HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-09 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
OCTOBER 9, 2012
Geld�, Tafoya, Schubert, Arena, Bonazoli Hechenbleikner
5b) Move that the Board of Selectmen close the Warrant for the
November 6, 2012 Election.
5d) Move that the Board of Selectmen confirm the betterments for the
improvement of Edgemont Avenue and Stewart Road for granite
curbing at a total cost of $55,637.77 with the assessments
apportioned as follows among the benefitting property owners
and at the rate of interest on unpaid balances of 3.97% per
annum for a maximum term of up to 20 years:
TOTAL
ADDRESS
PLAT
LOT
OWNERS
ASSESSMENT
74 Edgemont Avenue
20
13
Ronald M. Ranere
$
4,613.96
Carolyn M. Ranere
66 Edgemont Avenue
20
12
Michael Cashins
$
3,771.87
Lisa Cashins
58 Edgemont Avenue
15
253
Kevin Douglas
$
3,743.48
Joanne M. Douglas
75 Edgemont Avenue
20
11
Michael J. Long
$
5,113.78
Elizabeth M. Long
69 Edgemont Avenue
20
10
Kenneth J. Lyons
$
3,181.07
Ashley B. Petrillo
63 Edgemont Avenue
20
9
Robert A. Nelson
$
3,066.37
Margaret M. Nelson
57 Edgemont Avenue
20
8
Michael P. Lenihan
$
2,916.85
Jennifer A. Lenihan
51 Edgemont Avenue
15
246
Robert W. Shirkoff
$
3,710.46
45 Edgemont Avenue
15
245
Louis J. Nunziato
$
3,075.60
Norma Nunziato
3 Stewart Road
15
249
Stephen G. Zerfas
$
8,080.19
Julie R. Zerfas
11 Stewart Road
15
250
Norbert A. Wels
$
3,837.19
Agnes R. Wels
19 Stewart Road
15
251
Robert Emmons
$
3,547.90
Ellen Emmons
25 Stewart Road
15
252
Paul D. Teague
$
3,620.96
Jeanne M. Teague
35 Stewart Road
14
58
Kenneth M. Lafferty
$
3,358.11
Tracey Lafferty
$ 55,637.77
5e) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the fence extension at
the Lacrosse field at Birch Meadow.
6a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of August
21, 2012 as amended.
6b) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of
September 11, 2012 as amended.
6c) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of
September 18, 2012 as amended.
Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn the meeting at p.m.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Administrative matters
♦ Volunteers still needed —for the Bylaw Committee; Conservation Commission, Finance
Committee (2); Trails Committee; Historical Commission, West Street Historic District
Commission; and Zoning Board of Appeals.
♦ Last Day to register to vote is October 17 (Wednesday), when the Town Clerk's office
will be open until 8 PM. Residents can apply now for an absentee ballot. Absentee
ballots are now available.
♦ 3rd Annual Operation Troop Support Gift Wrapping - The Reading Lions Club requests
your help at the 3rd Annual Operation Troop Support Gift Wrapping event on Saturday
October 20th from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon at the Reading Senior Center. Operation
Troop Support, an organization from Boston's north shore area, sends 30,000 holiday
presents to service men and women every December and they all need to be
wrapped! Operation Troop Support will supply the gifts and wrapping supplies all we
need is YOU! Please consider joining this community event sponsored by the
Reading Lions Club. For more information contact Lorraine Barry, Ijbarry @verizon.net.
Community Services
♦ October 11, 2 PM — Ribbon Cutting — Oaktree. Special guest will be Secretary of
Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki
♦ Veterans Day will be celebrated on Sunday November 11 at 11 am on the common. A
breakfast for veterans will be served at the Senior Center from 9:30 to 10:30.
Finance
♦ The Financial Forum is scheduled for tomorrow, October 10 at 7 PM at the Senior
Center
Library
♦ The Town has learned that the State grant for the Reading Public Library has been
approved, so the Town can now go forward and secure the local share of the
funding (Proposition 2 '/2 debt exclusion) and then proceed with construction.
Public Safety
Public Works
• Construction news from DPW:
• An overlay of West Street has been done, improving the wearing surface
where the water trench was dug several years ago
• Garret Road overlay has been completed
• Main Street between Washington and the RR tracks will be milled and
overlaid within the next couple of weeks — night time work
10/9/2012 1
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
• Irving and Boswell reconstruction will not be done this year — the preliminary
work of lowering structures will have to be reversed for the winter.
