Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-28 Board of Selectmen PacketDRAFT -BOARD OF SELECTMEN AGENDAS Staff Estimated Responsibility Start time future agendas Policy on use of the AHTF (Policy on displaying street numbers Preview licensing and Permitting software. Review license and permit fees (Policy on Trust Fund Commissioners February 28, 2012 (Presentation Goldy 7:00 Hearing Establish Sturges Park Planning Committee Hechenbleikner 7:30 Continued Hearing Policy on Amplified Sound in Public Parks Bonazoli Close warrant - Presidential Primary and Town Elections Gemme Close Annual Town Meeting warrant IHechenbleikner Presentation on Conservation regulations IMaughan March 6,.2012 - Election Day March 13, 2012 IOffice Hour Richard Schubert IRe-organization of Board of Selectmen IHechenbleikner (Review 2011 Audit LaPointe Discussion with CAB member and RMLD re Renewable Energy Certificates Approval of discontinuance plans - Pearl Street Hearing at Audubon Road; Grant Street Zambouras 7:45 8:00 8:00 8:30 6:30 7:00 7:30 I 8:15 (March 27, 2012 Sidewalk improvement program review BCC and sunset clauses Strout Ave Master Plan Amend Section 5.1 - Community Services Hearing revolving funds Hechenbleikner I I I. (April 10, 2012 I IOffice Hour Stephen Goldy I 6:30 Hearing jW/S/SWM Rates IZager/LeLacheur (Hearing JBCC and sunset clauses EDC presentation of Downtown Improvements and Events Trust program for 2012 JApri123; 2012 - Annual .Town Meeting Clarke 8:00 3 IApril 24 2012 I I I I. I I ~ IApril26, 2012-- Annual Town Meeting I IApri1 M 2012 = Annual Town Meeting I I I I IMay 3, 2,912 - Annual Town Meeting I I I ~ I May 8, 2012 Office Hour I IBen Tafoya I I I 6:30 I: June 5, 2012: I I - Office Hour I I I 6:30 IJune' 19, 2012 I I I June 2,6,`2012 I I 1 Appointments of Boards, Committees, Commissions I I I I IJuly 10, 2012 I (Office Hour IJames Bonazoli I I I I 6:30 I IJuly 24. 2012 I I I IAubust.7, 2012 (Office Hour IRichard Schubert I I I I 6:30 I ~ August 21, 2012 I I I ISeptember 6, 2012 - State Primary (September 11, 2012 Office Hour IStephen Goldy I I 6:30 IClose Warrant - State Primary Election I I I ISeptember 25, 2012 _ I IClose STM Warrant I I I (October 9, 2012 , . Office Hour IBen Tafoya I I 6:30 Tax Classification preview I I I (October 23, 2012 I I I I ~ f November 6, 2012 - State Election I 1 November 13, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting 4 November 15, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting; November 19, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting November 20, 2012 ~ Office Hour 1 6:30 Tax Classification hearing Approve Liquor Licenses November 26, 2012 - Subsequent Town Meeting_ December 4, 2012 Office Hour James Bonazoli 6:30 Approve licenses Approve early openings/24 hour openings [Decembet• 18, 2012 5 ~o~~OFRFq~'~ Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: February 23, 2012 RE: Agenda February 28, 2012 3a) A Presentation is scheduled under item 3 5a) We advertised a hearing on the policy establishing the Sturges Park Planning Committee. John Feudo is ready to begin the ongoing process of park master plans for this site. 5b) The hearing for the amendment to the Policy on Amplified Sound in Parks was continued, and Town Counsel has recommended a small wording change which is included in the revised Rule 4 which is in your packet. Additionally, Town Counsel asks that the Town consider a broader noise Bylaw and I have begun discussions with our Health Administrator about that. 5c, d) The Town Election Warrant is included as Article 1 of the Annual Town Meeting Warrant and the Presidential Primary Warrant is separate. The Town Meeting Warrant has two inclusions that were not discussed with the Board at your last meeting. One is the proposed petition article regarding the demolition delay Bylaw. I expect a petition on this to be filed before Tuesday. Additionally, the Police Chief has requested an article that allows the use of fingerprints for determining whether a person is fit to be licensed. This would be a new Bylaw. 5e) Conservation Commission Bill Hecht will be in to review the status of amendments to the Conservation Rules and Regulations and a time line for completion of this project. Jamie Maughan who has been managing this process for the Commission is not available for the meeting so Bill Hecht will fill. in. PIH/ps 6 ~Mcj- J 1 Precinct 111 Precinct 211 Precinct 3 11 Precinct 411 Precinct 511 Precinct 611 Precinct 711 Precinct 811 Total Democrat 1 6491 7091 6391 6701 6671 517 7691 661 5281 Republican 1 3711 263 3501 3761 3251 273 3461 406 2710 Unenrolled 1 13891 1202 10461 11381 10921 827 1113 1112 8919 Other I 121 151 121 101 101 7 8 71 ' 81 Total 24211 21891 20471 21941 20941 16241 2236 2186116991 ~ C. k 7 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter F F d J h (xA rom o, o n eu Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:41 AM { ; v P' To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Keating, Bob Subject: Rinks Peter, As Bob and I indicated this AM, given the mild weather we would like to drain the rinks ASAP. I will turn the lights off once they are empty as well. Please advice the BOS and let us know. Bad skating*year, but a good trade off with the nice weather. John John A. Feudo Recreation Administrator Town of Reading Office: 781-942-9075 Fax: 781-942-5441 ifeudo a ci.readina.ma.us Website: www.readinama.aov/recreation Please note new Town Hall Flours effective June 7, 2010:Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.Tuesday: 7:30 a.m... 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readinama- su_ryey.yirt itownhal.l..net/survey/sid/ccc2fO35993bd3cO/ 2/21/2012 8 ~ c2 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at. 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on: -Establishing a Sturges Park Planning Committee. A copy of the proposed doc- uments regarding this topic is available in the Town Manager's office, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA, M-W- Thurs from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Tues from 7:30 a.m., - 7:00 p.m. and is attached to the hearing notice on the website at www.readingma.gov All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 6:00 p.m, on February 28, 2012 to townmanager@ci.reading. ma.u s By order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 2/22 9 s~-~ Policy establishing an ad hoc Sturges Park Planning Committee ad hoc Sturges Park Planning Committee There is hereby created an ad hoc Sturges Park Planning Committee (the Committee). The Committee shall consist of seven (7) residents of Reading for terms expiring December 31, 2012, or such earlier date that may be determined. In selecting the membership, an attempt will be made to fill the membership as follows: o 1 member appointed by the Recreation Committee o 1 member from Friends of Reading Recreation o 1 member from sports organizations that commonly use Sturges Park o 3 residents at Large that do not fulfill any other requirements of the other categories, and who are residents of the surrounding neighborhood representing different portions of the neighborhood o 1 member of the Board of Selectmen The Committee shall perform the following activities related to developing the Master Plan for Sturges Park: 1. Review and understand the scope of the charge to the Committee, and develop a suggested work plan and schedule; 2. Review and document the current uses and development of Sturges Park; 3. Solicit input from the community at large as to what uses can/should be included for the park; 4. Reach out to the current users of Sturges Park for their comments and input; 5. Reach out to Town Departments and Boards/Committees/Commissions that may be affected by the current or changed uses of Sturges Park. Particular attention will be given to the Departments responsible for maintaining park facilities, those responsible for issuing permits for use of these sites, and the Animal Control Officer; 6. Prepare a preliminary Master Plan on their findings including potential uses and draft drawings by September 30, 2012; 7. Submit the preliminary Master Plan to the Board of Selectmen for their review and comment; 8. With staff, develop a final Master Plan; 9. Report to the Board of Selectmen and get feedback at key milestones in this process, including prior to the development of the Preliminary Master Plan. Staff and Town Counsel will be assigned to work with the ad hoc Sturges Park Planning Committee through the Town Manager. The Committee will be considered to be part of the Department of Public Works for administrative purposes. Adopted 2-28-12 10 Amendments to Section 4.14 Rules and Regulations Relating to Parks, Playgrounds and Recreation Areas Add to Section 4.14.1, Definitions 1. "Amplified sound" is defined as voice, music or any sound extended above and beyond its normal range by an electronic device or secondary means such as a radio, megaphone or non-electric equipment And re-number the following sections of 4.14.1 Amend Section 4.14.3 - Rules as follows: RULE 3. No person shall, on any public park, playground, recreation or other area under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Committee in the Town of Reading, solicit the acquaintance of or annoy another person or utter any profane, threatening abusive or indecent language or loud outcry; or solicit any subscription or contribution; or have possession of, or drink any alcoholic beverages as defined by Chapter 138, Section 1, of the General Laws; or play any game of chance, or have possession of any instrument of gambling; or make an oration or harangue or any political or other canvass; or preach or pray aloud; or do any obscene or indecent act; or play any Y,,usieal inst .,,Y, ent or use any sound amplifier-, except by written authority from the Recreation Committee or their designee. Add the following RULE 4 to Section 4.14.3, and renumber existing RULE 4 through RULE 11 to RULE 5 through RULE 12: RULE 4. Amplified Sound - Users of public property and abutting residents should have an expectation of quiet enjoyment of the Town's public parks, playgrounds, recreation and other open space areas. This rule recognizes that these properties are the site of some activities which inherently create levels of noise due to customary and usual uses such as fans cheering, referee and coach's whistles, and bands playing during football games. There is also recognition that as a community the public parks, playgrounds, recreation and other open space areas are the site of occasional community events which use amplified sound such as school field days, community fairs, and fireworks displays, etc. The use of amplified sound in public parks, playgrounds, recreation and other open space areas is not permitted without a permit to be granted by the Recreation Committee or other agency which has jurisdiction over said public property. When permitted, the use of amplified sound shall be controlled by the permit holder such that the volume, direction, and duration of the sound is the minimum needed to meet the purpose of the use of the sound, and which will minimize the impact of the sound on other users of the park, playground, or other public property and its abutters. Unreasonable sound shall be sound plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet from its source by a person of normal hearinLy.. The intent of this rule is to allow, with' a permit from the Recreation Committee or other agency which has jurisdiction over said public property, reasonable and occasional playing of music or use of amplified sound while considering location, eenten-t, time, duration and frequency such as an annual fair, or once a year all-star sports games. The use of amplified sound is not intended to be a 11 SM routine for recurring events such as play by play announcements for sporting events and other repeated use of music and amplified sound. The permitting authority should consider the frequency of amplified permits per park or recreation site and afford significant consideration to the neighbors abutting the permitted areas as regards to their inconvenience created by said permit. When a permit is granted, a copy of the permit shall be transmitted to the Board of Selectmen at least 3 days before the event at which the music or amplified sound is to be used. Additionally, all permitted dates of amplified sound will be posted in a conspicuous place on the Town's website as well as available by contacting the Recreation Division or head of any other agency having jurisdiction over the public property for which a permit has been granted. Any variance from this rule will require the permitted applicant to petition the Board of Selectmen for such variance at which time a public hearing will be held on the matter. Note - Bole and Underlined are changes proposed by Town Counsel. Adopted --1--12012 12 Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Gary S. Brackett [gsbrackett@brackettlucas.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 1:19 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Attachments: Amp Sound Final for BOS Approval (redline).doc; Sound Bylaw Guidelines.doc CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION RE: Amblified Sound Rules Peter, We have conducted a further review of proposed Rule 4 governing amplified sound which is currently pending before the Board of Selectmen following the 2/14/12 public hearing which, I understand, has been continued to 2/28/12. The test under applicable Supreme Court cases is whether the expression being regulated is "basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time". Sound amplification devices have been found to be a form of expression protected by the 1St Amendment. Regulations as to same should be content neutral and address the type of time, place and manner restrictions that are appropriate to the location. Some examples of noise ordinances which address sound amplification devices are the Boston Noise Ordinance and the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards' model regulations. Using those models, we have prepared a draft noise by-law for your review for possible future adoption. Presently, the Town only addresses outdoor loudspeakers as to commercial establishments under Section 5.16 of the Reading General By-laws. As to proposed Rule 4, you asked if we could recommend some revisions to address these issues at this time. Attached is a red-line version of the 2/1/12 draft you sent me. I am available to discuss this with you further at your convenience. Regards, Gary Gary S. Brackett, Esquire BRACKETT & LUCAS 19 Cedar Street Worcester, MA 01609 (tel)508-799-9739 (fax)508-799-9799 This message is intended only for designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete this matter. Thank you. 2/21/2012 13 5L, ~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on February 28, 2012 notified and, warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified -by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant in the following public places within the Town of Reading: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Precinct 2 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Precinct 3 Reading Municipal Light Department, 230 Ash Street Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Precinct 5 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Precinct 6 Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue Precinct 7 Birch Meadow School, 27 Arthur B Lord Drive Precinct 8 Wood End School, 85 Sunset Rock Lane Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street The date of posting being not less than seven (7) days prior to March 6, 2012, the date set for the Presidential Primary Election in this Warrant. I also caused an attested copy of this Warrant to be posted on the Town of Reading web site. Alan Ulrich, Constable A true copy Attest: Laura Gemme, Town Clerk ~G 14 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATE PRIMARY ELECTION WARRANT MIDDLESEX, SS. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading who are qualified to vote in the State Primary Election to vote at Precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 Reading Memorial High School - Hawkes Field House - 62 Oakland Road on TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, 2012, from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for the following purpose: To cast their votes in the State Primaries. for the candidates of political parties for the following offices: PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH STATE COMMITTEE MAN SENATORIAL DISTRICT STATE COMMITTEE WOMAN SENATORIAL DISTRICT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THIS COMMONWEALTH TOWN COMMITTEE TOWN OF READING Hereof fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting. Given under our hands this 28th day of February, 2012. Camille W Anthony, Chairman Stephen A Goldy, Vice Chairman Richard W Schubert James E Bonazoli Ben Tafoya BOARD OF SELECTMEN Alan Ulrich, Constable A true copy Attest: Laura A Gemme, Town Clerk 15 SG ~ DRAFT 2012 Annual Town Meeting April 23, 2012 WARRANT OUTLINE 02/23/2012 Art. Mover/ Moderator # Article Description Sponsor Comment Notes 5 1Establishin2 an OPEB Trust Fund Board of Selectmen 6 I Amending the FY 2012 Budget I Board of Selectmen 7 Approving FY 2013 to FY 2022 Board of Selectmen Capital Improvement Program 8 Approve Payment of Prior Year's Board of Selectmen Bills 9 Disposition of Surplus Tangible Board of Selectmen 12 Accepting a gift - Friends of Reading Board of Selectmen Football Scholarship 2/23/2012 1 16 S~ 4 Amending the Capital Improvement Board of Selectmen Program FY 2012-FY 2021 11 Rescinding Civil Service - Police Board of Selectmen 15 Authorizing debt - Sewer Board of Selectmen repair/replacement - Tennyson, Whittier, Wordsworth, Browning, Tennyson Circle DRAFT 2012 Annual Town Meeting April 23, 2012 WARRANT OUTLINE 02/23/2012 16 Acceptance of easement from Haven Board of Selectmen Street to "upper' Municipal parking lot, and granting an easement for installation of an ATM in the "upper" Municipal parking lot. 17 Resolution calling for an amendment Board of Selectmen to the US Constitution to reverse the effects of the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allows unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and others in our elections 18 Approval of Affordable Housing Board of Selectmen Trust Fund Allocation Plan 19 Bylaw pursuant to authority of Board of Selectmen Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6, Section 172 B 1/2, enabling the Police Department to conduct State and Federal Fingerprint Based Criminal History checks for individuals applying for various municipally-issued licenses 20 Amending Reading General Bylaw Petition Section 7.2 - providing for appeals from Demolition Delay 21 Charter amendment re members and minimum write-in of Town Meeting number of Board of Selectmen votes for 2/23/2012 2 17 Sd~,2J COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on February 28, 2012 notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote on Town affairs, to meet at the place and at the time specified by posting attested copies of this Town Meeting Warrant in the following public places within the Town of Reading: Precinct 1 J. Warren Killam School, 333 Charles Street Precinct 2 Reading Police Station, 15 Union Street Precinct 3 Reading Municipal Light Department, 230 Ash Street Precinct 4 Joshua Eaton School, 365 Summer Avenue Precinct 5 Reading Library, Local History Room, 64 Middlesex Avenue Precinct 6 Barrows School, 16 Edgemont Avenue Precinct 7 Birch Meadow School, 27 Arthur B Lord Drive Precinct 8 Wood End School, 85 Sunset Rock Lane Town Hall, 16 Lowell Street The date of posting being not 'less than fourteen (14) days prior to 2012, the date set for Town Meeting in this Warrant. I also caused a posting of this Warrant to be published on the Town of Reading website on 2012. Alan Ulrich, Constable A true copy Attest: Laura Gemme, Town Clerk 1 sj3 18 TOWN WARRANT (SEAL) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. To any of the Constables of the Town of Reading, Greetings: In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in elections and Town affairs, to meet at the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road, in said Reading, on Monday, April 23, 2012, at seven- thirty o'clock in the evening, at which time and place the following articles are to be acted upon and determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading Home Rule Charter ARTICLE 1 To elect by ballot the following Town Officers: A Moderator for one year; One member of the Board of Selectmen for three years; One member of the Board of Assessors for three years; Two members of the Board of Library Trustees for three years; Two members of the Municipal Light Board for three years; Two members of the School Committee for three years; and One Hundred and Ninety Two Town Meeting Members shall be elected to represent each of the following precincts: Precinct 1 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 2 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 3 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 4 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 5 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 6 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; Precinct 7 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; and Precinct 8 Eight members for three years; Eight members for two years; Eight members for one year; 19 To vote on the following two questions: Question 1: Shall the Town of Reading approve the amendment to Article 5 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, proposed by the November 14, 2011 Subsequent Town Meeting, which is summarized below: Article 5. Town Manager Section 5 -1 Appointment, Qualifications. Term This amendment will authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a contract with the Town Manager for a term not exceeding three (3) years in length. Yes No Question 2: Shall the Town of Reading approve the amendment to Article 7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, proposed by the November 14, 2011 Subsequent Town Meeting, which is summarized below: Article 7 - Finances and Fiscal Procedures Section 7-2: Submission of Proposed Budget This amendment modifies the budget process by requiring the Town Manager to consult with the Board of Selectmen on the Municipal Government portion of the budget before submitting the budget to the Finance Committee. Yes No and to meet at the Reading Memorial High School, 62 Oakland Road, in said Reading on MONDAY, the TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF APRIL A.D., 2012 at seven-thirty o'clock in the evening, at which time and place the following Articles are to be acted upon and determined exclusively by Town Meeting Members in accordance with the provisions of the Reading Home Rule Charter. ARTICLE 2 To hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, Town Accountant, Treasurer- Collector, Board