ss th with I 1.00/0 CIP FY09' FYI 0 FY1 I CIP RES of Total BELMONT 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.24 13.24 6.12 GLOUCESTER 1.00 1.06 1.06 12.08 11.31 10.70 LINCOLN 1.30 1.30 1.30 16.27 12.37 3.78 LYNNFIELD 1.14 1.06 1.08. 14.61 13.49 8.12 MELROSE 1.50 1.47 1.48 19.01 12.46 5.91 MILTON 1.00 1.50 1.50 21.56 14.07 4.07 READING 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.80 13.80 9.99 SUDBURY 1.24 1.23 1.28 22.27 17.03 7.09 SWAMPSCOTT 1.75 1.75 1.75 30.80 16.60 7.04 WINCHESTER 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.10 12.10 5.51 EVALUATION F T SHIFT OPTIONS TOWN OF READING AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY TAX DATA FY2008 - FY2012 TOTAL VALUE NUMBER OF AVG. VALUE TAX AVERAGE AVG. TAX PERCENT FISCAL SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY RATE TAX BILL BILL CHANGE CHANGE YEAR PARCELS PARCELS PARCELS 2012 $2,894,656,000 6,514 $444,375 $14.16 $6,292.34 $192.56 3.16% PRELIMINARY 2011 $2,880,796,500 6,508 $442,655 $13.80 $6,099.78 $146.86 2.47% 2010 $2,816,270,800 6,505 $432,939 $13.75 $5,952.92 $95.11 1.62% 2009 $2,882,787,600 6,501 $443,438 $13.21 $5,857.81 $161.78 2.84% 2008 $2,933,909,900 6,490 $452,066 $12.60 $5,696.03 $123.85 2.22% * Fiscal Year 2012 analysis assumes that the tax rate will be based upon a uniform single rate TOWN OF READING.AVERAGE COMMERCIAL TAX DATA FY 2008 - FY 2012 TOTAL VALUE NUMBER OF AVG. VALUE TAX AVERAGE AVG. TAX PERCENT FISCAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL RATE TAX BILL BILL CHANGE CHANGE YEAR PARCELS PARCELS PARCELS` 2012 $320,112,476 205 $1,561,524 $14.16 $22,111.18 $1,113.75 5.30% Preliminary 2011 $310,396,800 204 $1,521,553 $13.80 $20,997.43 $3,306.38 18.69% 2010 $263,757,510 205 $1,286,622 $13.75 $17,691.05 $1,281.79 7.81% 2009 $255,890,100 206 $1,242,185 $13.21 $16,409.26 $992.36 6.44% 2008 $248,383,500 203 $1,223,564 $12.60 $15,416.91 $15,416.91 10.83% Fiscal Year 201 2 analysis assumes that the tax rate will be based upon a uniform single rate FY2012 RES Tax Rafe Options Residential Assessment FY1 T $300;000 000 $442,655 0000$800;0.00 '$900;000 $1,000,000 :$9 ,500000 $2,000,000: Residential AssessmentFY12 $301,166 554 $444,375 ;01,943 $6 803,109 $903,497 ,$1003,886 $1,505828 $2,007;771 FY11 Rate 13.80 $4140 20 $5 $6109 $6 900 $8 280 $11 040 $12 420 $13 800 $20 700 $27 60 Factor of 1,FY12 14.16 $4,265 j 86 $6292 $7,108 $8,529 $11,372 $12,794 $14,215 $21,323 $28,430 $Diff %Dif $125 3.0% 6 % $184 3.0%. $208 3.0% $249 $332 3.0% 3.0% $374 3.0% $415 3.0% $623 3.0% $830 3.0% 1.10 14.00 $4,216 ,22 $6,221-: $7,027 $8,433 $11,244 $12,649 $14,054 $21,082 $28,109 $Diff %Dif $76 1.8% $102 1.8% $113 1.8% $127 1.8% $153 $204 1.8% 1.8% $229 1.8% $254 1.8% $382 1.8% $509 1.8% 1.20 13.85 $4,171 $5,562 $_6,1,55- $6,952 $8,342 $11,123 $12,513 $13,904 $20,856 $27,808 $Diff s $31 $42 $46 $52 $62 $83 $93 $104 $156 $208 %Dif - 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% _ 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1.23 13.80 $4156 $5,541 $6132 $6,927 $8,312 $11,083 $12,468 1 $13,854 $20,780 $27 7,707 $Diff. %Dif $16 0.39% $21 0.39% $24 0.39% $27 0.39% $32 $43 0.39% 0.39% $48 0.39% $54 0.39% $80 0.39% $107 0.39% 1.30 13.69 $4123 $5,497 $6083 $6,872 $81246 $10 995 $12,369 $13 743 20615", $27 486 $Diff %Dif ($17) -0.4% ($23) -0.4% ($25) -0.4% ($28) -0.4% ($34) ($45) -0.4% -0.4% ($51) -0.4% ($57) -0.4% ($85) -0.4% ($114) -0.4% 1.40 13.53' $4,075 $5,433 $6;012 $6,791 $8,150 $10,866 $12,224 $13,583 $20,374 $27,165 $Diff %DIf ($65) -1.6% ($87) -1.6% ($96) -1.6%. ($109) -1.6% ($130) ($174) -1.6% -1.6% ($196) -1.6% ($217) -1.6% ($326) -1.6% ($435) -1.6% 1.50 13.38 $4,030 $5,373 $5,946- $6,716 $8,059 $10,746 $12,089 $13,432 $20,148 $26,864 $Diff %Dif ($110) -2.7% ($147) 2.7% ($163) -2.7% ($184) -2.7% ($221) ($294) -2.7% -2.7% ($331) -2.7% ($368) -2.7% ($552) -2.7% ($736) -2.7% FY2012 Comm Tax Rate Options ,CIP'Assessment FYI 1 $4Q0,000, $600,000 67,500,000 :$1,5211553 $1900,000 00 $8,8001000 .121500,000 CIP Assessment FY12 $398,980 ! $598,470 $j 496,175 `$1,517673. $1;895 155 $3,790,310 $8,777,560 $12,468;125= FY11 Rate 13.80 $5,520 $8,280 $20,700 $20,997 $26,220 $52,440 $121,440 $172,500 Factor of 1, FY12 14.16 $5,650 $8,474 $21,186 $21,490 ` $26,835 $53,671 $124,290 $176,549 $Diff %Dif $130 2.3% $194 2.3% $486 2.3% $493 2.3% $615 2.3% $1,231 2.3% $2,850 $4,049 2.3% 1.10 15.58 $6,216 $9,324 $23,310 $23;645:-: $29,527 $59,053 $136,754 $194,253 " $Diff %Dif $696 12.6% $1,044 12.6% $2,610 12.6% ' - $2;648: 12.6%.:. $3,307 12.6% $6,613 12.6% $15,314 12.6% $21,753 12.6% 1.20 16.99 $6,779 $10168 $25,420 5,785: $32199 $64,397 $149,131 $211,833 $Diff %Dif $1,259 22.8% $1,888 22.8% $4,720 22.8% $4,788''. 22.8% $5,979 22.8% $11,957 22.8% $27,691 22.8% $39,333 22.8% 1.23 17.42 1 $6,950 $10,425 $26,063 $26,438:1.: $33,014 $66,027 $1521905, 1 $217195 $Diff %Dif $1,430 25.91% $2,145 25.91% $5,363 25.91% $5,440 25.91% $6,794 25.91% $13,587 25.91% $31,465 25.91% $44,695 25.91% 1.30 18.41 $7,345 $11,018 $27,545 $27;940 $34,890 $69,780 $161,595 $229,538 $Diff %Dif $1,825 33.1% $2,738. 