• Poets Corner sewer repair — Bids were opened last week, seven bids were
received ranging between $ 217,322.98 to $349,170.55. As soon as the low
bidder Joseph P. Cardillo & Sons Inc. furnishes his bonds and the contract is
executed the work will start, which should be within the next 2 weeks.
• The Howard Street temporary water service finally passed quality tests and
the contractor is back to work finishing up that project
• Curb and Sidewalk bids have been awarded. It is possible that Bancroft
Avenue and Highland Street curb and sidewalk work could be done this fall.
Dates
• October 17 — last day to register to vote
• November 6 — Election
• November 11 — Veterans Day
• November 13 (Tuesday) first night of Town Meeting
10/9/2012 2
��SOUacrs �G
r
5, 4C1111
Frederick A. Laslcey
Executive director
MASSAC HUSETTS WA'rER RESOURCE AUTHORITY
Charlestm,vn hlavy Yard
100 Fitst Aveiiue, Building 39
Boston, IvAA 02129
October 5, 2012
Jeffrey T. Zager, Director
Department of Public Works
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
RE: MWRA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Zager:
Telephone: (617) 242 -6000
Fax: (617) 788 -4899
TTY: (617) 788 -4971
This letter provides an update on MWRA's water financial assistance program that provides 10 -year interest -
free loans for member community water system projects. The Phase 1 - Local Pipeline Assistance Program
ends in FYI 3. The Phase 2 - Local Water System Assistance Program provides loans to member communities
from fiscal year 2011 through 2020. While the primary goal of this program is water pipeline rehabilitation,
more flexibility has been added in the type of water system projects that are eligible for loan funding. Details
on the water loan program, as well as Program Guidelines and Applications, are available on -line at the
Community Support Program web page: hitp://www.mwra.com/comsupport/communitysupportmain.hftnl.
supportmain.html.
Phase 1 - Local Pipeline Assistance Program (LPAP)
The Town of Reading has utilized all funds available for loan distribution under the LPAP.
Phase 2 - Local Water System Assistance Program (LWSAP)
For Reading, $1,366,000 is currently available for loan distribution under the LWSAP. The total remaining
allocation over the 10 -year program (FY11 -FY20) for Reading is $4,012,000. The Allocation and Funding
Utilization Table (green sheet) lists funds allocated and distributed to each community.
The Community Support Program liaison to Reading for the water system financial assistance program is
Kristen Hall - 617 - 788 -4831 or kisten.hall@mwra.state.ma.us. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call Kristen or myself at 617- 788 -4356.
Very truly yours,
Carl H. Leone T�
Senior Program Manager, MWRA Community Support Program v7
cc: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
George Zambouras, Town Engineer
Nancy Heffernan, Town Treasurer
WX
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper
MWRA LOCAL WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ALLOCATION AND FUND UTILIZATION BY COMMUNITY
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2012
Community
Community
Total
Allocation
Community
Annual
Allocation
Allocation
To Date
(Year 3)
Funds
Distributed
Thru Sep 12
Percent
Distributed
(Year 3)
Total
Remaining
Funds
Arlington
$6,225,000
$622,500
$1,867,500
0%
$6,225,000
Bedford *
$2,418,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
67%
$1,418,000
Belmont
$3,477,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
67%
$2,477,000
Boston
$38,754,000
$3,875,400
$11,626,200
$8,948,040
77%
$29,805,960
Brookline
$3,426,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$3,426,000
Canton *
$3,216,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$910,000
61%
$2,306,000
Chelsea
$3,814,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$3,814,000
Dedham/Westwood *
$503,000
$503,000
$503,000
$503,000
100%
$0
Everett
$4,672,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$500,000
33%
$4,172,000
Framingham
$7,357,000
$735,700
$2,207,100
0%
$7,357,000
Lexington
$3,024,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$3,024,000
Lynnfield Water Dist.