of Assessors, Director of Public Works, Town Clerk, Tree Warden, Board of Health, School Committee, Contributory Retirement Board, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Cemetery Trustees, Community Planning & Development Commission, Town Manager and any other Official, Board or Special Committee. Board of Selectmen 3 20 ARTICLE 3 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Special Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Special Committees, and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for the purpose of funding Town Officers and Special Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 4 . To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2012 - FY 2021 Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter and as previously amended, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to adopt Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 32B, Section 20 which allows the Town to set up an irrevocable trust for "Other Post Employment Benefits Liabilities" or take any action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote to amend one or more of the votes taken under Article 28 of the Warrant of the Annual Town Meeting of April 25, 2011 as amended under Article 5 of the Warrant of the Subsequent Town Meeting of November 14, 2011; and to see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, as the result of any such amended votes for the operation of the Town and its government, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote to approve the FY 2013 - FY 2022 Capital Improvements Program as provided for in Section 7-7 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 8 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the payment during Fiscal Year 2012 of bills remaining unpaid for previous fiscal years for goods and services actually rendered to the Town, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 9 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to sell, or exchange, or dispose of, upon such terms and conditions as they may determine, various items of Town tangible property, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen 4 21 d~ ARTICLE 10 To see if the Town will vote to authorize revolving funds for certain Town Departments under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 44, Section 53E'/2 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012 with the receipts, as specified, credited to each fund, the purposes, as listed, for which each fund may be spent, the maximum amount that may be spent from each fund for the fiscal year, and the disposition of the balance of each fund at fiscal year end. Revolving Account Conservation Commission Consulting Fees Inspection Revolving Fund Public Health Clinics and Services Spending Authority Conservation Commission Town Manager Revenue Source Fees as provided for in Reading General Bylaws Section 5.7, Wetlands Protection Building Plumbing, Wiring, Gas and other permits for the Oaktree, Addison-Wesley/ Pearson and Johnson Woods developments Allowed Expenses Consulting and engineering services for the review of designs and engineering work for the protection of wetlands. Legal, oversight and inspection, plan review, initial property appraisals and appeals, Community Services general management, curb sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements, records archiving and other project related costs. Vaccines, materials for screening clinics and clinical supply costs, medical equipment and supplies, immunizations, educational materials Acquire Library materials to replace lost or damaged items Utilities and all other maintenance and operating Expenditure Year End Limits Balance $25,000 Available for expenditure next year $200,000 Available for expenditure next year $25,000 Board of Health Library Library Materials Director and Replacement Trustees Clinic Fees and third party reimbursements Charges for lost or damaged Library materials Mattera Cabin Recreation Operating Administrator Rental Fees Director of Public Works upon the recommendati on of the ' Sale of timber; fees Town Forest for use of the Town Town Forest Committee Forest or take any other action with respect thereto. expenses Planning and Improvements to the Town Forest $15,000 $10,000 Available for expenditure next year Available for expenditure next year Available for expenditure next year $10,000 Available for expenditure next year Board of Selectmen 5 22 ARTICLE 11 To see if the Town will vote to revoke its acceptance of Chapter 468 of the Acts of 1911 which extended the provisions of Civil Service for the Reading Police Department, including the Chief of Police; and further, that this revocation will not affect the Civil Service status of existing personnel in their current positions; or take any other action relating thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 12 To see if the Town will vote to accept a gift to establish the Friends of Reading Football Scholarship Fund to be administered by the Town of Reading Commissioner of Trust Funds in accordance with the wishes of the donors, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 13 To see if the Town will vote to determine how much money the Town will appropriate by borrowing, or from the tax levy, or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for the operation of the Town and its government for Fiscal Year 2013 -beginning July 1, 2012, or take any other action with respect thereto. Finance Committee ARTICLE 14 To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate by borrowing, whether in anticipation of reimbursement from the State under Chapter 44, Section 6, Massachusetts General Laws, or pursuant to any other enabling authority or from the tax levy; or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, for highway projects in accordance with Chapter 90, Massachusetts General Laws, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 15 To see what sum the Town will raise by borrowing pursuant to G.L. Chapter 44, §7(1) or transfer from available funds, or otherwise, and appropriate for the purpose of making improvements to the Whittier Road, Tennyson Road, Tennyson Circle, Wadsworth Road and Browning Terrace area surface drains, sewers and sewerage systems, including the costs of engineering services, plans, documents, cost estimates, bidding services and all related expenses incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be spent under the direction of the Town Manager; and to see if the Town will authorize the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or any other agency of the Town to apply for a grant or grants to be used to defray all or any part of said sewer construction and/or reconstruction and related matters; and to see if the Town will vote to authorize the Town Manager to enter into any or all agreements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article;.and to see if the Town will authorize the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or any other agency of the Town to apply for a non-interest bearing loan from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and to authorize the Treasurer-Collector, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, to borrow pursuant to said loan, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen 6 S-13- 23 ARTICLE 16 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to grant an easement to Northern Bank and Trust for placement of an ATM machine in the Town owned parking area between Woburn Street and Haven Street in accordance with a plan titled "ATM Kiosk Easement Exhibit Plan", dated Feb, 24, 2012 prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.; and, further, to see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire an easement for driveway purposes between Haven Street and the parking area from Northern Bank and Trust in accordance with a plan titled "Access Easement Exhibit Plan", dated Feb, 24, 2012 prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc.; or take any other action related thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 17 To see if the Town will adopt the following resolution: We, the voters at the 2012 Annual Town Meeting of the Town of Reading, affirm our belief that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations. The United States Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds in public elections. We believe that the ruling created a serious and direct threat to our democracy and the conduct of free and fair elections, by permitting corporations and others to drown out the voices of ordinary persons. Already we have seen our political process flooded with newly unleashed corporate and other money, resulting in historically unprecedented campaign expenditures. The people of the United States have previously used the Constitutional Amendment process to correct decisions of the United States Supreme Court that invade or invalidate democratic institutions, including elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE VOTERS AT THE 2012 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING OF THE TOWN OF READING, CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE, AND FURTHER, WE CALL UPON THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT TO PASS ONE OR MORE RESOLUTIONS ASKING FOR THOSE ACTIONS.. The Town Clerk of the Town of Reading shall send a copy of this resolution to the state and federal representatives and senators serving the Town of Reading, and to the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the President of the United States, and take any other appropriate action relative thereto. Or take any other action with respect thereto By Petition John Lippitt et al ARTICLE 18 To see if the Town will vote to approve an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan pursuant to Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2001 entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF READING TO ESTABLISH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND", or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen 7 24 ARTICLE 19 To see if the Town will vote to add section 5.4 to the Town of Reading General Bylaw as follows 5.4 Criminal Historv Check Authorization 5.4.1 Fingerprint Based Criminal Historv checks The Police Department shall, as authorized by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 6, Section 172 B 1/2, conduct State and Federal Fingerprint Based Criminal History checks for individuals applying for the following licenses: • Hawking and Peddling or other Door-to- Door Salespeople, (Police Chief) • Manager of Alcoholic Beverage License (Board of Selectmen) • Owner or Operator of Public Conveyance (Board of Selectmen) • Dealer of Second-hand Articles (Board of Selectmen) • Hackney Drivers, (Board of Selectmen) • Ice Cream Truck Vendors (Board of Health) 5.4.1.1 Notification At the time of fingerprinting, the Police Department shall notify the individual fingerprinted that the fingerprints will be used to check the individual's criminal history records. The Police Chief shall periodically check with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security ("EOPSS") which has issued an Informational Bulletin which explains the requirements for town by- laws and the procedures for obtaining criminal history information, to see if there have been any updates to be sure the Town remains in compliance. 5.4.1.2 State and national criminal records backaround checks Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the appropriate fee, the Police Department shall transmit the fingerprints it has obtained pursuant to this by-law to the Identification Section of the Massachusetts State Police, the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS), and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the successors of such agencies as may be necessary for the purpose of conducting fingerprint-based state and national criminal records background checks of license applicants specified in this by-law. 5.4.1.3 Authorization to conduct finaervint-based state and national criminal record background checks The Town authorizes the Massachusetts State Police, the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Systems (DCJIS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and their successors, as may be applicable, to conduct fingerprint-based state and national criminal record background checks, including of FBI records, consistent with this by-law. The Town authorizes the Police Department to receive and utilize State and FBI records in connection with such background checks, consistent with this by-law. The State and FBI criminal history will not be disseminated to unauthorized entities. Upon receipt of a report from the FBI or other appropriate criminal justice agency, a record subject may request and receive a copy of his/her criminal history record from the Police Department. Should the record subject seek to amend or correct his/her record, he/she must take appropriate action to correct said record, which action currently includes contacting the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) for a state record or the FBI for records from other jurisdictions maintained in its file. An applicant that wants to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the record shall be advised that the procedures to change, correct, or update the record are set forth in Title 28 CFR 16.34. The Police Department shall not utilize and/or transmit the results of the fingerprint-based criminal record background check to any licensing authority pursuant to this by-law until it has taken the steps detailed in this paragraph. 5.4.1.4 Municipal officials should not deny an applicant the license based on information in the record until the applicant has been afforded a reasonable time to correct or complete the information, or has declined to do so. The Police Department shall communicate the results of fingerprint-based criminal record background checks to the appropriate governmental licensing authority within the Town as listed. The Police Department shall indicate whether the applicant has been convicted of, or 8 D 25 15 is awaiting final adjudication for, a crime that bears upon his or her suitability or any felony or misdemeanor that involved force or threat of force, controlled substances or a sex-related offense. 5.4.1.5 Requlations The Board of Selectmen, is authorized to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the proposed by-law, but in doing so it is recommended that they consult with the Chief of Police, Town Counsel and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (or its successor agency) to ensure that such regulations are consistent with the statute, the FBI's requirements for access to the national database, and other applicable state laws. 5.4.2 Use of Criminal Record by Licensina Authorities Licensing authorities of the Town shall utilize the results of fingerprint-based criminal record background checks for the sole purpose of determining the suitability of the subjects of the checks in connection with the license applications specified in this by-law. A Town licensing authority may deny an application for a license on the basis of the results of a fingerprint-based criminal record background check if it determines that the results of the check render the subject unsuitable for the proposed occupational activity. The licensing authority shall consider all applicable laws, regulations and Town policies bearing on an applicant's suitability in making this determination. The Town or any of its officers, departments, boards, committees or other licensing authorities is hereby authorized to deny any application for, including renewals and transfers thereof, for any person who is determined unfit for the license, as determined by the licensing authority, due to information obtained pursuant to this by-law. 5.4.3 Fees The fee charged by the Police Department for the purpose of conducting fingerprint-based criminal record background checks shall be determined by the Board of Selectmen and shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100). The Town Treasurer shall periodically consult with Town Counsel and the Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services regarding the proper municipal accounting of those fees. A portion of the fee, as specified in Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 6, Section 172B 1/2, shall be deposited into the Firearms Fingerprint Identity Verification Trust Fund, and the remainder of the fee may be retained by the Town for costs associated with the administration of the fingerprinting system. 5.4.4 Effective Date This by-law shall take effect May 4, 2012, so long as the requirements if G.L. c. 40 sec. 32 are satisfied. Or take any other action with respect thereto Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 20 To see if the Town will vote to Amend Section 7.2 of the Town of Reading General Bylaw by inserting the following new language as Section 7.2.3.8: 7.2.3.8 Appeal The owner of record may appeal from either or both of the: Conditions of demolition delay Inclusion on the list of Potentially Significant Structures by filing a written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of said decision, with both the Chairman of the Historical Commission and the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. san 26 Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board of Selectman shall convene an appeal hearing which shall include the Historical Commission, the owner of record, (or their attorney, or other designated representative) for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The appeal shall be conducted on the record of the proceedings before the Historical Commission. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the parties and to abutters within 300 feet of the property. Within twenty-one. (21) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal. or take any other action with respect thereto. By Petition Erin Calvo-Bacci et al ARTICLE 21 To see if the Town will vote to petition the Great and General Court for a Special Act which will amend sections of Article 2 of the Reading Home Rule Charter as follows (note - GFess through represents language to be eliminated and bold represents new language): Section 2-1: Composition The legislative body of the Town shall be a representative Town Meeting consisting of one hundred n4iety-twe 041 2} forty four (144) members from eight (8) precincts who shall be elected to meet, deliberate, act and vote in the exercise of the corporate powers of the Town. Each precinct shall be equally represented in Town Meetings by members so elected that the term of office of one-third of the members shall expire each year. Any increase or reduction in the number of members of Town Meeting shall be phased in equally over a three year period Section 2-3: Town Meeting Membership The registered voters in every precinct shall elect Town Meeting Members in accordance with all applicable election laws. Whenever any precincts are revised, the registered voters shall elect twee+„_f^,.r eighteen (18) Town Meeting Members to represent the precinct. Terms of office shall be determined by the number of votes received. The eight (8) six (6) candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall serve for three (3) years, the eight (8) six (6) receiving.. the next highest number of votes shall serve for two (2) years, and the next eight six (6) candidates receiving the next highest number of votes shall serve for one (1) year from the day of election. In the event of a tie, ballot position shall determine the order of finish. At each Annual Election thereafter, the registered voters in each precinct shall elect eight-(() six (6) Town Meeting Members to represent the precinct, and shall also elect Town Meeting Members to fill any vacant terms. After the revision of precincts, the term of office of all Town Meeting Members from the revised precincts shall cease upon the election of their successors. After each election of Town Meeting Members, the Town Clerk shall notify each Town Meeting Member of his election by mail. To be qualified for election on a write-n vote for a vacant Town Meeting position, the write-in candidate must receive at least ten (10) write-in votes. In the event of a tie write-in vote for a vacant Town Meeting position, the position shall be filled by a vote of the remaining Town Meeting Members of the precinct, from the write-in candidates whose write,in votes were tied with at least ten (10) write-in votes. The Town Clerk shall give notice of the tie vote to the remaining Town Meeting Members of the precinct. The Town Clerk shall set a time and place for a precinct meeting for the purpose of filling the vacancy. The Town Clerk shall give notice of the meeting to precinct Town Meeting Members at least seven (7) days in advance and shall publish legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the community. A vacant position filled in this manner shall be filled for the entire remainder of the term. Or take any other action with respect thereto Board of Selectmen 10 27 6"CV t. ARTICLE 22 To see if the Town will vote, pursuant to Section 2-6 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to declare the seats of certain Town Meeting Members to be vacant and remove certain described persons from their position as Town Meeting Members for failure to take the oath of office within 30 days following the notice of election or for failure to attend one half or more of the Town Meeting sessions during the previous year, or take any other action with respect thereto: Precinct 1 None Precinct 2 None Precinct 3 None Precinct 4 None Precinct 5 None Precinct 6 None Precinct 7 None Precinct 8 None Board of Selectmen 11 28 03 and you are directed to serve this Warrant by posting an attested copy thereof in at least one (1) public place in each precinct of the Town not less than fourteen (14) days prior to , 2012, or providing in a manner such as electronic submission, holding for pickup or mailing, an attested copy of said Warrant to each Town Meeting Member. Hereof fail not and make due return of this Warrant with your doings thereon to the Town Clerk at or before the time appointed for said meeting. Given under our hands this _th day of 2012. Camille W. Anthony, Chairman Stephen A. Goldy, Vice Chairman Ben Tafoya, Secretary Richard W. Schubert James Bonazoli SELECTMEN OF READING Alan Ulrich, Constable 12 29 TOWN OF READING CITIZEN PETITION 2012 ANNUALTOWN MEETING RECEIVED TOW 4 CLERK Please return the Citizen Petition form to the Town Manager's Office R E i' 111 N G, M S S. A minimum of 10 signatures of voters registered in Reading is required.10I1 FEB I b A 9: 0 ~ Pursuant to Section 2.1.7 of the General Bylaw, all Articles for the Annual Town Meetina. shall be submitted to the Board of Selectmen not later than 8:00 p.m. Februarv 28. 