33.1% $6,845 33.1% $6,943 33.1 $8,670 33.1 % $17,340 33.1% $40,155 33.1% $57,038 33.1% 1.40 10.82 $7,908 $11,862 $29,654 $30,080. $37,562 $75,124 $173,971 $247,118 $Diff %Dif $2,388 43.3% $3,582 43.3% $8,954 43.3% $93083 43-..3% $11,342 43.3% $22,684 43.3% $52,531 43.3 0/- $74,618 43.3% 1.50 21.24 $8 474 $12,712 $31,77 9 $32 235. $40,253 $80 506 $186,435 $264,823 $Diff %Dif $2,954 $4,432 53.5% 53.5% $11,079 53.5% $11,238: 53.:5°70 $14,033 53:5% $28,066 53.5% $64,995 53.5% $92,323 53.5% FY2011 Comm Tax Rate Options CIP Assessment EY1Q $400,000 $"600;000 . $1;286622. $1,5'00,000 $1 9.OQ000, $3;800;00.0 $8,800,000 $12,500,60, CIP AsspFsn,~rt FY 1 i $4731038 $709,557 -$1,521:,553 ,'1 773,893 . $2;246,931 .$4';493,862 $10;406,838 514,782,440 FYI 0 Rate 13.75 $5,500 $8,250 $17,691 , $20,625 $26,125 $52,250 $121,000. $171,875 Factor of 1, FY11 13.80 $6,528 $9,792 $20,997 _ $24,480 $31,008 $62,015 $143,614 $203,998 $Diff %Dif $1,028 18.7% $1,542 18.7% .$3,306 18.7% $3,855 18.7% $4,883 18.7% $9,765 18.7% $22,614 18.76/6 $32,123 18.7% 1.10 15.17 $7176 $10,764 $23,082, - 910 $34 086 $68,172 $157,872 1224 250 $Diff %Dif $1,676 30.5% $2,514 30.5% $5,391 30.5% 285 5% t30. $7,961 30.5 % $15,922 30.5% $36,872 30.5% $52,375 30.5% 1.20 16.55 $7,829 $11,743 251182 . $29 358 $37Z187 $7 44.37 3 $172233 $244,649 $Diff %Dif $2,329 42.3% $3,493 42.3% $7,491 42.3% $8,733 42.3% $11,062 42.3% . $22,123 42.3% $51,233 42.3% $72,774 42.3% 1.30 17.93 $8,482 $12,722 $27;281 $31,806 $40,287 $80,575 $186,595 $265,049 $Diff %Dif $2,982 54.2% $4,472 54.2% $9,590 54.2% $11,181 54.2% . $14,162 54.2% $28,325 54.2% $65,595 54.2% $93,174 54.2% 1.40 19.31 $9,134 $13,702 $29,381 $34,254 $43,388 $86,776 $200,956 $285,449 $Diff %Dif $3,634 66.1% $5,452 66.1% $117690 6.6.1%. $13,629 66.1% $17,263 66.1 % $34,526 66.1% $79,956 11 66.1% $113,574 66.1% 1.50 20.69 $9,787 $14,681 $31,481- 49 $36,702 $46,489 $92,978 $215,317 $305,8 - $Diff %D.if $4,287 $6,431 77.9% 77.9% $13;790;, 77.9%' $16,077 77.9% $20,364 77.9% 7$40,728 77.9% $94,317 77.9% $133,974 77.9% 60.00% - 50:00% 40.00% 'm - L Q- - 20.00% bn s 10.00% '0.00% CIP Shift Impact on Average Tax Bills Increase/Decrease) Residential -Comm/Ind r .L U U U/0 :1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1,14 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 CIP Shift (Equal % Change!ai 30 1.32 1 -34 1.3 6 1.3 8 1.40 1.42 1.44 1.46 1.48 1.5 0 276 Shift) 2012 Resit an da l Tax Rabe O ptiarns Fac tors . Share % Est Ta x Rates I mpact for Avera ge FY12 Tax Bill s a P Shift Res Factor Res CIP Total Res CIP FY12 Res Tax FY11 Dif $ FY11 Dif % FY12 CIP Tax FY11 Dif $ FY11 Dif % 1.00 100.0000 90.057 9.9430 100.0 14.16 14.16 $6,292 $184 