$1,396,000
$500,000
$1,396,000
0%
$1,396,000
Malden
$7,272,000
$727,200
$2,181,600
$1,454,000
67%
$5,818,000
Marblehead
$4,237,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$4,237,000
Marlborough *
$1,917,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$1,917,000
Medford
$6,959,000
$695,900
$2,087,700
0%
$6,959,000
Melrose
$3,988,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$3,988,000
Milton
$4,123,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$4,123,000
Nahant
$1,490,000
$500,000
$1,490,000
$884,000
59%
$606,000
Needham *
$794,000
$500,000
$794,000
0%
$794,000
Newton
$13,602,000
$1,360,200
$4,080,600
$2,720,400
67%
$10,881,600
Northborough *
$1,048,000
$500,000
$1,048,000
0%
$1,048,000
Norwood
$4,395,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
100%
$2,895,000
Peabody *
$1,089,000
$500,000
$1,089,000
0%
$1,089,000
Quincy
$10,505,000
$1,050,500
$3,151,500
$2,101,000
67%
$8,404,000
Reading
$4,146,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$134,000
9%
$4,012,000
Revere
$5,034,000
$503,400
$1,510,200
0%
$5,034,000
Saugus
$6,621,000
$662,100
$1,986,300
$1,880,000
95%
$4,741,000
Somerville
$7,419,000
$741,900
$2,225,700
0%
$7,419,000
Southborough
$1,512,000
$500,000
$1,512,000
0%
$1,512,000
Stoneham
$2,339,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
67%
$1,339,000
Stoughton*
$2,506,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$2,506,000
Swampscott
$3,755,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$249,468
17%
$3,505,532
Wakefield *
$2,325,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,400,000
93%
$925,000
Waltham
$10,293,000
$1,029,300
$3,087,900
0%
$10,293,000
Watertown
$2,978,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$2,978,000
Wellesley *
$2,350,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$241,569
16%
$2,108,431
Weston
$1,625,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$1,625,000
Wilmington *
$611,000
$500,000
$611,000
0%
$611,000
Winchester *
$882,000
$500,000
$882,000
0%
$882,000
Winthrop
$3,312,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
0%
$3,312,000
Woburn *
$2,591,000
$500,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
67%
$1,591,000
Chicopee
$7,153,000
$715,300
$2,145,900
$2,085,000
97%
$5,068,000
South Hadley F.D.1
$1,538,000
$500,000
$1,538,000
0%
$1,538,000
Wilbraham
$1,309,000
$500,000
$1,309,000
0%
$1,309,000
TOTAL $210,000,000
1
1
1 $29,510,477
$180,489,523
* Partially Served Communities
$60,900
$1,538,000
$1,309,000
$53,819,723
PHOTOGRAPHER
PO Box 11, Winchester, MA 01890 -0011
October 3, 2012
To; Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager, Reading, Mass. 01867
Dear Sir:
In response to your letter of September 26th, please be advised that the Daily
Times Chronicle Publisher, Mr. Peter Haggerty has requested the Counsel for the
Massachusetts Publisher's Association to review the Law on News Coverage of
Elections. For your edification I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Ambrogi's
Memorandum on same. Please note that the Memorandum states that
Massachusetts has no statute expressly limiting reporting or photography by the
News Media of an Election and that any such regulation would most likely violate
both State Law and the United States Constitution.
Why you are directing the Reading Town Clerk to establish any regulations that
would contradict the Freedom of the Press and therefore be unconstitutional is
rather difficult for me to understand. The problem with the Reading Town Clerk
forbidding any photography "anywhere within the RMHS Fieldhouse" has been
occurring for at least two years since I first brought it to your attention. To use
your own expression, why not have the Town of Reading obey the Law and stop
the harassment of the News Media. Be reminded that I was not only ordered not
to photograph anything regarding the Primary Election on September 6th, but I
was also ejected by force from the RMHS Fieldhouse by two Superior Officers of
!107
the Reading Police Department. In my many years of working as a News
Photographer I find the action of Reading Officials and to be truthful, your
response, to be totally unacceptable. I also cannot comprehend why Town
Officials would spend so much time and effort in attempting to limit the News
Media of their responsibility to inform the Public.
Sincerely,
William T. Ryerson
cc: Reading Board of Selectmen
Reading Police Chief, John Cormier
Reading Chronicle Newspaper and Publisher
0
MEMORANDUM
To: Peter Haggerty
From: Bob Ambrogi
Re: Reporting and Photography at Polling Places in Mass.
Massachusetts has no statute or regulation expressly limiting reporting or photography by the news
media at or within polling places. Although there is no Massachusetts case law on point, precedent from
other jurisdictions suggests that any unreasonable restrictions on reporting and photography would be
deemed unconstitutional.
Massachusetts Law
Under Massachusetts law, the primary limitation on non -voter activity at polling places is defined by
M.G.L. c. 54, s. 65, which prohibits. certain activity from taking place inside a polling place or within 150
feet of the entrance door. Nothing in this statute expressly applies to reporting. Rather, the statute
prohibits the distribution or posting of materials "intended to influence the action of the voter." It also
prohibits the collection of "signatures upon petitions, referendum petitions or nomination papers"
within 150 feet.