2012. Primary Sponsor: Name ~o V) 'P i- Address a3 W1, A P r- -x l 7s* . Phone# v c r i zv h. ,n e Email Address V, pip-, tro) 1 certify that I am a registered voter in the Town of Reading Signature We, the undersigned registered voters of the Town of Reading, 41y petition the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. c. 39 § 10 and Section 2-13 of the Reading Home Rule Charter, to include the following Article in the Warrant for the next Annual Town Meeting to be held on April 23, 2012. Warrant Article Title: Resolution in support of an amendment to the US Constitution overturnina the US Supreme Court's decision in the "Citizens United" case. To see if the Town will vote to adopt the following resolution: We, the voters at the 2012 Annual Town Meeting of the Town of Reading, affirm our belief that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations. The United States Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds in public elections. We believe that the ruling created a serious and direct threat to our democracy and the conduct of free and fair elections, by permitting corporations and others to drown out the voices of ordinary persons. Already we have seen our political process flooded with newly unleashed corporate and other money, resulting in historically unprecedented campaign expenditures. The people of the United States have previously used the Constitutional Amendment process to correct decisions of the United States Supreme Court that invade or invalidate democratic institutions, including elections. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE, THE VOTERS,AT THE 2012 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING OF THE TOWN OF READING, CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE, AND FURTHER, WE CALL UPON THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT TO PASS ONE OR MORE RESOLUTIONS ASKING FOR THOSE ACTIONS. And the Town Clerk of the Town of Reading shall send a copy of this resolution to the state and federal representatives and senators serving the Town of Reading, and to the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the President of the United States, and take any other appropriate action relative thereto. Or take any other action with respect thereto says 30 PETITIONERS: PRINTED NAME (Name must be substantially as registered) ol. 1102. Pa G er o »NOrs ~/03. C awl u n I _ 1~5 It I , J x,/04.. - re,~ A ,/05.. L~ SC 1A. ;/06.. k ; cc- 0, co I i ,/07. ~hr~v~~ INs /s. r' Gd V'a't A 0. 0 /7 co /W v4 2. STREET ADDRESS ')3 M \ er-at 0 7 /-/v c w-d S + 10 kal-) 4 ~S-f Z 3 A'Act-Ij SIGNATURE %a V i.,7~c YT 1196 lrl~L, ~ Loam' /Lt o s~ 4 ' LC? J P 4- Total Signatures Certified: a 6~ _ Town Clerk 31 f TO: Board of Selectmen From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Re: Town Meeting candidates When the Board of Selectmen discussed a potential Charter Amendment to reduce the size of Town Meeting because of a lack of candidates on the ballot over the past 5 years, the Board of Selectmen asked what the experience was in 2002, the last time that all 24 positions per precinct were on the ballot, due to "re-precincting". The following table shows the number of candidates that had taken out papers in 2002, per precinct. Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Candidates 29 24 24 25 24 29 29 24 This clearly shows a change over the past 10 years in interest in running for Town Meeting. ~V 11 • Page 1 32 Board of Selectmen Meeting January 17, 2012 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Community Room, 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy, Secretary Ben Tafoya, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena, Police Chief James Cormier, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Community Services Director/Town Planner Jean Delios, Town Accountant Gail LaPointe, Library Director Ruth Urell, Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Jane Kinsella, Andrew Scribner, Bill Brown, Andrew Jeromski, Marsie West, Paula Perry, Karen Herrick. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Retorts and Comments - Stephen Goldy noted that he attended the Trust Fund Commissioner meeting last Thursday and presented the policy to them. Ben Tafoya noted he attended the Martin Luther King Celebration and it was a wonderful event. Camille Anthony noted that she attended the Martin Luther King Celebration and the main speaker was incredible. She also talked with an Eagle Scout who was working on a badge. Town Manager's Renort - The Town Manager gave the following report: Fire Chief Greg Burns gave the Board an update on the Pulte Homes project. He noted that the fire code regulates the noise and vibration of blasting and a pre-blast survey within 250 feet. The Town requires a survey within 500 feet. There is a fire detail on-site while explosives are on the premises. There have been two incidents of violation of the decibel sound and notices of violation were issued. A resident reported damage to their property on October 26, 2011. She filled out the form and submitted it to the Fire Marshall's office. The insurance company made a final decision based on numbers and not on a site visit. They denied the claim. Chief Burns noted that he cannot revoke the blasting permit because of the insurance decision. The consensus of the Board was to send both insurance companies a letter indicating the residents were told that pictures would be taken and the response to the claim is not satisfactory. Administrative matters ♦ Reminder - The Town election and the Presidential Primary election will be held on March 6 at the Hawkes Field House at Reading Memorial High School. ♦ Census forms will be going out the first of the year. Remember to license vour dov,. ♦ Nomination papers for the Town election are now available in the Town Clerk's office. All Town Meeting members must run for election due to re-precincting. Nomination papers must be returned by 1-17-12 ♦ The Reading Cultural Council report is attached for the 2011 funding cycle. 33 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 17, 2012 - naRe 2 ♦ State Senator Katherine Clark and State Representative Brad Jones, both representing Reading, will be recipients of awards from the Massachusetts Municipal Association this Saturday evening at the MMA annual meeting. Communitv Services ♦ The modular units for the. Oaktree development are being delivered and are being stacked, probably since last week. Public Works ♦ We are applying to Longhorn's Steak house for a trails grant for enhancement to the trail entrances in Town Forest. They will not approve partial funding of the Town Forest Master Plan. ♦ Ongoing Styrofoam recycling is available at the DPW garage during their normal business hours. Discussion/Action Items FYI 3 Budget Meeting - Overview - Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur gave a brief overview of the FYI 3 budget including revenues and accommodated costs. The Town Manager noted that he is requesting that the Board of Selectmen take initiatives to include community wide priorities in the FYI 3 budget including $627,000 for substance abuse issues. This would fund the RCASA salaries if the grant is not successful and there is a need for increase in public safety due to all of the new growth in town. He also noted that there are Articles on the Warrant including establishing an OPEB fund; implement the first phase of funding projects from one time expenses for roads and pedestrian safety; accept Old Sanborn Lane, replace Bear Hill Water Tower. Gail LaPointe noted that taxes increased 2.50%. The local revenues are level funded except for excise tax. She level funded state aid and there are operating transfers from the lee Arena funds and Cemetery sales of lots. There is $7,129,387 in cash reserves. Ben Tafoya asked if revenues are good then why use free cash and the Town Manager indicated that is. because he is unsure of the insurance cost. Benefits, Capital and Debt - Bob LeLacheur reviewed the pension, OPEB and unemployment figures. He also noted that the health insurance bids are in and being reviewed. The capital plan has been revised to show that DPW will buy one big plow instead of two smaller ones. The Killam School project and Library projects will be debt exclusions. Overall, the buildings are in good shape and mainly just need roofs. Fire Det)artment - Chief Greg Burns noted that he is seeking reimbursement for storms. There is an increase in software programs and licensing fees. There are 48 FTE's (no change), but some Officers are receiving degrees so there is an increase in the salaries. Overtime has a 9% increase which is a little bit lower than last year plus they have a couple of vacancies. He noted that he couldn't guarantee the Finance Committee last year that we would save money if we hired an 34 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 17. 2012 - nave 3 additional Fire Fighter. There is a $3,300 increase in ambulance service to cover license fees to the Commonwealth. There is a decrease for maintenance of defibrillators and a slight increase in uniforms. Stephen Goldy asked how old are the defibrillators and Chief Burns noted they were replaced three years ago. Police Department - Chief James Cormier noted that he anticipates adding a couple of Officers and 1.50 FTE's from RCASA. There is also an increase in overtime. He noted that there has been a significant increase in breaking and entering and the department wants to be proactive. He has eliminated discretional expenses. Expenses increased $10,000 to outfit, equip, and train two Officers. Chief Cormier also noted that Ford has discontinued the Crown Victoria and is offering the Taurus as a replacement. He will also look at other models. Traffic light repairs are being moved from Police to DPW because Engineering will oversee the actual work. Ben Tafoya asked if the RAD program was in the Police budget and Chief Cormier indicated it was cut. Dispatch - Chief Cormier noted there is a modest increase in the Dispatch budget. The public safety license fee has been moved to technology. Camille Anthony requested an update on regionalization of Dispatch. Chief Cormier noted that North Reading and Lynnfield would be included. A grant was received to help find a site. Chief Cormier noted that Reading is the most advanced in the group and we would want something more than what we currently have. Regionalization would need to benefit us. Town Administration - The Town Manager noted that there is an increase in overtime for minutes taking. Property and Casualty insurance has increased 7.6% and legal expenses have decreased. Accounting - Town Accountant Gail LaPointe noted that there is a step increase for each employee. Expenses are for professional development, banker's boxes and folders. She also noted that there might be additional expenses for training/professional development with a new Town Accountant coming onboard. She also noted that Munis is being used for ambulance billing. Finance - Bob LeLacheur noted that the Finance budget includes a part time seasonal appraiser; software license from public safety and an additional $17,000 for additional elections. He noted that technology has done a huge amount of work, but there will be a need for knowledge in I.T. in the future. The Collectors are doing the water and sewer billing now. Camille Anthony asked if the Town Clerk is adequately staffed and Bob LeLacheur indicated it is but the Town Clerk is doing a lot of technology. ~ C,3 35 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 17, 2012 - pate 4 The Town Manager noted that he asked for statistics from the Assessors for the additional appraiser. The position has been added to the budget to hold, but he does not recommend it at this time. A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 6 a~ q 36 Board of Selectmen Meeting January 24, 2012 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Community Room, 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy, Secretary Ben Tafoya and Selectman Richard Schubert, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Police Chief James Cormier, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Community Services Director Jean Delios, Library Director Ruth Urell, Office Manager Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Jamie Maughan, John Arena, Andrew Jeronski, William J. Hecht Jr., Fred McGrane, Ralph Colorusso, Mark Dockser, Marsie West, Paula Perry, Cherrie Dubois, Andrew Grimes, Karen Herrick. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Camille Anthony noted that former Public Works Director Ted McIntire passed away last week. The Town Manager noted that he was a dedicated employee and 250 people were at the church to attend his funeral. Town Manaaer's Report - The Town Manager gave the following report: Administrative matters ♦ Potential changes in MBTA service affecting Reading. ♦ Town Clerk's office will be open until 8:00 PM on Wednesday, February 15 - this is required for voter registration. ♦ The annual census should be in the mail in about a week. Remember to license your dog. ♦ The Presidential Primary Election and the Town Election will be March 6 from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM at the Hawkes Field House. You will also be able to license your dog that day. ♦ We have received the large excise tax commitment, so bills will be coming out shortly with a due date on or about March 1 - check the bills for details. ♦ There have been several Cable TV problems over the past couple of weeks, and RCTV informs me that they believe that they have everything fixed. Communitv Services ♦ Re: Oaktree, they will be done setting the boxes by the end of the day today. They still have work to do from the street by way of breaking down the crane and use of a man lift that will keep them in the street until at least Thursday. Public Safetv ♦ Three men arrested in the 2011 Home Invasion in Reading have pled guilty. The judge sentenced them to 5 years of probation only, with no jail time. This was contrary to the recommendation of the District Attorney and the Reading Police Chief. 6i 37 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 24, 2012 - nape 2 ♦ The Fire Chief is in the process of putting together the filing for FEMA reimbursement for the Halloween snow storm. In a departure from many past such incidents, the RMLD will also be eligible for reimbursement. Public Works ♦ We have had a downtown sewer main back-up in one local business that was caused by another of our businesses. The investigative and corrective work is what you may have been seeing on Main Street in downtown. ♦ As part of our ongoing and comprehensive town-wide recycling efforts/educational process, we are considering textile recycling. To date, the Town web site has information on what recycling opportunities are now available. ♦ DPW had its first plowing event of the season on Saturday with approximately 4 inches of snow and made a decision to scrape everything once. ♦ Once the gas company is done replacing the main on Wilson Street they will go to Condor Road, Pearl Street (to abandon the low pressure main) and then to Track Road to replace the main. The work will continue right throughout the winter. The work on Pearl Street will consist of swapping services over to the high pressure main and a few other excavations to install vales and cross connections. They will not have to dig up the entire length of the roadway. Track Road work will be similar to the work done on Wilson Street. ♦ The rest of the year, National Grid will be replacing mains on: Willow Street - (RR to Lowell Street) Linden Street - Lowell Street to Woburn Street Glenmere Circle & Winslow Road Oakland Road Gould Street - to service 30 Haven Project Main Street - South to Hopkins Street to service Pulte Discussion/Action Items Hearing - Policv Establishing Town Accountant Search Committee. - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted that the committee consists of two members of the Board of Selectmen, one member of the School Committee appointed by the School Committee, and one member of the Finance Committee appointed by the Finance Committee. There was discussion among the Board to amend the policy to have one member appointed by the School Committee instead of one member of the School Committee to give them leeway to appoint a staff person. A motion by Goldv seconded by Tafova to close the hearing approving the policy establishing the Town Accountant Search Committee was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. A motion by Goldv seconded by Tafova that the Board of Selectmen approve the policy establishing the Town Accountant Search Committee as amended so that there is one member appointed by the School Committee but does not have to be a member of the School Committee, was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. ~b2 38 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 24, 2012 - vai4e 3 FYI 3 Budvet - Bob LeLacheur noted that State aid for Reading is $400,000 higher in school aid. We are still in negotiations regarding health insurance, but the bid is below the budget. There is an article on the warrant to set up a trust for OPEB. Board of Assessors - Assessors Ralph Colorusso, Bob Nordstrand, Fred McGrane and Bill Boatwright were present. The Town Manager noted that last years' Assessors budget was reduced by the cost of the part time appraiser. The FYI 3 budget has $24,000 to put the position back. Fred McGrane noted that the Mass BLA requires that all Town property be inspected every nine years. In FY12 there were 8,030 parcels in Reading with buildings. There are 3,945 parcels that did not have interior inspections and 1,643 of those did not have outside inspections. Mr. McGrane noted that it is not critical to gain access to the interior but a good faith effort must be made. In FY09 there were 1,774 inspections and in FY12 there were 661 inspections. Mr. McGrane also noted that a subscription to MLS/PIN is $800 and that would assist the department. There are 4,000 properties that need to be inspected and they are asking for $24,000 for the part time appraiser but they don't feel it is adequate. Ralph Colorusso noted that the Town will not get certified if all the inspections are not done. Bob LeLacheur noted that if we fall behind we can contract out. Camille Anthony asked what the deadline is to get 4,000, properties inspected and Ralph Colorusso indicated September 13. The Town Manager noted that using the FY09 and FY10 rates it will take only four years to inspect 8,000 properties. Ben Tafoya indicated he would like to see a task list of what the other employees are doing. Communitv Services - Bob LeLacheur noted that there are small changes to the Community Services budget. There is a 2% step increase; regional health; lower wage cost due to turnover;, will move grant funding to offset wages; and an increase of the Veteran Services Officer of a couple of hours a week. Community Services Director Jean Delios noted that her department is responsible for inspections, planning, health, and elder services and have nine required boards - Zoning Board of Appeals, Community Planning and Development Commission, Conservation Commission, Economic Development Committee, Town Forest Committee, Board of Health, West Street Historic District Commission and the Historical Commission. There are 15 FTE's (the same as last year) and staff is doing more with less. She noted that the department was cut by 9% in FY12 and the core plan is to preserve customer service, improve technology and continue regionalization. Current activities include submitting paperwork for 40R bonus money; working on reduced regulations; minor site plan review; and to make the process easier for the aquifer protection district. Conservation needs to streamline and the licensing permitting software is about two months away. Coming attractions include work on the industrial zone, the housing plan, south 1 63 39 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Januarv 24, 2012 - baf4e 4 Main Street best practices, and two grants for the downtown initiatives and one for improvements to the regional health including smart phones and tablets. Conservation members Bill Hecht and Jamie Maughan were present. Mr. Hecht noted that Conservation Administrator Chuck Tirone is doing agreat job, but he is only 20 hours per week. Site visits are now Conservation Commission duties. Minor project inspections are not a problem yet. Jamie Maughan noted that Mr. Tirone cannot be at any morning meetings. He also noted that the alternative under the bylaw is to hire a consultant. Mr. Maughan also noted that Mr. Tirone is not available to work on grants. Jean Delios indicated that there have only been a handful of DRT meetings since Mr. Tirone came to work for us and they were small projects. She will schedule any future meetings in the afternoon if conservation is needed. Stephen Goldy asked if there was a subcommittee reviewing the regulations and Mr. Hecht indicated there is not. The Commission is doing everything at the public meetings. Stephen Goldy asked if we are still exploring regionalization for conservation and the Town Manager indicated we are. He noted that Mr. Tirone is doing an excellent job and we are checking with another community to see if they want to regionalize to offer some flexibility, but he is not sure if the other community will agree because there are health care costs associated with doing that. Richard Schubert noted that it has only been six months with cut staff and the Board needs to find where the real risks are. The Town Manager noted that there are resources in the inspectional revolving fund to hire a consultant for the Pulte project. He also noted that the clerical staff is helping out more too. Camille Anthony indicated she would like to know what they are asking for and how much will it cost and bring that back to the Board next week. The Town Manager noted that the conservation function is running much better now. Library - Library Director Ruth Urell and Library Trustees David Hutchinson, Karyn Storti, Vicki Yablonsky and Cherrie Dubois were present. Bob LeLacheur noted the Library budget includes a 2% step increase, and 16% increase in Noble software licensing. Ruth Urell reviewed the statistics for the past year. She noted this is a level service budget including Sundays and Saturdays; step increases; maintains staffing levels. The book budget increased $20,000 and she is asking for $5,000 for software licenses for web, museum passes, etc. She also noted there is a need for new technology and $10,000 has been budgeted for P.C.'s for staff. The Town Manager noted he is rethinking the step increase and might do a cost of living instead for those employees on the last step who wouldn't be eligible for a step increase. J Iq 40 Board of Selectmen Minutes - January 24. 