3.01 % $21,490 $493 235% 1.01 99.8896 89.958 10.0425 100.0 14.14 14.30 $6,283 $175 286% 21,703 $705 3.36% 1.02 99.7792 89.858 10.1419 100.0 14.13 14.44 $6,279 $170 279% $21,915 $918 4.37% 1.03 99.6688 89.759 10.2413 100.0 14.11 14.58 $6,270 $161 264% $22,128 $1,130 5.38% 1.04 99.5584 89.659 10.3407 100.0 1410 14.73 $6,266 $157 257% $22,355 $1,358 6.47% 1.05 99.4480 89.560 10.4402 100.0 14.08 : 14.87 $6,257 $148 243% $22,568 $1,570 7.48% 1.06 99.3376 89460 10.5396 100.0 14.07 15.01 $6,252 $144 235% .$22,780 $1,783 8.493/o 1.07 99.2271 89.361 10.6390 100.0 14.05 15.15 $6,243 $135 2-21% X2,993 $1,995 9.500/6 1.08 99.1167 89.262 10.7385 100.0 14.03 _ 15.29 $6,235 $126 206% $23,205 $2,208 10.51% 1.09 99.0063 89.162 10.8379 100.0 14.02 15.43. - $6,230 $121 1.99% $23,418 $2,420 11.53% .1.10 98.8959 89.063 10.9673 100.0 14.00 15.581 $6,221 $113 1.84% $23,645 $2,648 1261% 1.11 98.7855 88.963 11.0368 100.0 13.99 15.72 $6,217 $108 1.77% $23,858 $2,860 13.62% 1.12 98.6751 88.864 11.1362 100.0 13.97 15.86- $6,208 $99 1.63% $24,070' $3,073 14.630/c 1.13 98.5647 88.764 11.2356 100.0 13.96 16.00 $6,203 $95 1.55% $24,283 $3,285 15.650/c 1.14 98.4543 88.665 11.3350 100.0 13.94 16.14 $6,195 $86 1.41% $24,495 $3,498 '16.661/c 1.15 98.3439 88.566 11.4345 100.0 13.93 16.28 $6,190 $82 1.33% $24,708 $3,710 17.67% 1.16 98.2335 88.466 11.5339 100.0 13.91 16.43 $6,181 $73 1.19% $24,935 $3,938 18.75% 1.17 98.1231 88.367 11.6333 100.0 13.89 16.57. $6,172 $64 1.04% $25,148 $4,150 19.77016 1.18 98.0127 88.267 11.7328 100.0 13.88 16.71 $6,168 $59 0.97% $25,360 $4,363 20.780/c 1.19 97.9022 88.168 11.8322 100.0 13.86 . 16.85 $6,159 $50 0.83% $25,573 $4,575 21.79% 1.20 97.7918 88.068 11.9316 100.0 13.85 16.99 $6,155 $46 0.75% $25,785 $4,788 2280% 1.21 97.6814 87.969 120311 100.0 13.83. 17.13- $6,146 $37 0.61% $25,998 $5,000 23.81% 1.22 97.5710 87.870 121305 100.0 .13.82 17.27 $6,141 $33 0.53% $26,210 $5,213 24.83% 1.23 97.4606 87.770 122299 100.0 1a80 17.42 $6,132 24 0.39% $26,438 $5,440 25.91% 1.24 97.3502 87.671 12394 100.0 13.78 17.56 $6,123 $15 0.24% $26,650 $5,653 26.92% 1.25 97.2398 87.571 124288 100.0 13.77 17.70 $6,119 $10 0.17% $26,863 $5,865 27.93% 1.26 97.1294 87.472 125282 100.0 13.75 17.84 $6,110 $2 0.02% $27,075 $6,078 28.95% 1.27 97.0190 87.372 126276 100.0 13.74 , 17.98: $6,106 -$3 -0.05% $27,288 $6,290 29.96% 1.28 96.9086 87.273 127271 100.0 13.72 18.12: $6,097 -$12 -0:19% $27,500 $6,503 30.9 /o 1.29 96.7982 87.173 12365 100.0 13.71 18.27 $6,03 -$16 -0.27% $1,728 $6,730 3205% 1.30 96.6878 87.074 129259 100.0 13.69 18.41 $6,083 -$25 -0,41% $27,940 $6,943 33.07-/.