State law also prohibits anyone from interfering with a voter's exercise of voting. M.G.L. c. 56, Section
29, provides:
Whoever wilfully and without lawful authority hinders, delays or interferes with, or aids in
hindering, delaying or interfering with, a voter while on his way to a primary, caucus or election,
while within the guard rail, while marking his ballot or while voting or attempting to vote, or
endeavors to induce a voter, before depositing his ballot, to disclose how he marks or has
marked it, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment
for not more than one year.
This law would apply to reporters and photographers insofar as it would prohibit them from doing
anything that would disrupt the voting process or interfere with voters.
Each polling place is to have a presiding officer. Under M.G.L. c. 54, Section 71, that officer has the
authority:
to maintain order and to enforce obedience to his lawful commands, in and about the polling
place and to keep the access thereto open and unobstructed, and he may require any police
officer, constable or other person to communicate his orders and directions and assist in their
enforcement.
Reporters and photographers should comply with reasonable requests from the presiding officer.
Inside the Polling Place
The only Massachusetts statute that could be construed to limit photography inside a polling place is
M.G.L. c. 56, Section 25, which provides in part:
Whoever ... allows the marking of his ballot to be seen by any person for any purpose not
authorized by law shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars.
Although this is directed at the person marking the ballot, photographers should not take shots of
marked ballots.
Another Massachusetts statute, M.G.L. c. 54, Section 69, prohibits anyone other than voters and
election officials from entering within the "guard rail" inside the polling place. M.G.L. c. 54, Section 25,
defines the guard rail as "so placed that only persons inside thereof can approach within six feet of the
ballot boxes or of the marking shelves or compartments, or of the voting machines if any are used."
Case Law on Access to Polling Places
From what I have found, there are no reported Massachusetts court decisions involving media access to
polling places. Decisions from other jurisdictions affirm the principle that the news media has a First
Amendment right to report at polling places.
For example, in Beacon Journal Publishing Company Inc. v. Blackwell, 389 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2004), a
newspaper sought an injunction against a directive from the Ohio secretary of state prohibiting any non-
voter, including reporters and photographers, from being near or within polling places. Concluding that
the restriction would abridge the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press, the court order
the state to allow the press reasonable access to any polling place, provided there is no interference
with poll workers or with voters' exercise of their right to vote.
in another key case, Daily Herald Co. v. Munro, 838 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1988), news organizations
challenged a Washington state statute that prohibited exit polling within 300 feet of a polling place. The
9th Circuit concluded that the statute is "unconstitutional on its face."
The statute regulates speech on the basis of content in a traditional public forum. It is not
narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest, whether that interest is keeping
peace, order, and decorum at the polls, or insulating voters from the influence of early election
return projections, and it is not the least restrictive means available.
These and other cases affirm that a polling place is a public forum and that the news media have a right
to report on what takes place there.
Conclusions
Given the absence of statutory restrictions and the application of broad First Amendment protections,
the following conclusions apply to reporting and photography at polling places in Massachusetts:
Outside polling places, the news media may engage in reporting, exit - polling and photography, providing
they do not obstruct or disrupt voters or the voting process.
Inside polling places, nothing in state law prohibits the news media from engaging in reporting and
photography, providing they do not obstruct or disrupt voters or the voting process. That said, I could
not find any cases from Massachusetts or elsewhere that expressly addressed reporting inside the
polling place. In Pennsylvania, there is currently a court case challenging a state law there that prohibits
photography inside polling places.
Given that Mass. has no express prohibition in its statutes against photography inside polling places, the
fair conclusion is that it is allowed. The only restrictions are that photographers should not shoot
marked ballots or enter beyond the perimeter of the guard rail surrounding voting booths and ballot
boxes.
l�
Memo
To: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
From: George J. Zambouras, Town Engineer
Date: October 4, 2012
Re: Edgemont Ave. and Stewart Rd. — Granite Curb Assessments
Attached please find the revised betterment assessments for the granite curbing improvements
completed along Edgemont Avenue and Stewart Road. The total cost for all improvements is
$55,637.77 and the amount to be assessed to each of the abutting property owners, based on work
performed within the limits of their frontage is identified on the attached sheet.
In establishing the revised betterment assessments, all improvement work was re- measured in the field
to insure the limits of work being assessed to each property owner is only for work which occurred
within the limits of the extension of their property lines. This was accomplished by field locating the
property comers of each property during the re- measurement of quantities.