2012 - bane 5 Richard Schubert asked if there were any unmet needs because of the renovations and Ruth Urell noted that there are a lot of leaks and we are working on borrowed time. DPW - Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Town Engineer George Zambouras and DPW Business Administrator Jane Kinsella were present. Bob LeLacheur noted that there is a 2% increase for both non-union and existing contracts; the FY13 restores a seasonal park employee to keep the parks clean; the FY12 overtime was underfunded and we may need a transfer. The overtime has been level funded for FYI 3. The equipment repair budget is level funded; street lighting has been reduced and snow and ice is going from $565,000, to $600,000. Rubbish collection is increasing 1.9%. Jeff Zager noted that the overall budget is up 1%. Expenses have decreased 3.8%. The hotbox works really well. Professional development has been stepped up and is an ongoing process. In the past couple of years there have been 25 personnel changes and there will be more. Everyone is happy with the new trash services. Security has been updated at the DPW garage. Enterprise Funds - Bob LeLacheur noted that the storm water maintains at $40 rate raises almost $400,000. The Saugus River drainage project is scheduled for FY15 and the Aberjona drainage project is scheduled for FYI 6. Stephen Goldy asked for more details on penalties if the two river drainage projects do not get done. The Town Manager noted it has nothing to do with penalties. We have to do the work because our residents are being flooded out. Bob LeLacheur noted that the water and sewer reserves are over 10% of the target. He noted that there is no new debt in the water fund until FYI 6 for the amount of $500,000 to rehab the water tank. The sewer budget increased 2.9%. There is a decrease in capital and debt for FYI 3. There are also 12 sewer stations that need to be rehabbed over 7 years. Ben Tafoya asked if any of the big construction projects were paying for any of these and the Town Manager noted that one is giving us $500,000 and that will go to towards one station. On motion by Schubert seconded by Tafova to adiourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ~bS 41 Board of Selectmen Meeting February 7, 2012 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Secretary Ben Tafoya, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Richard Schubert, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Office Manager Paula Schena and the following list of interested persons: Bill Brown, John Arena, Karen Germain, Ralph and Adele Blunt, Karen Herrick, Manuel German and Andrew Jenowski. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Retorts and Comments - Richard Schubert noted that the Mass Cultural Council nominated Reading's Cultural Council video for outstanding exemplary of arts advocacy. He noted the Town's website has the full video on it. Ben Tafoya noted that he, Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert participated in a battle of the wits with the School Committee on "Time will Tell." James Bonazoli noted that he received an email regarding the Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee. He noted that the cleaner next to Quick Stop is asking for a 30 minutes parking space because vehicles are parking there for six hours. The Town Manager noted he will follow up with the PTTTF and the Safety Officer. James Bonazoli suggested that when we rebuild Imagination Station we should have a look at the Coolidge Middle School operation because everyone is using Imagination Station as a turnaround. Town Manager's Report - The Town Manager gave the following report: Administrative matters ♦ Town election with Presidential Primary Election is March 6. ♦ Last day to register to vote is February 15, 2012, until 8 PM. ♦ For Reading's Town Meeting there are only, 134 people running for 192 seats on Town Meeting. If you plan on running a write in for any office, sticker campaign or otherwise, it would be advisable to contact the Town Clerk's office prior to doing so. ♦ Absentee ballots for the Town and Presidential Primary Election are now available in the Town Clerk's office. ♦ The census will go out this week along with the dog licensing reminder. You can also license your dog during the election in the field house (bring proof of Rabies, Proof of Spay or Neutered if new dog, $10.00 Cash or Check made out to Town of Reading). ♦ Precinct Change effective January 1, 2012. Every household with a Registered Voter will be receiving a letter later this week stating New Precinct and information on the ballot questions 42 c.1 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 7, 2012 - nape 2 ♦ Taste of Metro North - sponsored by Reading Rotary - on "Leap Day" February 29. ♦ I have sent to our legislative delegation an article on instituting a sales tax on internet sales, as a number of other states are doing. Community Services ♦ Through LEAP, which is funded with support from the Barr Foundation, MAPC will be working with Marlborough, Medford, Medway, Stoughton, and the towns served by the Reading Municipal Light Department - Lynnfield, North Reading, Reading, and Wilmington - to plan for long-range energy efficiency and renewable energy work. This was a competitive program with 21 applications, and the MAPC was impressed with our regional approach. Thanks to Staff Planner Jessie Wilson and Jared Carpenter from RMLD for spearheading this project. ♦ Roll Your Own cigarette machine in Reading. Library ♦ April 8 is National Library Week. There will be programs about Financial Literacy - called "Money Smart" ♦ There will be a transition to new software in May 2012 - after Memorial Day. The program is called Evergreen. Public Safety ♦ Information has been received regarding suspicious calls received by elders from individuals wishing to update/verify bank account information. The caller has a very thick accent, noise in the background and has the elders name and address. In some cases the caller states their Medicare benefits will be discontinued if they did not provide their account number and ABA. Some of the victims claim the calls are coming from Social Security, while others claim to be from Medicare. Currently these notifications that have been received are from the upper cape area and Middleboro area. Public Works ♦ Drainage - Osborne Avenue. ♦ Strout Avenue planning site walk Saturday February 11 - 9 am. ♦ Gas Company finished the main\service replacement on Wilson & Ide Street. Next project is a portion of Pearl Street - should start in a couple of weeks. ♦ Working on contracts for Howard Street water main replacement and Lewis Street sewer repair, contracts should be advertised end of the month/first of March. Discussion/Action Items Present Amplified Sound Policy to Board of Selectmen - James Bonazoli noted that the Amplified Sound Committee met 12 to 15 times. They looked at the existing language and worked on defining amplified sound. They defined amplified sound as any sound that goes above normal level using a device. The Committee considered no sound at all, but it is used at events that are appropriate. A survey was sent out and there were 140 responses and the results were balanced. It was found that amplified sound is more of a nuisance based on duration and frequency. The Committee held a public meeting on January 30, 2012 and two residents 43 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Februarv 7. 2012 - pate 3 attended. The residents who were there liked the language. Variances will have to come before the Board of Selectmen. Ben Tafoya noted there were a couple of sentences that ended in etc. and should be re-worded. Follow Ub on Haven. Hiszh Street Improvements - The Town Manager noted this is a follow up to a previous presentation. Randy Collins from Beta Group was present. He noted that the roundabout is gone; and the sidewalk at the corner of Chute and High has been elongated. The enlarged end area of Haven at High Street will not accommodate a tree, but there will be plantings to frame the area. Camille Anthony suggested asking the owner of the building where the Green Tomato is for an easement. Ben Tafoya asked if they looked at additional crosswalks and Randy Collins indicated they did, but we would lose two parking spaces. Richard Schubert asked about the materials for the crosswalks at Haven/Chute/High Streets and Randy Collins noted that the sidewalks will have brick banding and the crosswalks will be brick. There will also be a planter area. Richard Schubert asked if the crosswalks will be raised for traffic calming. Randy Collins indicated no, he wasn't aware of any speeding issues. Camille Anthony indicated she would like a bankers' clock at the depot and asked about compact car spaces. Randy Collins indicated we might be able to put some compact spaces on the depot side. Mr. Collins went on to discuss the area in front of Oaktree on Haven Street and noted that if the sidewalk was expanded 15 feet then 6 parking spaces would be gained. He then noted that there will be parking on both sides of Linden and Sanborn Streets. Karen Germain, 12 Linden Street, asked if the sidewalks will be brick and Mr. Collins indicated they will. Ms. Germain noted that the lack of curbing has created drainage issues. Adele Blunt, 22 Linden Street, asked about the width of the sidewalks. Mr. Collins indicated the right of way determines what the width will be. Ms. Blunt noted there was parking on both sides in the past and she couldn't get out of her driveway. She does not want parking signs in front of her house and she does not want her property taken. She requested that the Town contact her the next time this is on the agenda. Review Affordable Housing Status and Need to Undate Housing Plan - Town Planner/Community Services Director Jean Delios was present. She noted that the State maintains the inventory and we check and verify the list. The list is updated every two years and we are at 7.15% affordable housing and the goal is 10%. We are 140 units short of the 10%, but we have a number of units coming on line over the next few years. Mass Housing denied a proposal for Main Street but commended Reading for our planning. 6c3 44 Board of Selectmen Minutes - Februarv 7, 2012 - pave 4 Jean Delios noted that the Housing Production Plan needs to be updated. Planning staff can start working on the plan and she can take on some additional part time staff. The update should take about six to seven months to complete. Richard Schubert asked what the plan is and Mrs. Delios noted that we look at existing housing and reach out to property owners or could look at zoning. Richard Schubert noted that if a property owner of an affordable unit cannot find a buyer that meets the guidelines, then they get market value and we lose. Jean Delios noted that if they can't find a buyer that fits the guidelines, then the Town can put a place hold on the unit. Ben Tafoya noted that development of the Housing Plan is a huge priority and when it is finished we need to talk about what we do if we don't achieve 10%. Preview 2012 Annual Town Meeting Warrant - The Town Manager reviewed the Warrant. He noted that Article 5 is to establish an OPEB Trust Fund. Article 11 is acceptance of a gift for a Reading Football Scholarship. Article 16 is acceptance of an easement from Haven Street to the "upper" Municipal parking lot and granting an easement for installation of an ATM. The Town Manager noted that the plan is to allow for two way traffic into the parking lot off of Haven Street. Article 17 is a petition article asking the Town to support a resolution to overturn a ruling that allows unlimited spending by corporations, union and others in our elections. Article 20 is a charter amendment regarding the number of Town Meeting members. Discussion of Scone of Affordable Housing Trust Fund - Camille Anthony asked if we should discuss this with the Housing Authority and the Town Manager indicated that the role of the Housing Authority is to expend money. He also noted that the money comes from one time sources and the balance in the Trust Fund is $158,000. The Town Manager noted that possible uses of the money include grants to developers; loans to developers; use it to buy down a price; offer rehab grants or loans; renter assistance with security deposit; and assistance with down payments. Unfortunately, the cost of some of these uses is way beyond staff ability to manage. The Town Manager suggested sending his memo to the Reading Housing Authority and Peter Sanborn Place and to invite them to a workshop. Camille Anthony indicated the Board will have to decide if they are looking for additional money or just deciding how to distribute. Review Process for Sale of Town Pronertv - The Town Manager noted that Town Counsel gave guidance on a couple of issues. Pearl Street at Audubon Road - the Town Manager had discussions with two abutters who are interested in purchasing a portion of the property on Pearl Street at Audubon Road. Town ~("q 45 Board of Selectmen Minutes - February 7. 2012 - page 5 Counsel indicates that we can do a negotiated sale of lower value properties. The Town Manager noted that there will be one condition of no driveway from Pearl Street or a turn around. He is asking the Finance Committee for a reserve fund transfer to do the appraisal. Camille Anthony noted that the abutters need to be made aware there is a cost to file the deed, etc. Oakland Road - This will move forward to land court to eliminate paper streets. Lothrop Road - Town Counsel has recommended that the Town apply for zoning relief and then we will have a parcel ready to sell that should return a high price. The Town Manager noted that one appraisal is $4,000. He will move forward with the appraisals for Lothrop, Pearl and Audubon and the appraisal will take about six weeks. Report of the Fall Street Faire Committee - Ben Tafoya noted that the preliminary report is in the packet. The Fall Street Faire was a huge success and the Committee is surveying the vendor community. In the future; the Committee would like Accounting to handle all of the bookkeeping, paying bills, etc. Ben Tafoya noted that the Faire cleared over $20,000 for the Downtown Trust. The Committee needs help dealing with the amusement vendors and determining what is appropriate. There needs to be a better effort of keeping better records also. This year's Faire will be on September 9, 2012. A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 46 L / c Z~S v H ~ S 44 Winter Street, Suite 401 u`erv r;virc nr e ~tlelassachus its.or 3 Boston, MA 02108 P (617) 747 x!400 www.EnvironmentMassachusetts.org F X617) 292-8057 Reading Selectmen 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 To the Selectmen, I am an intern with Environment Massachusetts. We are a statewide, citizen based, environmental advocacy group, and we are reaching out to the local elected officials for their support in on a campaign to preserve the quality of their drinking water. Reading gets its water from the Quabbin Reservoir, the largest drinking water supply in the Northeast. The reservoir also supplies 40 other cities and towns, a total of 2.2 million residents, with clean drinking water61 The forest surrounding the reservoir covers almost 58,000 acres and acts as a natural buffer against pollutants. But a threat looms over the safety of our water. These ecologically sensitive areas are being subjected to clear cutting, in some cases right up to the water line62. Without this natural filter, the state could be forced to install an expensive and burdensome filtration system, costing taxpayers upwards of $180 million63. In July 2010, Governor Patrick issued a moratorium on logging in the area. But, this ban is due to expire this year. To ensure clean drinking water, the ban must be made permanent. In. order to make this happen we are circulating a coalition letter in support of protecting our drinking water. We have collected over 1,000 petition signatures from residents who want the Governor to permanently ban logging around the reservoir. Because Reading receives water from the Quabbin, your voice will be important in convincing Governor Patrick to enact the permanent ban. The letter is included, and we would love to have Reading sign onto it. All you need to do to sign on is pass a resolution in support of making the logging ban permanent, and we will add Reading to the list of official signatories on the letter. Sincerely, Patrick Stanton Intern Environment Massachusetts Pstanton@environmentmassachusetts.org r" 617 747 4368 i 0- 61 Massachusetts Water Resource Authority - http://www.mwra.com/04water/htmvwat.htm 62 Massachusetts Forest Watch - http://www.maforests.org/QUABBIN.pdf v 63 Public Access Management Plan Update: Quabbin Reservoir Watershed System - http://www.mass. gov/dcr/watersupply/watershed/documents/quabbinaccesschl .pdf 47 qO'k printed on recycled paper Dear Governor Patrick, We write to you in our capacity as local elected officials. The Quabbin reservoir, and the 58,000 acres of Department of Conservation and Recreation managed land surrounding it, are critically important natural and public health resources for the commonwealth. The land surrounding the Quabbin is home to bald eagles, brown bears and other wildlife rare in Massachusetts. But most importantly, the Quabbin Reservoir is the sole drinking water source for 41 cities and towns and 2.2 million Massachusetts residents, including our communities. For the health of our environment, and New England's largest supply of clean, fresh drinking water, we are committed to permanently protecting the Quabbin reservoir from all threats. Currently, one significant threat to the Quabbin is logging on DCR managed lands surrounding the reservoir. While selective logging has taken place around the Quabbin since the 1950's, since 2007 logging has dramatically increased and with it the threat to our water supply. Before you issued the logging moratorium in July of 2010, logging around the Quabbin had taken such a turn for the worse that even your own DCR commissioner admitted that, "mistakes were made". According to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), protecting the forests surrounding the Quabbin is a very effective and the least expensive strategy for water quality protection. In the late 90's, when the EPA sued the MWRA under the safe drinking water act, attempting to force the MWRA to build a $180 million treatment facility, the MWRA argued that this expenditure was unnecessary because of the excellent management of the forests around the Quabbin. I am writing you today to encourage you to ensure that water quality protection is at the top of your priority list when deciding whether or not to make your logging moratorium permanent. While we acknowledge that there are certainly differing points of view around forestry management, according to the EPA, logging, and its associated industrial activities are well documented to impact water quality; "Local impacts of timber harvesting and road construction on water quality can be severe, especially in smaller headwater streams. These effects are of greatest concern where silvicultural activity occurs in high-quality watershed areas that provide municipal water supplies or support cold-water fisheries." 1 Additionally, leading Massachusetts forest experts Drs David Foster and David Orwig argue that, "the elimination of harvesting and its associated impacts... will yield forest and landscape conditions that maintain and improve water quality in the face of ongoing disturbances and stresses2 Full quotes from their paper below: "All evidence suggests that harvesting exerts greater impacts on ecosystem processes than leaving disturbed or stressed forests intact. A conservative alternative hypothesis for the long-term management of watershed lands might be proposed: the elimination of harvesting and its associated impacts (e.g., soil compaction, road development and improvement) will yield forest and landscape conditions that maintain and improve water quality in the face of ongoing disturbances and stresses. . .Although intuitive support exists for the development of protection forests through silvicultural approaches to increase the resistance and resilience of forests to pests, pathogens, and natural disturbances, empirical data to support the approach are lacking. Not only is there sparse evidence that such approaches achieve their goals of increasing resistance and resilience, little evidence suggests that natural disturbances yield negative functional consequences. Therefore, current management regimes 1 http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/czara/ch3-I.cfm 2 Preemptive and Salvage Harvesting of New England Forests: When Doing Nothing Is a Viable Alternative. DAVID R. FOSTER* AND DAVID A. ORWIG cje- 48 aiming to increase long-term forest health and water quality are ongoing experiments lacking controls. in many situations good evidence from true experiments and natural experiments suggests that the best management approach is to do nothing." For the public health and drinking water security of the 2.2 million Massachusetts residents who get their water from the Quabbin, I respectfully urge you to exercise the. precautionary principle and heed the advice of leading Massachusetts forest experts and permanently ban commercial logging around the Quabbin reservoir. Sincerely, 49 0,3 ors a, Town of '6augu5 TOWN HALL a 298 CENTRAL STREET 1 y- SAUGUS, MASSACHUSETTS 01906 JOHN J. VASAPOLLI Telephone: (781) 231-4111 Temporary Town Manager February 9, 2012 c~ N fT1 Marc Draisen W Executive Director MAPC w 60 Temple Place Boston, MA 02111 Dear Mr. Draisen: I am writing on behalf of the towns of Danvers, Lynnfield, North Reading, Peabody, Reading, Saugus, and Wakefield (the "Consortium") in support of a District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) application under the category of Regional Collaboration Support and Delivery to help these communities, and possibly other neighboring towns, develop staff capacity for regional housing services. If this technical assistance application is favorably acted on, Saugus has agreed to act as the lead community with MAPC. This project helps advance MetroFuture, the regional plan for Greater Boston, because the towns are working to coordinate housing activities and ensure the availability of affordable housing in suburban locations by monitoring and preserving housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households in our region. Beginning in 2011, the Town Managers and Planning Department staff from seven-town Consortium began meeting to discuss a connnon issue of not having the staff capacity necessary to administer community/affordable housing in our towns. Jennifer Raitt made presentations at North Suburban Planning Council and North Shore Task Force meetings in 2011, providing highlights from MAPC's recent efforts with the Regional Housing Services Office project with the communities of Sudbury, Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, and Weston. We are seeking assistance from MAPC because the existing RHSO will not be seeking new communities to join in their effort. The Consortium will work with MAPC to understand the options available to the Consortium to meet our community/affordable