As a result of the verification of work in relation to property lines, there were slight adjustments in the
quantities of curbing and loam /seed allocated to each assessment. It was also discovered the
quantities of new curbing and re-set curbing were reversed in the original assessment for the property
of 3 Stewart Ave.
Also attached is a complete breakdown of assessed quantities allocated to each property, a copy of the
letter and quantity break down which was sent to each property owner, and copy of the letter sent to
owner of 3 Stewart explaining error in their original betterment assessment.
• Page 1
i7— Shc
EDGEMONT AVENUE STEWART ROAD
CURB BETTERMENT - FINAL ASSESSMENT (10 -9 -2012)
TOTAL
ADDRESS PLAT LOT OWNERS ASSESSMENT
74 Edgemont Avenue 20 13 Ronald M. Ranere $ 4,613.96
Carolyn M. Ranere
66 Edgemont Avenue 20 12 Michael Cashins $ 3,771.87
Lisa Cashins
58 Edgemont Avenue 15 253 Kevin Douglas $ 3,743.48
Joanne M. Douglas
75 Edgemont Avenue 20 11 Michael J. Long $ 5,113.78
Elizabeth M. Long
69 Edgemont Avenue 20 10 Kenneth J. Lyons $ 3,181.07
Ashley B. Petrillo
63 Edgemont Avenue 20 9 Robert A. Nelson $ 3,066.37
Margaret M. Nelson
57 Edgemont Avenue 20 8 Michael P. Lenihan $ 2,916.85
Jennifer A. Lenihan
51 Edgemont Avenue 15 246 Robert W. Shirkoff $ 3,710.46
Pamela A. Shirkoff
45 Edgemont Avenue 15 245 Louis J. Nunziato $ 3,075.60
Norma Nunziato
3 Stewart Road 15 249 Stephen G. Zerfas $ 8,080.19
Julie R. Zerfas
11 Stewart Road 15 250 Norbert A. Wels $ 3,837.19
Agnes R. Wels
19 Stewart Road 15 251 Robert Emmons $ 3,547.90
Ellen Emmons
25 Stewart Road 15 252 Paul D. Teague $ 3,620.96
Jeanne M.Teague
35 Stewart Road 14 58 Kenneth M. Lafferty $ 3,358.11
Tracey Lafferty
Page 1 of 1 $ 55,637.77
w
74 Edgemont Ave.
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Remove and reset granite curb
Remove and reset granite curb inlet
Paving for driveway apron
Adjust Structures
Loam and seed
66 Edgemont Ave.
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Remove and reset granite curb inlet
Paving for driveway apron
Adjust Structures
Additional Roadway Paving by Curb
Loam and seed
�J W
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
104
LF
$
30.00
$
3,120.00
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
22.5
LF
$
16.00
$
360.00
1
LF
$
96.00
$
96.00
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
2
EA
$
25.00
$
50.00
76.4
SY
$
9.00
$
687.96
Total: $ 4,613.96
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
90
LF
$
30.00
$
2,700.00
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
1
LF
$
96.00
$
96.00
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
1
EA
$
25.00
$
25.00
4
SY
$
35.00
$
140.00
56.8
SY
$
9.00
$
510.87
Total: $ 3,771.87
Page 1 of 7
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
58 Edgemont Ave.
Total: $ 3,743.48
75 Edgemont Ave.
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
98
LF
$
30.00
$
2,940.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
55.9
SY
$
9.00
$
503.48
Total: $ 3,743.48
75 Edgemont Ave.
Total: $ 5,113.78
v\
Page 2 of 7
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Remove and reset granite curb
39
LF
$
16.00
$
624.00
Granite curb - Straight
109
LF
$
30.00
$
3,270.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Remove and reset granite curb inlet