housing staffing needs. We will dedicate staff time to this analysis and provide information, reports, and data as needed. The Consortium will meet as needed throughout the project, but will specifically provide: a review of the data analysis; assistance with the development of a financial model and 50 t Mr. Marc Draisen February 9, 2012 Page 2 budget for the Consortium; a review of organizational options for collaboration; and to decide next steps for regionalization. The Consortium needs assistance: Compiling an inventory of all affordable units in our seven towns, Determining the range of administrative staff support and expertise necessary to meet our municipal responsibilities including, but not limited to: Administering local housing funding programs; Providing a Ready Renter/Buyer list for the region; Updating respective Subsidized Housing Inventories for DHCD; and Monitoring of rental and ownership projects. This work brings us to our request for DLTA support from the MAPC. The Consortium is looking for MAPC support to finalize a data analysis, develop a financial model and budget for the Consortium, and develop a small number of organizational models for this program. This work would begin as soon as funding is awarded and continue through December 2012. The Consortium will seek support from key affordable housing boards and commissions in the communities and, by the end of the project, the approval of the Boards of Selectmen from each member community. The Town Managers from seven-town Consortium fully support the DLTA proposal and look forward to working with MAPC staff on this important project. Thank you for your consideration. Very true ypurs, John J. VasapollidlAEsquire Yemporary Town Manager cc: (Town Managers/Administrators in consortium ICC rep. q52 51 Joe Zukowski Vice President - Government Affairs February 8, 2011 The Honorable Katherine Clark The Honorable James J. Dwyer The Honorable Bradley H. Jones State House Boston, MA 02133 2012 EEB 13 RMI 3~ 45 Dear Senator Clark, Representative Jones and Representative Dwyer: verin 125 High Street, Oliver Tower, Fl 7 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-743-1278 Fax: 617-743-8881 joseph.h.zukowski@verizon.com Thank you for your letter regarding double poles in ReadingA have. forwarded the letter and list of poles to our Operations team, who are checking the poles to verify what transfers or removals are needed. I appreciate the recognition in your letter of the significant resources and coordination needed by all to address double poles. While a spreadsheet of pending pole removals is helpful, it is difficult to deal with poles and attachments statewide with inconsistent systems of tracking which entities are on the poles, and which company is responsible for pending transfers. To that end, we would appreciate your support in encouraging Reading Municipal Light Department to join the Pole Lifecyle Management System, which is the on-line system used across the state to coordinate double pole activity. This system allows all pole owners and those with attachments to enter double pole information, and the system notifies the next party responsible for moving pole attachments when it is their turn to act. We feel that the PLM system is the best and most consistent approach to addressing double poles, and we are exploring updates to the system to improve coordination and communication among those with attachments. We appreciate your interest in improving this process, and again ask for your support in urging all municipalities to adopt a consistent approach to double pole activity. Sincer ly, doe Zukowski Vice President - Government Affairs Cc: ✓ Peter Hechenbleiker, Town Manager, Town of Reading Camille Anthony, Reading Board of Selectmen 52 Ic 6G1 k, P\ , ikA F2~ oit, Board of Selectmen Town of Reading Subject Town Meeting Members When the Town adopted the Town Meeting form of Government in 1943 there where 45 members from each of four precincts or 180 plus 15 or 16 members at large , these where the chairmen of the various elected Boards and Committees , and other elected officials plus the Towns State Representative if he or she was a resident of the Town_ This remained until 1964, in 1965 after it was ruled that At Large members where not legal the number of members was increased to 204, 17 members that year where elected for three years , two where elected for two years and two where elected for one year from each of four precincts In 1976 the number of precincts was increased to 8 and the nrumber of n'embers decreased to the present 192 and everyone had to run . - - i a :ed-, -he resent number of members from 192 to 144 will require a Charter chance to Section 2-3 Town Meeting Membership and that in fact all present members would have to s 111-0 N, that the reduction could be done over t=ree years , i William C. Brown 28 Martin Rd. Reading Ma. 01867 781 944 2807 ~G. 53 ` C eDs dcr Massachusetts 0 February 13, 2012 Dear MWRA Water System Community Official: You may have been contacted recently by a representative of Environment Massachusetts imploring you to consider supporting their proposal to permanently ban logging on the Quabbin Reservoir watershed. Environment Massachusetts is campaigning for this ban to remove a practice that they consider to be threatening to your water supply. We appreciate the concerns this may have raised for you, but also appreciate this opportunity to provide our perspective and our justification for actively managing the watershed forests that protect your town's drinking water. As a component of the Department of Conservation & Recreation's (DCR) strategy to responsibly maintain the natural filtration provided by our watershed forests, our agency has been actively managing the forests under our care and control for more than fiftv vears within the watersheds of the Quabbin Reservoir, the Ware River, and the Wachusett Reservoir. Throughout that period, these activities have never resulted in a decline in the quality of that water supply. As Environment Massachusetts points out in their own communication, "because of the efforts of the DCR, Massachusetts residents served by the Quabbin have enjoyed some of the cleanest, best-tasting drinking water in the country." These DCR efforts have included over 1,000 timber sales painstakingly designed and implemented to maintain the diversity and vigor of the forest that protects this supply, to increase its resistance and resilience in the face of ever-increasing challenges from weather events (snow, ice, wind) and the arrival of non-native species (insects and diseases). These timber sales are implemented under state-of-the-science cutting practices regulations that are widely revered by municipal water supplies in other states and countries as the gold standard for watershed forest management and drinking water protection. DCR - Division of Water Supply Protection's (DWSP) website includes an overview of our watershed forestry approach in photos and brief text, at: htti)://www.mass.szov/dcr/watersuDUly/watershed/forestrv.htm. For details of our forest management program, you may want to scan our comprehensive Land Management Plans on the website. There is a very detailed scientific literature that supports our contention that active forest management is a responsible approach to maintaining source water quality and the forested filter that keeps it clean for MWRA's water system communities. DWSP and MWRA conduct extensive water quality testing across the watershed and water supply system, from tributaries, reservoirs and intakes through the treatment and distribution system. Thousands of tests are conducted each year with DCR and MWRA scientists closely watching results and trends. The strength of this program, the extremely high quality source water, MWRA's treatment program, and the extensive watershed control program in place has allowed the MWRA system to remain an unfiltered water system according to state and federal rules. DWSP has extensive control programs in place that focus on actual threats to the water supply including gulls, development, 'COMMC NV,JEIAL''"i-i O MA::i`SACriUSE € ( EXECUTIVE C)5 FICE F ENEkuY &'ENVAIRCINMEN"Al, A' AIRS , epa.t-Tni~nt of. Car.,..., ....ion and RCCreat ;n bcva, L. F'a ri-k R Cha"C K, Su€ kfan 25 s evvaY S Suite 6;0.0 Go'vennor i!-~c~m MA 02114-2'19 -617-62642SO. s: F 1 [ a, Timothy Ca €Al'ici! €A. I_:.:;Y:.;:'.'t. j, ,...r'^rt"ii.,`..;.^nE';.. .n g;av!dc: 54 qe, I hazardous spills and inappropriate recreational activities. Properly planned and implemented forestry does not create a threat to the water supply and is a well documented means of ensuring a healthy, diverse watershed forest cover for decades to come. In recognition of the overall program, the American Water Works Association gave DWSP and MWRA the Exemplary Source Water Protection Award in 2010 for large systems. In 2010, as a result of increased public attention focused on active logging practices on state forests, then Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles called for a pause in new forestry projects while DCR, including the Division of Water Supply Protection, consulted with experts and the public regarding issues related to DCR's stewardship of public forests. For DWSP, this process has included a detailed review of the principles behind our management by a Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAG). This review process is in its final stages and details of the committee are available online at: httD://www.mass.aov/der/news/uublicmeetinLs/materials/watershed/stacfactsheet.Ddf Watershed management policies, including forestry practices, are carefully reviewed by Watershed Advisory Committees made up of a variety of stakeholders including respected environmental organizations. These committees have been strongly supportive of DWSP's specially-designed watershed forestry efforts over the past several decades. The committees will review STAC's report and conduct public meetings as DWSP contemplates any necessary refinements to the program going forward. These committees frequently tour forestry projects and engage. in detailed scientific discussions with DWSP staff, unlike Environment Massachusetts which has never toured Quabbin or reached out to the professional staff. We hope that you will take the time to review these materials and will not support Environment Massachusetts efforts to simply ban logging from these forests, removing a critical tool for maintaining your water supply amongst the cleanest forest-filtered supplies in the world. We look forward to hearing again from you as the need arises in order to further this discussion. Sincerely, U' Jonathan Yeo Director, Division of Water Supply Protection Copies: Frederick Laskey and Michael Hornbrook, MWRA Joseph Favaloro, MWRA Advisory Board Richard K. Sullivan Jr., EEA Secretary and MWRA Board Chairman Edward M. Lambert Jr., DCR Commissioner Stephanie Cooper, EEA Assistant Secretary for Land Lexi Dewey, WSCAC Water Supply Protection Trust members 55 q02 t/c 8~S' i O CD 0 d• 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 a~ m co 00 00 ~.s~ Oo rn ao ao ao 00 ao 00 ~ a 0 r` 0 r` r M U-) Lo 0 Lo Lo U-) U) N ca L M Oo c\i C Oo 00 Oo Oo Oo C 0 Ri d' M M N O P to y_ H} 6F} H} " Q)- " v% 0% ffl Efl- 6% Efl* CD a ° cn N r- V) cfl o W o .0 M M 0 M 0 0 - N -a a O T- 0 M rn r d- 14- cn O d- ffl d' Et} Oo Efl d ff} L 00 b9 In ffl Ic- 0 s? O = U) c w o O W N 0 -a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 U) > y 0 C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O > U ~ _ V L L L to L L L U L L L L 0 -0 M w M O ° O 64 (f} !4 66- Ef} ER 6F} H} Efl 64 Efl p '0 Q. -O O `O M 0 O N r 0 0 U-) U') Lo 0 ~ Q O N .a L- CO r r` M r O O ' O " O ' O ' O ' O ' ~ (1) 0 ~ L- to ~ ~ M ~ 07 CO N r d - d d - d - d d - d- . . ~ M M N N N r ~ r ~ C: 0 Q O Z O > R ~ p 0 rn ~ N 6q Q A♦+ W f'[1 ~ L W J - ~ J F- O U ) N n. .C i = 00 ti d O 00 to N M M --r f- 4- . X N LL C O = N r N co N rn rn N O d' co O CO N O M O O co N ff} co 6c} O O - Q} N N W- > Lo U-) Lo U-) Lo Lo Lx) U.) Lf) Lf) U,) Ln 0 0 23 N -O =3 -a N C v d" tt cf d' d" d' d' d' d• 4 4 V U C i p O O M M M co M tM M M M ('M co M d _ V U 1 ms`s ~ ~ _ E a) ~ >1 S a) a) -0 ~ ~ _ 0) Q O +Z Al N > N 0 L U i O }i O N > N U ° :3 < a) U) U 0 O z 0 M N U co ~ a Q m ~ c O t- N u~ 0 0 0 z 0 0 cm - , • 56 q o~N°FRfA°r, Town of Reading c ^e~ 16 Lowell Street o+1NC0Apo Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: 781-942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Website: www.readingma.gov February 16, 2012 Sharma Cahalane Assistant Vice President Director of Marketing Reading Cooperative Bank 180 Haven Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Donations to Veterans Memorial Trust Fund Dear Ms. Cahalane, L l G 6~5 TOWN MANAGER 781-942-9043 We accept with gratitude your $400 contribution to the Town of Reading's Veterans Memorial Trust Fund in honor of Gerald Richards and Les Stalk. In Reading there are approximately 2,000 veterans' graves, four cemeteries and eleven war memorials that are decorated each year on Memorial Day with markers, flags and geraniums. The funds for the geraniums come from the Veterans' Memorial Trust Fund that was created in 2001 to "ensure that the tradition of placing a flower on every grave will continue and that these veterans will be forever remembered." Only the interest from the fund may be used to purchase the flowers for the veterans' graves at a cost of approximately $4,000 each year. As the number of veterans' buried increases each year so too has the cost of the flowers. Your tax deductible contribution will help make sure that those who have served this country to preserve our freedom will be remembered. Thank you for your generous donation. Sincerely, P R~ L Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc: Frank Driscoll, Reading Veterans Service Officer 57 Page 1 of 2 L/ c- has Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:38 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: MBTA Advisory Board Members Importance: High Attachments: Advisory Board Plan (3).pdf 1/c Board of Selectmen Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7;30 a.m - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Friday: CLOSED phone: 781-942-9043 fax 781-942-9071 web www.readingma.aov email town managern.ciseadi rig. ma. us Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at Here are the results to track for the new survey Jan - June 2012: htt;//readinama-survev.virtualtownhall. net/results/sid/ccc2f0.3b993bd3c0/ From: Deborah Gaul [mailto:dgaul@mbtaadvisoryboard.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:15 PM To: Deborah Gaul Subject: FW: MBTA Advisory Board Members Importance: High '141 2/16/2012 58 Page 2 of 2 Dear Advisory Board Members: The Finance Committee was charged with drafting a response to the MBTA's Fare Increase and Service Reduction proposals offered by the MBTA at the last full Advisory Board meeting. After examining their proposal and attending several of the public meetings between the MBTA and their customers the conclusion was reached that the MBTA proposal is too detrimental to communities and customers alike. The Finance Committee sends to you a plan that includes a 25% fare increase (as opposed to the MBTA's 35% or 43% fare increases) with no service reduction. The plan raises $75 million through fares and an additional $95.6 million from more savings from Transportation Reform, innovation and efficiencies, and revenue from institutional beneficiaries of MBTA service. This MBTA Advisory Board plan does not "fix the T"; that will take a significant effort by the Legislature and all of the key stakeholders. Our plan is not perfect and will generate discussion and possibly controversy. It does get the MBTA through FY2013 and allows the Commonwealth to have the long-promised "Adult Conversation" about transit and our other transportation needs. Please plan to attend the next MBTA Advisory Board meeting on February 29, 2012 at 9:30am in the Conference Room on the 2nd floor of the Transportation Building at 10 Park Plaza in Boston. More information will be sent to you shortly. Thank You. Paul Regan Executive Director Deborah Gaul MBTA Advisory Board dgaul@mbtaadvisoryboard.org (617)426-6054 Tel (617)451-2054 Fax 2/16/2012 5 9 qti z REVIEW OF MASSDOT FARE INCREASE AND SERVICE CUT PROPOSALS February 2012 DRAFT 60 qh 3 The MBTA Advisory Board is an independent statutory organization which represents the interests of the 175 cities and towns in the MBTA service district. Each year these municipalities contribute over $150 million in subsidies to the MBTA via municipal assessments. MBTA Advisory Board 177 Tremont Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Phone: 617-426-6054 Fax: 617-451-2054 Email: info@mbtaadvisoryboard.org Website: www.mbtaadvisoryboard.org DRAFT 61 Dedication Dedicated to the memory of the Honorable Kevin Hagan White (1929- 2012) Mayor, City of Boston 1968-1984 Member, MBTA Advisory Board 1968 - 1984 DRAFT qhs 62 MBTA Advisory Board Preface Massachusetts General Law chapter 161A, section 5 (d) states: "No proposal for a systemwide change in fares or decrease in systemwide service of 10 per cent or more shall be effective until said proposal shall first have been the subject of one or more public hearings and shall have been reviewed by the advisory board and, for a systemwide increase in fares of 10\% or more, the MBTA board has made findings on the environmental impact of such increase in fares and, for a systemwide decrease in service of 10\% or more, the decrease shall be the subject of an environmental notification form initiating review pursuant to sections 61 and 62H, inclusive, of chapter 30. Any systemwide increase in fares of 10 per cent or more shall conform to the fare policy established pursuant to paragraph (r). The authority shall increase fares only to provide needed revenue and shall not increase fares soley for the purpose of funding the stabilization fund established pursuant to section 19." February 2012 The MBTA Advisory Board finds that MassDOT's proposed scenarios would increase MBTA fares by 10% or more, and would decrease MBTA service by 10% or more. In recognition of this the Authority presented these scenarios to the Advisory Board (the first such public meeting) on January 9, 2012. The Advisory Board, as a whole and via committee has reviewed said proposals and finds that the Authority has met its statutory obligations under section 5 (d). DRAFT 63 i ~ L MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Executive Summary Based on testimony at public meetings on MassDOT's plans to raise MBTA fares and cut MBTA service, as well as a decade-long track-record of sounding the alarm about the MBTA's cyclical and structural operating and capital financing crises, the MBTA Advisory Board offers the following proposals to close the MBTA's FY13 operating budget deficit and help close its projected FY14 operating deficit. The framework for these proposals is based upon the following principals: • Focus on commuters- the vast majority of ridership who just want to get to/from work • No service cuts or changes to RIDE service area for the time being. . Buy time for Patrick/Murray Administration and Legislative Leadership to find a long-term solution to our broken transportation system. • Focus on Transportation Reform and co-operation by all parts of State Government • Those who benefit the most from transit service should contribute towards it's proportionally and equitably. To close the FY13 $161.1 million operating deficit the Advisory Board makes the following proposals to generate new revenue ($91.6 million) and find more savings through transportation reform ($79.0 million). FY 13 Revenue/Savings Proposals Revenue/Savings IS. net. millions) New Revenue from MBTA Ridership 75.0 More Savings from Transportation Reform 70.8 MBTA Innovation and Efficiencies 11.7 Revenue from Institutional Beneficiaries of MBTA Service 13.1, TOTAL: 170.6 The Advisory Board's proposal, while not perfect, does preserve the transit system and bring more stakeholders into the discussion around fixing public transportation. Most importantly it provides a window of opportunity for the Patrick/Murray Administration and Legislature to lead us out of this mess. MassDOT's proposals offer only a one-year fix that leads right back to even more cuts and fare hikes next year. Since 2003 the Advisory Board and numerous other reports, articles, and papers have heralded the MBTA's fiscal woes and warned of draconian fare increases and service cuts. 2012 is the year when either such cuts and increases come to pass or the year that our elected leaders finally get serious and deliver the comprehensive, long- term solution that will allow Massachusetts to thrive in the years ahead. DRAFT 90 64 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Introduction In January 2012 MassDOT announced plans to close the MBTA's $161 million FY13 operating budget deficit via fare increases and service cuts. Since this announcement at numerous public hearings and meetings the reaction has been clear- the public demands something else. While there is not unanimity about how this new solution should be framed, broadly speaking there seems to be consensus around the following themes: • The MBTA is mired in a structural and cyclical deficit, which requires a legislative fix. • Such a legislative solution will eventually require new revenue, cost shifting, and debt relief to be successful. • Riders cannot and should not bear the burden of new revenue alone. • Fare increases, while unpalatable, are preferable to service cuts. • The burden of revenue increases and cost reductions should be as small as possible, and should be shared by as many stakeholders as possible. • The MBTA must everything possible to collect all the fare revenue it is owed. • Leadership is required from the Patrick/Murray Administration, Legislature and other leaders to find a way out of this that does not require figurative annual bloodletting. It is important to note that the MBTA has much more than a $161 million operating budget deficit. On paper its FY13 deficit is closer to $185 million, which management to its credit has reduced through efficiencies, attrition, and changed work practices. It carries a debt burden of over $8 billion in principal and interest that devours over $400 million in spending annually. Despite such large annual payments the amount it spends on debt principal is too low for it to get out of debt at any time in the near future. Its backlog of state-of-good-repair projects is well over $3 billion meaning that maintenance and enhancement projects will continue to be deferred and the system will continue to lurch from crisis-to-crisis, delay-to-delay, and frustration-to-frustration for want of revenue. For the past several years the Authority has plugged large operating deficits through greater efficiency, land sales, revenue securitization and by refinancing and restructuring debt. This year MassDOT's proposal is for fare increases and service cuts. In FY14 the deficit is projected at over $201 million, and even if all the cuts and fare increases are enacted the deficit will still be over $40 million. DRAFT qA4 65 M BTA Advisory Board February 2012 The MBTA Advisory Board offers the following alternative to MassDOT's fare increase and service cut proposals. While this alternative is certainly not a long-term fix it does buy one-year of breathing space for the Patrick/Murray Administration and Legislative leadership to finally fix transportation. For FY13 the Advisory Board proposes: FY 13 Revenue/Savings Proposals New Revenue from MBTA Ridership 25% fare increase Revenue/Savings'(5. net, millions) Subtotal: More Savings from Transportation Reform Assistance with transportation security costs Transfer ferry service & assets to MassPort Private Carrier/Suburban Bus cost reallocation Assistance of homeless transportation costs Subtotal: MBTA Innovation and Efficiencies 0% FY13 wage increase for all MBTA employees MBTA abutter lease program Alcohol advertisement program reinstatement Subtotal: Revenue from Institutional Beneficiaries of MBTA Service Transit proximity beneficiary payments Special event surcharge CR proximity beneficiary payments Subtotal: TOTAL: FY13 Operating Deficit: Surplus Towards FY14 deficit 75.0 75.0 36.3 31.1 2.1 1.3 70.8 8.2 2.0 1.5 11.7 5.5 5.0 2.6 13.1 170.6 -161.1 9.5 In addition, at the request of our members and in direct response to the public testimony of the public at MassDOT's hearings on their proposals, we request the MassDOT Board undertake the following non-revenue policy reviews and provide us a written response: FY13 Non-Revenue Policv Requests of MassDOT Board of Directors Fare evasion study and reduction policy by 6/30/12 RIDE in-person assessments as soon as possible Statewide paratransit commission findings by 4/1/12 TOD value capture study with recommendations by 9/1/12 Underperforming route "watch list" policy with timeline and public processes. Small, regular fare-increase policy by 7/1/13 DRAFT 3 90 66 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 New Revenue from Ridership ($75 million from 25% fare increase) The Advisory Board believes that everyone who benefits from public transportation should contribute towards it and while fare increases are unpalatable they are necessary from time to time. MassDOT proposes either a 43% average fare increase to yield $123.2 million, or a 35% average fare increase to yield $86.6 million. The Advisory Board estimates that a more equitable 25% fare and targeted parking fee increase will yield $75 million. Table 1: Pass Fares with 25% Increase Pass CateRorv Existing Proposed % Local Bus $40.00 $50.00 25.0 LinkPass $59.00 $74.00 25.4 Senior/TAP $20.00 $25.00 25.0 Student** $20.00 $25.00 25.0 1-Day $9.00 $11.25 25.0 7-Day $15.00 $18.75 25.0 Inner Express $89.00 $111.50 25.3 Outer Express $129.00 $161.50 25.2 Commuter Rail Zone 1A $59.00 $74.00 25.4 Zone l $135.00 $169.00 25.2 Zone 2 $151.00 $189.50 25.5 Zone 3 $163.00 $204.50 25.5 Zone 4 $186.00 $233.50 25.5 Zone 5 $210.00 $263.50 25.5 Zone 6 $223.00 $279.75 25.4 Zone 7 $235.00 $294.75 25.4 Zone 8 $250.00 $313.50 25.4 Interzone 1 $65.00 $81.50 25.4 Interzone 2 $77.00 $96.50 25.3 Interzone 3 $89.00 $111.50 25.3 Interzone 4 $101.00 $126.50 25.2 Interzone 5 $113.00 $141.50 25.2 Interzone 6 $125.00 $156.50 25.2 Interzone 7 $137.00 $171.50 25.2 Interzone 8 $149.00 $187.00 25.5 Commuter Boat $198.00 $248.50 25.5 Average 25.3 Table 2: Base Fares with 25% increase CharlieCard Adult Bus Senior Bus Student Local Bus Adult Rapid Transit Senior Rapid Transit Student Rapid Transit Local bus + Rapid Transit Inner Express Bus Outer Express Bus CharlieTicket/On-Board Cash Local Bus Rapid Transit Inner Express Bus Outer Express Bus Average Existing Proposed % $1.25 $1.55 24.0 $0.40 $0.50 25.0 $0.60 $0.75 25.0 $1.70 $2.15 26.5 $0.60 $0.75 25.0 $0.85 $1.00 17.7 $1.70 $2.15 26.5 $2.80 $3.50 25.0 $4.00 $5.00 25.0 $1.50 $2.00 33.3 $2.00 $2.50 25.0 $3.50 $4.50 28.5 $5.00 $6.25 25.5 25.5 A 7-day student pass will be introduced to accompany the existing 5-day pass. A price for this 7- day pass has not been set. Note: Seniors, persons with disabilities, and students pay half-fare for passes. Children 11 and under ride free with adult. DRAFT 4 61 A 1,0 67 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 The Advisory Board lacks the computer software to perform the complex modeling that the MBTA can access in its elasticity studies. However, the history of previous fare increases, the fact that 2011 saw the highest ever ridership, and recent surveys suggest that public transportation users in eastern Massachusetts are less sensitive to mild fare increases than elsewhere. Also, the fact that fares have not increased since 2007 suggests that a 25% fare increase will not result in widespread ridership loss and can yield $75 million in new fare revenue. While clearly some ridership will be lost even with a 25% fare increase, this number will certainly be lower than that projected from MassDOT's proposed 33% or 43% fare increases. The Advisory Board also endorses several items suggested by the MassDOT proposals: • $10 minimum to reload CharlieCards on-board vehicles to reduce dwell time • Eliminate tokens • Introduce 7-day Student Pass and price accordingly • Reduce validity of commuter rail tickets from 180 days to 14 days. • Increase surcharge for on-board cash transactions on commuter rail to $3.00 • Eliminate 12-ride ticket on commuter rail, and 10 and 60-ride tickets on ferry boats. The Advisory Board does not support the proposed 25% discount off the single-ride fare for all midday and reverse commute commuter rail trips. We see no reason for commuters to subsidize day-trippers and do not believe that price is the reason for any excess capacity at off- peak times. Discounting off-peak fares is essentially charging peak time users a surcharge. We will also oppose any attempts to add a peak-time surcharge onto the backs of commuters because day-trippers and students should not be subsidized at the expense of commuters. Commuters ride at peak hours because that is when they go to and from work. If MassDOT wants to encourage off-peak ridership it should work with employers to alter working hours not charge commuters more. As part of its next commuter rail operating contract MassDOT must find a way to accept the CharlieCard as both a pass and for use with a declining balance to compensate for the elimination of the 12-ride ticket. DRAFT R 11 68 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 As part of this fare increase the Advisory Board also reluctantly supports a 25% increase at select rapid transit parking facilities. We support MassDOT's proposal to hold commuter rail parking rates harmless at this time. While the percentage increases in fares for all modes are equal the dollar increases for commuter rail pass holders on a monthly and annual basis, depending on zone, is much greater for commuter rail riders than for bus and subway riders. For this reason we support keeping commuter rail parking rates frozen, and a 25% increase to rapid transit parking fees. Table 3: 25% Parking Fee Increases at Rapid Transit Facilities Parking Facility Mode Location Existing Proposed % Change Alewife Red Line Cambridge $7.00 $8.75 25.0% Beachmont Blue Line Revere $5.00 $6.25 25.0% Braintree Red Line Braintree $7.00 $8.75 25.0% Chestnut Hill Green Line D Newton $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Eliot Green Line D Newton $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Forest Hills Orange Line Boston $6.00 $7.50 25.0% Lechmere Green Line Cambridge $5.50 $6.75 22.7% Malden Orange Line Malden $5.50 $6.75 22.7% Mattapan Mattapan Line Boston $4.50 $5.50 22.2% Milton Mattapan Line Milton $5.00 $6.25 25.0% North Quincy Red Line Quincy $5.00 $6.25 25.0% Oak Grove Orange Line Malden $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Orient Heights Blue Line Boston $5.00 $6.25 25.0% Quincy Adams Red Line Quincy $7.00 $8.75 25.0% Quincy Center Red Line Quincy $7.00 $8.75 25.0% Riverside Green Line D Newton $6.00 $7.50 25.0% Suffolk Downs Blue Line Boston $5.00 $6.25 25.0% Sullivan Orange Line Boston $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Waban Green Line D Newton $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Wellington Orange Line Medford $5.50 $7.00 27.3% Wollaston Red Line Quincy $5.00 $6.25 25.0% Woodland Green Line D Newton $6.00 $7.50 25.0% Wonderland Blue Line Revere $5.00 $6.25 25.0% AVERAGE 25.3% The days of stuffing bills into small slits in a metal box to pay for parking must end. As part of the next series of parking management contracts MassDOT must find a way to allow FastLane transponders and other technologies to pay for parking at all MBTA facilities. Transportation DRAFT 69 6 9k (2 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Reform promised us cooperation between the Turnpike, Highway, and transit divisions of MassDOT and we see no more visible means to show this coordination than making this a reality as soon as possible. More Savings from Transportation Reform (70.8 million) Assistance with transportation security costs 36.3 Transfer ferry service & assets to MassPort 31.1 Private Carrier/Suburban Bus cost reallocation 2.1 Assistance with homeless transportation costs 11^3 Subtotal: 70.8 Transportation Reform promised the citizens of Massachusetts millions from consolidation and greater efficiencies and to date-refinancing and shifting costs have realized millions in savings. For instance, maintenance costs of the Massachusetts Turnpike were shifted to the MassDOT Highway Division, part of employee health care premium costs were shifted from the MBTA operating budget to employees via the GIC, and the cost to operate the Worcester Airport was shifted from the City of Worcester to MassPort among other reforms. Transportation Reform promised that the state entity most capable of delivering public services to the citizens of the Commonwealth would do it, regardless of which Secretariat, Board, or Authority it fell under. The Advisory Board believes that Transportation Reform holds the promise to deliver millions more in better management and organizational changes to aid MBTA riders in this time of crisis. It is past time for MassDOT to deliver on this promise. We feel that some services currently provided by the MBTA can be better provided, and perhaps more affordably provided by other state entities. Everyone in State government works for its elected leadership, and the Advisory Board believes that this leadership should embrace the spirit of Transportation Reform and direct the state entity best equipped to provide critical services to provide, and pay for these services. Assistance with Transportation Security Costs ($36.3 million) The safety of the users of our transportation services and the security of our transportation infrastructure is and should be the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Paying police officers is not a core MBTA function, but providing security to its citizens is a core DRAFT 70 A ~3 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 function of the State. The Advisory Board believes that security of MBTA facilities and transit riders should be provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Enacting this will remove $37.6 million in direct operating costs from the MBTA's operating budget in FY13, plus millions more in future capital expenditure. The State could decide to cover the cost of the MBTA Transit Police from the budget of the Executive Office of Public Safety, or merge it with the State Police, or fund it from the MassDOT budget, or wherever it fits best. The MBTA must focus on its core functions: moving commuters on buses and trains, and while security is critical; in the 21St century it is a statewide issue. Threats to tunnels, rails, and buses are not just MBTA concerns they are concerns to all of Massachusetts and deserve to be treated as such. In 2011 the MBTA Advisory Board supported the merger of the Massachusetts State Police and MBTA Transit Police. Legislation (H 2922) is currently pending, yet the results of this are not guaranteed and even if it passes there is no assurance that it would save the MBTA any money. Regardless of the passage of this legislation the cost of providing policing and transportation security should not rest with the MBTA. Shifting these costs need not shift oversight or responsibility however. MassPort does not have its own police force, instead relying on a troop of the Massachusetts State Police, and yet security functions between these two separate; yet linked entities seem well integrated. Transfer Ferry Service and Assets to MassPort ($31:1 million) In 2011 the MBTA Advisory Board called upon MassPort to pick up the subsidy for all ferry and commuter boats because we foresaw this year's move to eliminate them. A January 30, 2012 editorial in the Boston Globe titled "if MBTA can't fund ferries, other agencies should step in" agrees, stating "a better proposal, which is under consideration by a MassDOT committee, would transfer responsibility for subsidizing the service to Massport, the state agency that runs Logan Airport and the port of Boston. The ferries may be a better fit there anyway, since water transport is already part of Massport's mission. Massport should have the needed expertise to oversee a ferry operation, and its finances are in better shape." In response to the Advisory Board's proposal last year then MassDOT Secretary Jeffrey Mullen established the Airport Ground Access and Surface Transportation (AGAST) Working Group. DRAFT qb l q 71 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 This group identified several ways in which MassPort could assist the MBTA in ways mutually beneficial. Based on this preliminary draft the Advisory Board calls upon the related parties to speed up the process of implementing the following actions: Sell Ferry assets 16.0, Sell East First Street Parcel (S. Boston) 10.4 Reallocate annual ferry subsidies 3.6 Reallocate SilverLine airport fare revenue 1.1 Subtotal: 31.1 $26.4 million of these costs are one-time revenues, while $4.7 million are on-going costs. While the Advisory Board generally opposes the use of property sales to fund operating expenses it seems unavoidable in this context of cuts and fare hikes. The MBTA has considered eliminating ferry service in 2007, 2009 and now in 2012. The merits of commuter boat transportation are obvious, but it is also obvious that their future with the MBTA is limited. The hard reality is that the MBTA simply cannot afford to operate ferries, but the state agency that operates the Port of Boston can. Sell Ferrv Assets ($16.0 million) The MBTA owns the Fore River terminal in Quincy, docks at Long Wharf in Boston, and leases terminal space in Hingham from the Department of Conservation and Recreation in Hingham. It also owns parking lots in Quincy and Hingham as well 2 passenger boats the Flying Cloud and the Lighting'. MassPort estimates the value of these assets at $17 million. MassPort operates the Port of Boston and has over 50 years of maritime contracting and operating experience. It also currently owns and maintains a ferry dock at Logan Airport. It is also one of the most successful catalysts of waterfront development on the east coast, and should be able to generate more return from commercial ventures on these properties, which could be used directly to subsidize continued boat operations. The MBTA would lose about $1 million in annual revenue in forgone parking and commercial lease revenue under this proposal, netting $16.0 million in FY13. i MBTA Ridership and Service Statics (Bluebook) 13`h edition 2010, page 79 DRAFT 9 Oqhl~ 72 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Sell East First Street Parcel ($10.4 million) The MBTA owns around 9.3 acres of land near East First Street in South Boston that it uses for bus storage, certain administrative offices and a generator building. The Authority has designated a portion of this property as an excess transfer parcel. MassPort would like to aquire this parcel as part of its Conley Terminal Dedicated Freight Corridor Project, and in 2010 the Legislature passed a statue facilitating this transfer. It is unclear why no sale agreement has been entered into yet. Given the importance of the Conley Terminal Dedicated Freight Corridor Project to the future of the Port of Boston and the positive benefits of getting heavy trucks off of South Boston neighborhood streets and onto a dedicated right-of-way the Advisory Board sees no reason why this project should not move forward. MassPort estimates the value of this parcel at $10.4 million and while the MBTA must ensure it receives fare market value and retains all necessary easements and protections for public transportation use it is also important that it consummate this deal in FY13. Reallocate Ferrv Subsidies ($3.6 million) The MBTA estimates $3.6 million in savings in FY13 by not subsidizing ferry and commuter boat service when MassPort picks up this subsidy. Ferry operations are contracted to third parties, and the MassPort Board could simply take over these contracts by a vote of its Board anytime after the existing contracts expire in March 2012. Ferries already provide access to the airport, suggesting this as an allowable cost under FAA regulations. Under the MassDOT umbrella the use of CharlieCards may continue, and MassPort is and will continue to be eligible to receive federal transportation formula funds such as existing earmarks. MassPort also holds a permanent seat on the Boston MPO, which allocates these funds. MassPort's existing Community Advisory Committee currently has representation from communities such as Quincy and Weymouth and could be expanded in size and scope to improve the municipal voice in ferry and all MassPort operations and policies. The Advisory Board believes that the MBTA cannot and will not expand commuter boat service to places like East Boston, Lynn, Salem, Winthrop and others in the future, and that MassPort is the best opportunity these DRAFT 10 qOI 73 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 municipalities have to see the ferry services they want retained, implemented, and/or expanded. Reallocate SilverLine airport fare revenue ($1.1 million) The MBTA maintains a complex relationship with MassPort, which paid for 8 of the 32 special SilverLine buses the MBTA acquired for the waterfront and airport service. Each year MassPort pays the MBTA $2 million towards the operation and maintenance of 8 vehicles and in return the MBTA remits all fare revenue received from passengers boarding at Logan Airport to MassPort. In FY13 the MBTA expects to pay about $1.12 million to MassPort under this deal. Given the disproportionate benefit MassPort and Logan Airport receive from the MBTA the Advisory Board believes this practice should be discontinued and the MBTA should retain all revenue it collects at the airport for its own use. Private Carrier/Suburban Bus subsidy reallocation ($2.1 million) The MBTA currently contracts private operators to run bus routes in Medford (710), Winthrop (712/713), Hull (714), and from Canton to Mattapan Station (716). Its suburban bus program partially subsidizes shuttle bus service in Beverly, Burlington, Dedham, Lexington, and the Mission Hill neighborhood of Boston. Under scenario 1 MassDOT proposes eliminating funding for the Medford (710) and Canton (716) private carrier routes, and all subsidies for the suburban bus program. Under Scenario 2 all private carrier funding and suburban bus subsidies would be eliminated. While these routes are important to the constituencies they serve they are also perennial targets for elimination. In 2011 the MBTA Advisory Board in its FY12 budget report stated: "These routes are important to the people of those communities who use them, and should be maintained if possible. However, the precarious nature of the MBTA's budget suggests that the future is not bright for these services." At that time we proposed spinning off these routes to other MassDOT entities to allow the MBTA to focus on its core mission of operating its own buses and trains to serve commuters. We suggested that MassPort fund the Winthrop (712/713) and Hull (714) routes, and that the successful MassDOT agency MassRIDES use its leverage with the local Transportation Management Associations it subsidizes to operate the DRAFT 11 R~ 1? 74 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 remaining routes and shuttle services. In 2012 the Advisory Board renews this proposal. Shifting these costs to other MassDOT entities will save the MBTA $2.1 million in FY13 and is a better option than simply eliminating these routes all together. Assistance with homeless transportation costs ($1.3 million) The MBTA operates 3 bus routes that provide access the City of Boston's homeless shelter on Long Island and to the Shattuck Hospital. These routes (275, 276 & 277) do not accept fares and operate purely as a social service benefit for a vulnerable population in need of transportation. In 2011 the operation of these routes cost the MBTA just under $1.3 million. It is critical that homeless population have access to shelters and medical care, it seems logical to suggest that the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services pay to provide such transportation rather than the MBTA. The State must stop using the MBTA to fill social service gaps at the expense of millions of citizens who depend on it each and every day. MBTA Innovation and Efficiencies ($11.7 million) The FY13 budget was reduced from $185 to $161 million through management, efficiencies, and innovation by MBTA management. The Advisory Board appreciates these efforts and believes that certain policy changes within the purview of the MassDOT Board can generate an additional $11.7 million in savings through innovation and efficiencies. 0% FY13 wage increase for all MBTA employees 8.2 MBTA abutter lease program 2.0 Alcohol advertisement program reinstatement 1.5 Subtotal: 11.7 0% FY13 wage increase for all MBTA employees ($8.2 million) Over the last 5 years the story of which MBTA employees received raises and which did not is uneven. For the first time since 2006 the 200 or so non-unionized employees received raises of 1.5% effective July 1, 2011 and 1.5% effective January 1, 2012. 500 or so unionized employees received 0% in FY11, 3% in FY12, 2% this year, and are schedule for 2% next year. The remaining 5,400 or so unionized employees, including members of the Carmen's Union Local 589 saw raises of 3% in FY07, 3% in FY08, 3% in FY09, 4% in FY10. The MBTA is currently in negotiation with Local 589 DRAFT 12 RtilE 75 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 about a new contract to cover FYs 11-15, with any wage increase for FYs 11-13 being paid in arrears and retroactively. This history is starkly contrasted with the experience of many employees of the cities and towns that are members of the MBTA Advisory Board. Since the effects of the Great Recession became evident starting in 2008 employees of municipalities and indeed most sectors of the American economy did not receive raises, and in fact many received the opposite--pink slips. In cities and towns across eastern Massachusetts, Mayors, Boards of Selectmen, and other leaders have made difficult choices to freeze wages for all employees, including unionized fire, police, teachers, DPW, and other workers. While it is true that all MBTA employees have or are joining the State's Group Insurance Commission which charges higher co-pays and premiums than were charged in the past; it is also true that thousands of municipal employees have also joined the GIC and seen out-of-pocket expenses increase. It seems only fair that unionized MBTA employees now stand with their municipal colleagues by accepting a wage freeze in FY13. The manner in which pay and benefits are set for unionized MBTA employees is broken, and disconnected from reality. If and when MBTA management and MBTA unions disagree on the terms of the next contract an independent arbiter may make the final decision. Just such an arbiter granted average wage increases of 3.25% per year for the fiscal years 2007-2010 in the middle of a recession. Because this decision granted retroactive raises the MBTA was forced to pay out over $65.9 million at once and raised parking fees at all its facilities by $2.00 to cover these costs. Freezing all wages for FY13 (and FYs 11 and 12 retroactively for that matter) will prevent the MBTA from having to come up with another lump-sum retroactive payment when the next contract is settled, possibly even at the start of the next fiscal year just after fares and parking fees go up. MBTA management's hands are tied, and the MassDOT Board of Directors must act on this just as dozens of Mayors, City Councils, Boards of Selectmen, Finance Committees, and Town Meetings across eastern Massachusetts have already done. Freezing wages will save $8.2 million in budgeted costs, and many times that amount in future operating costs going forward. DRAFT 13 76 _lk'9 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 If necessary, the Board of Directors should file legislation seeking the authority to do this or take the matter to court if needed. MBTA Abutter Program ($2 million) The MBTA is one of if not the largest landowner in Massachusetts. There are at least 48 examples of MBTA property being leased or otherwise conveyed to communities or other state agencies for bike path uses alone, amounting to well over 50 miles of rail-right-of-way for use for recreational purposes with little recompense to the MBTA and no opportunity for the MBTA to enter into leases that could help defer the revenue raising options currently before the public. The Advisory Board proposes that the MBTA or its agents survey the remaining property owned by the Authority but not currently used for transportation purposes with an eye towards entering into short term land leasing arrangement with abutters. Moreover, it is common that abutters of disused rights of way tend to encroach on those properties either out of ignorance of the property line or confidence that they will not be discovered. Since the MBTA has a property management agent we feel that that those encroaching on MBTA property can be contacted and settlements reached with little expense to the MBTA. Uses for these properties could include property access, additional parking or material storage. The program would increase revenues, reduce trespassing and illegal dumping, reassert MBTA control over its properties and open up properties currently underutilized to abutters in need of expansion. The Advisory Board recommends that these land leases be at fair market value and for terms no longer than 10 years at a time. In FY13 we estimate $2 million in new revenue under this program. Alcohol Advertising Program Reinstatement ($1.5 million) At the end of January, in the midst of the public meetings on MassDOT's plans to raise MBTA fares and reduce service the Department announced plans to stop accepting advertisements for alcohol, which generate $1.5 million annually in non-fare revenue for the MBTA. Secretary Davey told the State House News that no revenue would be lost, as the Authority could resell that advertising space at no new loss. The Advisory Board believes that a better idea is to DRAFT 14 ~h 11 77 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 continue to accept alcohol advertisements and find new space to sell to advertisers clamoring to be seen by MBTA passengers. This would result in an additional $1.5 million in revenue in FY13. Many advocates believe that banning alcohol ads from MBTA property will somehow reduce underage drinking and "send a message" that the public does not condone such behavior. While the Advisory Board certainly supports laws banning the sale or consumption of alcohol by those under the legal drinking age, we also believe that the amount of such advertisements in magazines, on television, and in other media will surely swamp any reduction in advertising by banning such ads on the MBTA. The MBTA has a public interest in banning some types of advertising, but not alcohol and certainly not during this financial crisis, Revenue from Institutional Beneficiaries of MBTA Service ($13.1 million) Transit proximity beneficiary payments 5.5 Special event surcharge 5.0 CR proximity beneficiary payments 2.6 Subtotal: 13.1 The Advisory Board believes that those who benefit from public transportation should contribute towards it. Riders pay fares, cities and towns pay assessments, and taxpayers statewide contribute part of their sales tax revenue to fund the MBTA. Yet at public hearings from Attleboro to Lowell, Salem to Worcester, and throughout the Greater Boston area at public hearings MBTA Advisory Board members and staff have heard not just how important MBTA commuter rail, buses, trains, and boats are, but also what a hardship service reductions would create to institutional beneficiaries such as universities, hospitals, cultural institutions and businesses. Transit proximity beneficiary payments ($5.5 million) Large institutions in and around Boston benefit tremendously from the MBTA bus and rapid transit network, and yet none directly contribute to its operation. At the public hearings DRAFT 15 78 9 1 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 numerous leaders, employees, and stakeholders of such institutions expressed their dependence on the MBTA in general, and on those bus and light rail routes on the chopping block specifically. Given the benefit delivered to these institutions by the existing bus and rapid transit networks, the Advisory Board believes that these institutions should directly contribute towards the MBTA's operations Station name value payments 2.0 Inner-Core college student fee 2.0 Light Rail elimination mitigation 1.5 Subtotal: 5.5 Station Name Value Pavments ($2.0 million) MassDOT has discussed implementing a station naming program for years, yet dozens of institutions already have rapid transit stations named after them for free. For instance Charles/MGH, BU East, Tufts Medical Center, and Airport are all named after viable institutions that surely benefit from having their name attached to a station, and should pay for this privilege. MassDOT's real estate office should simply assign a value to a named station and bill the appropriate entity; otherwise the name should be changed on electronic media and when new signs are produced. The following institutions should be approached as benefiting from sharing their names with rapid transit stations: Harvard, MIT, Mass. General Hospital, UMass Boston, Suffolk Downs, Logan Airport, New England Aquarium, Tufts Medical Center, BC, BU (3), Fenway Park, Prudential Center, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Northeastern, Museum of Fine Arts, Longwood Medical Area, Museum of Science, and the World Trade Center. It seems reasonable to estimate these 18 institutions would contribute at least $2 million collectively annually for the benefit of sharing a station's name. Inner Core Student Fee (82.0 million) At the hearings in downtown Boston, Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Jamaica Plain, Newton, and elsewhere in the greater Boston region numerous college students testified about the importance of public transit to their studies, research, and social lives. Over 200,000 full and part time students attend institutions of higher education in the MBTA's inner-core service DRAFT 16 I 2\ 79 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 area. A $10 student-ID fee would generate at least $2.0 million annually without imposing a hardship on any individual student. $10 per year is less than 3 pennies per day. These payments will directly contribute to the continued operation of the MBTA at existing service levels. Going forward any discussion of off-peak discounts for students or "night owl" service should be within the context of increasing this fee, or converting all campuses to UPass plans to pay for them. Light Rail Elimination Mitigation Pavments ($1.5 million) MassDOT estimates that cutting the Green Line E branch and Mattapan high-speed line on weekends will save $1.5 million in FY13. At the public hearings numerous individuals who benefit from these weekend services expressed opposition to the elimination plans. Specifically testimony from students, professors, doctors, nurses, and employees of institutions such as the Longwood health care and academic cluster, Museum of Fine Arts, Isabella Stuart Gardner Museum, Mass. Art, Wentworth, Mass. College of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, the Boston Symphony Orchestra and others that use weekend light rail service demanded that the service be retained at its current levels. Given the importance placed upon weekend light rail by those connected with institutions that benefit from it, it seems reasonable to ask these institutions to contribute the $1.5 million annually needed to keep weekend light rail service running on these lines. Special event surcharge ($5 million) The MBTA is at its core a commuter service. Yet hundreds of times each year it also moves thousands and thousands of citizens to and from special events such as Red Sox, Bruins and Celtics games, as well as public performances at venues such as the Opera House, Citi Performing Arts Center, Symphony Hall, and numerous other large venues. These special events constitute mini-rush hours that the MBTA is not designed or staffed to handle. Such events strain the existing system and cost millions in overtime. Extra fares collected before and after these events do not cover these costs. The venues that host these events rely on the MBTA to deliver thousands of citizens to these events without the use of automobiles. Traffic is already congested in and around Fenway Park, the Theater District, and the TD Garden before and after special events. Imagine how bad it would be without the MBTA operating extra service. DRAFT 80 17 hzv MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Large public performance venues benefit greatly from the MBTA and should contribute towards its operations in the form of a $0.50 surcharge on all tickets at venues with capacities over 1,000 persons. Given the number of events that take place at such venues it seems reasonable to expect $5 million in annual revenue from this surcharge. Such a surcharge will not add significantly to ticket prices. For instance the average cost of a Red Sox ticket in 2011 was about $53.00 suggesting that a $0.50 surcharge would increase prices by less than 1%. Commuter Rail proximity beneficiary payments ($2.6 million) At public hearings in places like Lowell, Salem, Attleboro, and Worcester numerous people testified about the importance of weekend and late night commuter rail service. MassDOT proposes eliminating all such service to save $5.7 annually. Students, those in the tourism sector, educators, health care workers, and many others testified about how important it is to their economic well being and to the economies of places like Lowell, Worcester, and other cities to have weekend and late night commuter rail service. Given the benefit they testified about receiving it is reasonable to ask those institutions to contribute towards partially preserving them. CR area college student fee 1.4 Proximity beneficiary payments 1.0 Station name value payment 0.2 Subtotal: 2.6 Commuter Rail area colleize student fee (51.4 million) An estimated 140,000 full and part time students are enrolled in institutions of higher education in the 161 cities and towns in the MBTA service district outside the inner-core. An annual $10 student ID fee for these students, similar to the one proposed for the inner-core area, would generate an estimated $1.4 million annually towards the cost of keeping post-10 PM and weekend commuter rail trains running. As with the case in the inner core, going forward any discussion of off-peak discounts for students or "night owl" service should be within the context of increasing this fee. Commuter Rail Proximitv beneficiarv payments ($1.0 million) DRAFT 18 jl 81 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Large business parks, institutions like Worcester's DCU Center, Lowell's Tsongas Arena, the Salem and Plymouth tourism clusters, the Worcester medical and life science clusters, and higher education establishments such as the College of the Holy Cross, Clark University and the State Universities in Salem, Bridgewater, Worcester, Fitchburg and Framingham surely benefit from their proximity to commuter rail stations, and weekend commuter rail service transporting thousands of people each year to and from their doorsteps. Surely institutions such as these and hundreds more throughout the commuter rail service area should be willing to make modest contributions towards retaining the late-night and weekend commuter rail services that everyone claims are so vital to them. Commuter Rail Station name value oavments (S0.2 million) As with the proposal to capture monetary value from those institutions with their names included in rapid transit stations, so too should some value be captured from commuter rail stations that include names of institutions. For instance the Brandeis/Robert station on the Fitchburg Line, and the Franklin/Dean station on the Franklin line are examples of station names that contain institutional names as well. Other stations such as Forge Park/495 and Windsor Gardens on the Franklin Line, River Works on the Rockport/Newburyport Line among others also enjoy benefits from sharing names with commuter rail stations. MassDOT should simply assign a value to the benefit of station name sharing and send a bill. If the bill is not paid simply change the name on all electronic media and the next time signs are changed. It seems reasonable to expect $200,000 in net new annual revenue from this proposal. Non-Revenue Proposals FY13 Non-Revenue Policv Reauests of MassDOT Board of Directors. Fare evasion quantification study and reduction policy by 6/30/12 RIDE in-person assessments as soon as possible Statewide paratransit commission findings by 4/1/12 TOD value capture study with recommendations by 9/1/12 New underperforming bus/rail route "watch list" policy with timeline and public processes. Small, regular fare-increase (2.5%) policy by 7/1/13 DRAFT 19 ghti`~ 82 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Fare evasion quantification study and reduction policy by 6/30/12 The public believes that MassDOT does not do enough to collect all the fare revenue the MBTA is owed. The MassDOT Board should immediately commission a study to quantify the budget impact of fare evasion on all modes, and develop new policies to reduce fare evasion before fares are increased. It is only fair that MassDOT do all it can to collect all fares from those who do not pay before raising fares on those who do. Some ideas for consideration include installing fencing and barrier fare collection facilities at all Green Line D branch stations, and at any other Green Line surface station where possible, and fencing and fare collection barriers at major bus facilities such as Dudley Station and Harvard bus way for example. Barrier fare collection at such stations may not be perfect, but they may be an improvement and should be considered. Not all such stations should be staffed. AFC must be introduced onto the commuter rail system with the implementation of the next contract, and MassDOT should seriously consider eliminating CSA attendants from non-key subway stations during non-peak hours and instead re-deploy these human resources to prevent fare evasion at known hot-spots during peak times. Greater use of the MBTA's extensive security camera network in discouraging and enforcing fare evasion policies should also be explored. The RIDE In-Person Assessments As Soon As Possible In 2011 the MassDOT proposed to start conducting in-person assessments of all individuals requesting RIDE certification by July 1, 2012. The cost to provide the RIDE doubled from $50 million in FY07 to over $100 million in FY12. MassDOT believes that in-person assessments can help slow this growth by ensuring that all those who use this door-to-door service meet all the necessary qualifications for it. At the same time MassDOT proposes establishing a two-tiered service area for RIDE trips with some RIDE fares increasing from $2.00 to $12.00 under one scenario. If MassDOT believes that conducting in-person assessments can slow the growth in RIDE costs it should establish these first before recommending changes to the service area. In-person assessments should begin as soon as possible (March or April 1) to allow 2-3 months of data on the impact of such assessments on the number of RIDE eligible customers. Should these in- DRAFT 20 yh-Z'~ 83 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 person assessments prove effective in slowing RIDE cost growth, perhaps a tiered service area will not be necessary. Either way we see no harm in beginning the in-person assessment program as soon as possible to ensure that RIDE services are reserved for those who require them the most. Statewide paratransit commission (EO 530) findings by 4/1/12 In April 2011 the Governor issued an Executive Order 530 establishing a Statewide Paratransit Transportation Commission to examine and offer suggestions to improve and reform paratransit transportation. For the past 10 months this commission has met and listened. Now as MassDOT proposes the most radical changes to the RIDE ever the time has come for this commission to issue its recommendations. April 2012 will mark 1-year since the issuance of the Executive Order. The EO 530 report must consider a state-wide paratransit service area for all of Massachusetts, or at least explain why it is not considered. Currently paratransit begins and ends at the borders of regional transit authorities (federally mandated service areas) meaning, for instance, that a client living in Natick, Gloucester, Stoughton, or Ayer cannot get to the educational, medical, business, or cultural centers of Boston without transferring between providers and paying 2 fares. Transportation Reform was supposed to be about tearing down artificial boundaries between transportation agencies. The creation of one state-wide paratransit district seems like a logical extension of Transportation Reform. Creation of such a district should save agencies like the MBTA millions annually in administrative costs through consolidation and millions more through the economies of scale that a state-wide provider can bring. If RTA payments to this service provider were capped to match revenue growth such a plan would also free the MBTA from unsustainable 16.5% average annual growth that threatens to swamp all other costs. TOD value capture study with recommendations by 9/1/12 At numerous public hearing on MassDOT's proposals to increase MBTA fares and decrease MBTA service, numerous stakeholders spoke of the importance of MBTA service to large new developments built, or under construction near transit nodes. Several people suggested that some of the value created by such developments be captured and directed to the MBTA. DRAFT 21 84 eft MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 Indeed, MassDOT officials have publically pointed to "value capture" as a means to pay for future expansion projects like the Green Line to Somerville and South Coast Rail. In light of the fiscal crisis and its proposal to raise MBTA fares the MassDOT Board should clarify its position on value capture payments by issuing a policy brief with recommended rates and locations, as well as necessary changes to existing laws to implement such a fee. Of the five largest American Transit agencies only the MBTA and LA Metro lack any sort of value capture financing revenue. The New York MTA, Chicago CTA Transportation Authority, and Washington, DC WMATA all receive some revenue from value capture in the form of taxes on real estate transactions within their respective service districts when property is sold. If MassDOT is serious about value capture fees they should issue their proposals as soon as possible. Creation of a "watch list" of underperforming routes with a new policy to engage stakeholder's dependant on such routes and new processes and time- lines to eliminate such routes. At every public hearing on MassDOT's proposals to raise MBTA fares and eliminate MBTA service members of the public expressed dismay at the prospect of losing existing MBTA service. Yet it is clear to the MBTA Advisory Board that not all routes sustain the ridership necessary to continue in perpetuity. While the Advisory Board does not support the elimination of any routes at this time as part of a fare increase and service cut budget exercise, it does believe that those routes, which underperform, should go eventually. MassDOT has good standards for gauging route performance and the net cost per passenger metric is industry standard. The standards used to determine performance are not the issue however. The issue is the manner in which routes are eliminated. The Advisory Board believes that underperforming routes should be eliminated for service planning reasons and not to balance structurally deficient budgets. It is difficult to argue that bus routes that are essentially subsidized livery services should continue when it is clear that those resources could be better utilized elsewhere in the system. Routes such as the 355 and 500 require over $10 in subsidies (over and above fares) to carry DRAFT 22 c, k ?i1 85 MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 each passenger on each trip every day. Nevertheless the Advisory Board understands the importance of routes such as these to those who ride them and the communities around them. The MassDOT Board should develop a new policy for eliminating underperforming bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail routes. Such a policy should identify these routes and place them on a watch list. Placement on a watch list should trigger a series of community workshops with stakeholders to explain why the route is in danger and to solicit their ideas for improving the net cost per passenger numbers for each route. Municipalities, institutions, legislators and other stakeholders should be given the opportunity to improve ridership, and MassDOT should intensely study each route on the watch list to ensure that its numbers are accurate several times throughout the process. The Advisory Board suggests that watch lists be produced at the beginning of each fiscal year (July), that the process take 1 year, and that quarterly meetings take place to solicit feed back, report new data, and keep all stakeholders abreast of the process. Conducting a longer elimination process will not make eliminating a bus route any easier. But we believe it is important for all those affected to be part of a process and to be given the chance to save their routes prior to elimination. The MassDOT Board should develop these policies as possible and published the first watch list early in the new fiscal year. Small Regular Fare Increase Policy by 7/1/12 The Advisory Board believes that small and regular fare increases are preferable to large, irregular ones. Fares should not spike every 4-5 years but should increase slowly to match inflation to make it easier for customers to absorb the increase. We request that by July 1, 2012 the MassDOT Board publish a new policy supporting small regular fare increases, furthermore we suggest that such an increase be not more than 2.5% annually or bi-annually on average. 2.5% matches the rate of growth in MBTA assessments. The Advisory Board suggests that the MassDot Board issue a policy document directing the MBTA to raise fares by not more than 2.5% annually or bi-annually effective July 1, 2013. The MassDOT Board should hold a single hearing annually on this increase and such an increase should be built into each year's proposed operating budget. The MBTA's fare policy should also DRAFT 23 86 q~ MBTA Advisory Board February 2012 be revised with significant public input. No one likes paying more for the same service but customers like price spikes even less. Small regular fare increases will not solve the MBTA's cyclical and structural deficits but they will help and will make them easier for the public to absorb. Conclusion The cities and towns that make up the MBTA district have been warning for almost a decade that the financing structure of the Authority is fatally flawed. Finally the day of reckoning can no longer be postponed and the public must react to MassDOT's proposals to gut MBTA service and dramatically increase its fares. The MBTA suffers from several problems but the main ones are far too much debt and the decade-long underperformance of the sales tax. The MBTA has tried to, help itself by trimming its workforce, innovating in the purchase of fuel and energy, finding efficiencies, and controlled those costs within its power to control. When those actions weren't enough the Authority raised fares and parking fees, sold land and other assets, restructured and refinanced its debt payments, and even sold a revenue stream to plug a gaping hole in last year's budget. These actions allowed the Authority to limp from year-to-year, but the MBTA will never be healthy and travel conditions will continue to deteriorate until the underlying illness is cured. The plans put forward by MassDOT will not cure the MBTA's illness, and neither will our plan. The Advisory Board plan will, however, preserve the transit system until a real and lasting solution can be found. The Advisory Board plan can bring all of the stakeholders in our transportation system: the Governor, the Legislature, municipalities, businesses, large institutions, students, seniors, those with disabilities, transit advocates, commuters and all the users of the system together to finally have that "adult conversation" so long promised and so long avoided. Shame on all of us if we avoid it again. DRAFT 24 ,~J- ~ 2,11 87 SAVE THE DATE MBTA ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:30 A.M. TRANSPORTATION BUILDING TEN PARK PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 5/6 BOSTON, MA Meeting Packets Will Follow. For More Information, Call (617) 426-6054 88 b J RMLD CO) February 15, 2012 Reading Municipal Light Department RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS 230 Ash Street P.O. Box 150 Reading, MA 01867-0250 Tel: (781) 944-1340 Fax: (781) 942-2409 Web: www.rmld.com Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: W( &s X12 f[B 21,i" !1'$ The RMLD has been made aware of a recent change to the statewide minimum utility tree trimming specifications. In light of recent, severe storms that have resulted in significant electric outages throughout the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Utility Distribution Vegetation Management Minimum Line Clearance Specification has been developed. This document can be found in the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) section of Mass.gov and references MGL Chapter 87 Section 14. (I have attached copies of the Specification and Web page.) After presenting a request to the Tree Warden in each municipality, this statute allows the utility to trim 12 feet vertically and 10 feet horizontally from primary overhead conductors. This new standard will provide a significant amount of discretion for the RMLD tree trimming crews when considering the proper distance of primary lines from certain species of trees as it relates to the reliable delivery of electricity. The RMLD is continuously mindful of the beauty and aesthetics trees provide in each of the towns we service. The RMLD's trimming standard continues to be a distance of between four and five feet of the overhead primary lines. When a tree is healthy, the compact arrangement of Hendrix style overhead construction avoids the need for wide trimming around the conductors. This installation method continues to be the overhead construction standard when replacing single-spaced conductors. The RMLD does not anticipate a majority of situations requiring the trimming clearances mentioned in the new standard and will evaluate the need on a case-by-case basis. Please forward this information to DPW personnel and the tree warden as you see fit. Sincerely, K n SulYvan Engineering and Operations Manager Attachment (2) c: Vincent Cameron, General Manager, RMLD Tom O'Connor, General Line Foreman, RMLD qJ-( 89 Massachusetts Utility Distribution Vegetation Management Minimum Line Clearance Specification In Accordance With Massachusetts General Law Chapter 87, Section 14 March 24, 2019 90 cq TZ" Introduction The Massachusetts Utility Distribution Vegetation Management Minimum Line Clearance Specification has been developed in response to the passage of the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 87, Section 14, which is a provision to allow utilities an exemption under sections 3 and 5 of this statute. The utilities must submit a request to the municipal Tree Warden in the municipality where an exemption is being requested and provide certain information to the Tree Warden, as specified in the statute. One of the items stipulated in the statute is that the utility must submit a copy of its vegetation management pruning specifications. In order to streamline and build consistency into the specifications across Massachusetts, these minimum specifications were developed by Massachusetts electric utilities. Any deviations from these minimum specifications for special conditions will be noted and included in the individual requests. Definitions ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 Pruning - American National Standard for Tree Care Operations - Tree Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance - Standard Practices (Pruning) ANSI Z133.1-2006 - American National Standard for Arboricultural Operations - Safety Requirements. Backbone - a three phase section of line starting at a substation and extending to the first fused device or single/double phase reclosing device. Brush - Tree species with a DBH of less than 6 inches. Occasionally, shrub species are considered as brush, if they have to be removed for line clearance or access. Clearance - The distance between vegetation and conductor Clearance Zone - The area around the overhead electric lines and equipment that requires being free and clear of potential incidental contact from vegetation. Contractor - The business or employees of that business, that has contracted with a utility to perform line clearing. DBH - Diameter Breast Height - Diameter of a tree measured at a point 4 1/2 feet above ground. 91 q,,53 Fall Zone - The area including the roadside clearance zone and extending from the conductors out a distance to where an uprooted tree could strike the conductor and cause an outage. Hazard tree - Any tree that, because of its condition, may fail and contact the utilities lines and facilities. This condition can be determined by an evaluation using the ISA's A Handbook of Hazard Tree Evaluation for Utilitv Arborists, and rates as a moderate or high hazard. Lateral - a section of primary voltage line extending from the end of backbone to a secondary or service wire. Line Clearing - Controlling vegetation to maintain proper clearance from conductors which includes tree trimming, removal, brush and woody vine removal. Maintenance Corridor - The area physically located under and alongside the overhead distribution feeder bounded by the mature tree line when one exists. Ir the absence of a mature tree line the maintenance corridor is defined as the area that is at least ten (10) feet either side of the,pole centerline or equal to the previously maintained dimensions if greater than ten (10) feet. Minimum Massachusetts Distribution Line Clearance Specification - This specification is one that has been agreed upon by National Grid, Nstar and Unitil as the minimum distance that non-structural tree component parts must be trimmed back to, in order to maintain safe and reliable electric service from contact outages. There are situations that greater distances than the minimum specification are required to achieve this goal and those situations will be noted separately in an annual vegetation management plan. OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Overhead Hazards - dead, dying, diseased, insect infected and structurally weak branches including those which could break at weak points and strike conductors when swinging down in an arc. Pruning Types - Natural Pruning - Is the method recommended by most professionals. Natural pruning is cutting branches back to a suitable parent limb, back toward the center of the tree. This method of pruning is sometimes called "drop crotching" or "lateral pruning". An attempt is made to remove large branches to laterals at least one-third the diameter of the branch being removed. All cuts should be made to leave the branch collar intact and to avoid leaving stubs. Natural pruning is especially adapted to the crown reduction of large trees where a great deal of wood must be removed. In 6 ffff 92 natural pruning, most cuts are made on larger limbs with a saw, the results are natural-looking trees, even if large amounts of wood have been removed. Natural pruning is also directional pruning, since it tends to guide the growth of the tree away from the wires. Stubbing, on the other hand, tends to promote rapid sucker growth right back into the conductors. Crown Reduction - Is cutting back portions of the upper crown of a tree. Reducing is when a tree is located directly beneath a line. The main leader or leaders are cut back to a lateral, which should be at least one- third the diameter of the limb being removed. To minimize re-growth, no more than one-fourth of the crown should be reduced. Side Pruning - Is cutting back or removing side branches that threaten }h nn .-I.+}rrcCir7r, r.rninn is roniiro~ ~x~horr~ }rave oro nrnxirn u i: vviuuvlvu. vui.. Ni un.,. ro a~a.~un.u ~iv uw. w.a uv ~vrrny adjacent to utility lines. Limbs should be removed at a lateral branch. Notches in tree crowns should be avoided, if possible. When pruning, all dead branches over the wires must be removed, since this dead wood could easily break off and cause an interruption in service. Overhang Or Under Pruning - Consists of removing limbs beneath the tree crown to allow wires to pass below the tree crown. This type of pruning will allow the tree to retain its natural shape and continue its normal growth. Overhangs can pose a greater risk when lines pass beneath a tree and should be removed according to the species of the tree, location and the general policy of the utility. When pruning, all dead branches above the wires are removed, since this dead wood could easily break off and cause an interruption. Many utilities have a set removal program for trees that overhang important lines. Through Pruning - Is the removal of branches within the crown to allow lines to pass through the tree. It is best suited for secondaries, streetlight circuits, and cables, although it is often used on primary circuits where there is no other way of pruning the tree. Cuts should be made at crotches to encourage growth away from the lines. Combinations - It is often necessary to combine several types of pruning in order to maintain acceptable tree appearance and provide adequate clearances. 93 9 Shrub - A woody plant normally maturing less than 20 feet in height and presenting a generally bushy appearance because of its several erect, spreading or prostrate stems. Stump Treatment - Herbicide applications made to sproutable cut-off stumps (all hardwoods and Pitch Pine) in order to prevent the stump from sprouting. Substation - An electrical facility that receives electricity at high voltages add reduces the voltage so that it can be passed on to customers at a lower voltage. Tree - A woody plant normally maturing at 20 feet or more in height, usually with a single trunk, unbranched for several feet above ground, with a definite crown. It shall have a DBH of 6 inches or greater. Wires/Lines/Conductors - The overhead wires which carry the electric current at required voltages. Also to be considered for.tree clearance and safety are other pole mounted equipment such as transformers, fuses, circuit breakers, etc. Wire types - Primary - A wire running from pole to pole operating at a voltage level exceeding 600 volts and normally located at the top of a pole. Secondary - The conductor, either triplex or open wire, which extends from the transformer to the Service Drop. Secondary spans may run along under primary spans or separately. Service Drop - The last span of triplex or open three wire extending to the building or meter pole or a multi-span run of either triplex or open three wire that serves a single customer. This does not include street light services. Street Light Secondary - The conductor, either triplex or open wire, which leaves the primary pole to pole configuration and extends out to service a street light or lights. Triplex - Two insulated wires in a twisted configuration around a bare neutral wire. Open Wire Secondary - Three parallel wires normally in a vertical configuration separated from each other by a few inches. qj~ 94 Vegetation Management Minimum Line Clearance Specification Pruning Standards All pruning shall be performed in accordance with ANSI A300 standards as.well as the Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning publication. All cuts shall be made at a parent branch or limb, so that no stub shall remain. In cutting back a branch, the cut shall be made at a crotch or node where the branch being removed is at least one-third the diameter of the parent limb. All pruning cuts shall be made in accordance with proper collar cutting methods, utilizing drop crotch principles to minimize the number of pruning cuts, promote natural growth patterns, and maintain tree health and vigor (ANSI A300). Climbing irons or spurs shall not be used in pruning a shade/ornamental tree to be saved. Tree wound dressings shall not be applied. Pruning Clearance for Primary Lines All overhead primary lines shall be pruned to provide a minimum of twelve (12) feet of overhead clearance, a minimum of ten (10) feet of side clearance from the outermost phase and a minimum of ten (10) feet of clearance below the wires. The contractor shall recognize that the use of ANSI A300 standards and techniques may result in clearances beyond the dimensions noted above. The main trunk of the tree or major leads of appropriate species, which are structurally sound and healthy, may be left growing within these distances as long as none of the smaller diameter end branches are within the clearance dimensions. In that case the lead must be removed. Where greater clearances have been achieved in previous cycles, the pruning shall be completed so as to re-establish the clearances in a manner that equals or exceeds the previous clearance conditions. All dead or damaged overhead limbs, branches or leads that are capable of falling onto overhead primary wires from above or alongside the right-of-way and potentially causing a tree outage shall be removed at the time of pruning. Pruning Clearance for Secondary and Service Lines All secondary wire (triplex and open wire), other than that serving street lights only, shall be pruned to provide a minimum of (2) feet of clearance from wire to vegetation. All service wires (triplex or open wire) and street light secondary on the circuit shall be inspected during the pruning process. For branches that are either cf3 95 making hard contact with the service wire, pushing on or creating tension enough to force the wire out of a natural arc, or redirecting the wire out of a straight line run, the contractor shall do whatever pruning is necessary to correct that situation. The entire service drop need not be pruned, only the point of conflict. For open wire services, pruning is required for all the situations noted as well as anytime vegetative growth is forcing the three wires out of their normal configuration. The contractor must take extra care when pruning around open wire services so not to cause a service interruption to the customers. Vines All woody vines which are growing up poles or guy wires shall be cut at the ground line and cleared for 3 feet up the pole or guy. Wood and Chip Disposal All slash along the roadway or near residences shall be disposed of by chipping or mowing/mulching. Where practical, chips may be blown back onto the site without creating large chip piles. On off-road, un-maintained sites, slash shall be mowed/mulched or neatly windrowed to the edge of the maintenance corridor and cut to lie close to the ground, away from sensitive locations. No debris shall be left anywhere that will potentially block access, significantly alter any drainage or water resource, or create any unsafe condition for the public. Large diameter wood may remain on site provided it is cut into manageable lengths and piled neatly. Smaller debris shall be raked up and removed so as to leave the property in a condition equal to the start of work. Stumps All stumps shall be cut as close to the ground as possible, and in no case shall they be cut higher than 3 inches unless used as supports for a fence. If certain trees serve as fence supports, they shall be cut no higher than 2 inches above the fence. All stumps shall be cut off parallel to the ground to avoid leaving sharp points on the stumps. 96 91 Department of Conservation and Recreation - Urban Forestry $ r Governor Lt. Governor EOEA Secretary Deval L. Patrick Timothv P. Murrav Richard K. Sullivan BMW Page 1 of 1 Management Forestry ( Service Forestry i Forest Health Marketing and Utilization Urban an d Community Forestry i Forest Legacy Program Contact Information Navigation The Massachusetts Urban and Community Forestry Program assists communities and nonprofit groups in protecting, growing, and managing community trees and forest ecosystems, with the ultimate aim of improving the environment and enhancing livability of all of Massachusetts' communities. We provide grants, technical assistance, training, and recognition awards to communities of all sizes throughout Massachusetts. - The program also provides guidance on urban forestry policy issues at the state level. s - T ~ What is Urban and Community Forestry? Urban and community forests are the trees, plants and associated ecosystems anywhere where people are - . Communitv Status Mao country roads in rural towns, new developments in the suburbs, or concrete neighborhoods in cities and old mill towns. Our landscape is a continuum from rural forest to city center. We live, work, play and learn all ® Citizen Forester Electronic along this continuum. Newsletter Urban and Community Forestry is Not Just about Trees. Trees and shrubs along streets, in parks, or in • Grant ODDortunlties cultivated landscapes are the most prominent features of the urban and community forest. But there's more to a forest than just the trees. The other plants, soils, air, and water that are part of the community make up an e On the Horizon: Calendar ecological system that supports wildlife, a.clean environment and a healthy home for humans. The Health of the Urban Forest Affects the Quality of Our Lives. Would you rather live on a street lined it Picks and Shovels: Resources. with beautiful trees, or one without green? The health of urban and community forest ecosystem affects the Fact Sheets. and FAOs quality of the water we drink, the air we breathe, the stability of our neighborhoods, and our sense of community and individual pride. e The Root of our Program: Community Forestry Builds Stronger Communities. The most important aspect of Urban and Community Partners and Links Forestry is "community." Planting trees, gardening, teaching young people about nature, creating a land use plan - these activities bring diverse members of our communities together, strengthen our bond to the landscape, and improve the quality of life for the benefit of the whole community. As our urban and it Branchino Out: Additional community forests grow, so too does our sense of pride, our local economy, and our quality of life. Proarams What Makes a Strono Urban and Comm unitv•Forestrv Proaram? ■ A Plan for Urban and Communitv Forestrv in /hat's New Massachusetts • 2011 Tree Citv USA • Urban and Communitv Forestrv Grants Available! ■ Statewide Minimum Utilitv • Massachusetts Tree Steward Trainina Tree Trimmina SDecifications • Communitv Tree Ordinances and Bvlaws for Massachusetts Communities for MGL Ch. 87 Section 14 Contact Us Please contact us with any questions or comments concerning Urban and Community Forestry in Massachusetts: Eric Seaborn, Acting Urban Forestry Coordinator 617-626-1468 Eric. Seaborn(d)state.ma.us DCR Home Paae I Privacv Policv I Massoarks I Forestrv Main Paae 98 httD://www.mass.aov/dcr/stewardshiD/forestrv/urban/ 2/8/2012