1
LF
$
96.00
$
96.00
Loam and seed
91.5
SY
$
9.00
$
823.78
Total: $ 5,113.78
v\
Page 2 of 7
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
69 Edgemont Ave.
Total: $ 3,181.07
63 Edgemont Ave.
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
82
LF
$
30.00
$
2,460.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
46.8
SY
$
9.00
$
421.07
Total: $ 3,181.07
63 Edgemont Ave.
R�-
Total: $ 3,066.37
Page 3 of 7
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
79
LF
$
30.00
$
2,370.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
44.0
SY
$
9.00
$
396.37
R�-
Total: $ 3,066.37
Page 3 of 7
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
57 Edgemont Ave.
Total: $ 2,916.85
51 Edgemont Ave.
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
74
LF
$
30.00
$
2,220.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
44.1
SY
$
9.00
$
396.85
Total: $ 2,916.85
51 Edgemont Ave.
Total: $ 3,710.46
6'
Page 4 of 7
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
89
LF
$
30.00
$
.2,670.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Excavate Paved Tree Lawn Area
10.33
SY
$
27.00
$
278.91
Loam and seed
51.3
SY
$
9.00
$
461.55
Total: $ 3,710.46
6'
Page 4 of 7
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
45 Edgemont Ave.
3 Stewart Road
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Remove and reset granite curb
Paving for driveway apron
Loam and seed
J
Total: $ 3,075.60
Billed
Billed
Actual
Actual
Units
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
168.49
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
78
LF
$
30.00
$
2,340.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
48.4
SY
$
9.00
$
435.60
3 Stewart Road
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Remove and reset granite curb
Paving for driveway apron
Loam and seed
J
Total: $ 3,075.60
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
168.49
LF
$
30.00
$
5,054.70
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
88.48
LF
$
16.00
$
1,415.68
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
145.5
SY
$
9.00
$
1,309.81
Total: $ 8,080.19
Page 5 of 7
11 Stewart Road
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Paving for driveway apron
Loam and seed
19 Stewart Road
Granite curb - Straight
Granite curb corner
Remove and reset granite curb inlet
Adjust Structures
Paving for driveway apron
Loam and seed
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
100
LF
$
30.00
$
3,000.00
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
59.7
SY
$
9.00
$
537.19
Total: $ 3,837.19
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
88
LF
$
30.00
$
2,640.00
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
1
EA
$
96.00
$
96.00
1
EA
$
25.00
$
25.00
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
54.1
SY
$
9.00
$
486.90
Total: $ 3,547.90
Page 6 of 7
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
25 Stewart Road
Total: $ 3,620.96
35 Stewart Road
Billed Actual
95 Quantity Units Unit Price Cost
Granite curb - Straight 70 LF $ 30.00 $ 2,100.00
Granite curb inlet 1 EA $ 275.00 $ 275.00
Granite curb corner 2 EA $ 150.00 $ 300.00
Remove and reset granite curb 10.6 LF $ 16.00 $ 169.60
Paving for driveway apron 0 SY $ 35.00 $ -
Adjust Structures 1 EA $ 25.00 $ 25.00
Loam and seed 54.3 SY • $ 9.00 $ 488.51
(^ Total : $ 3,358.11
$ 55,637.77
Page 7 of 7
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
94
LF
$
30.00
$
2,820.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
55.7
SY
$
9.00
$
500.96
Total: $ 3,620.96
35 Stewart Road
Billed Actual
95 Quantity Units Unit Price Cost
Granite curb - Straight 70 LF $ 30.00 $ 2,100.00
Granite curb inlet 1 EA $ 275.00 $ 275.00
Granite curb corner 2 EA $ 150.00 $ 300.00
Remove and reset granite curb 10.6 LF $ 16.00 $ 169.60
Paving for driveway apron 0 SY $ 35.00 $ -
Adjust Structures 1 EA $ 25.00 $ 25.00
Loam and seed 54.3 SY • $ 9.00 $ 488.51
(^ Total : $ 3,358.11
$ 55,637.77
Page 7 of 7
OF
r, Town of Reading
H
e 16 Lowell Street
w Reading, MA 41867 -2683
�o a
,s39r'NCORp�4r� -
Fax: (781) 942 -5441
Website: www.ci.readling.ma.us
RANERE RONALD M
RANERE CAROLYN M
74 EDGEMONT AVENUE
READING, MA 01867
October 3, 2012
PUBLIC WORKS
(781) 942 -9077
Enclosed please find the itemized breakdown for the curbing betterment in front of your property. All
improvements were re- measured to insure the quantities billed accurately reflect the quantities within
the limits of the extension of your property line. The minor changes from the previous betterment
charges are a result of both property line and field measurement verification.
Sincere ,
v
6leo e . Z b uras, P.E.
Engi e
0
Sd�6
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9/25/12
74 Edgemont Ave.
Total: . $ 4,613.96
z
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units.
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
104
LF
$
30.00
$
3,120.00
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Remove and reset granite curb
22.5
LF
$
16.00
$
360.00
Remove and reset granite curb inlet
1
LF
$
96.00
$
96.00
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Adjust Structures
2
EA
$
25.00
$
50.00
Loam and seed
76.44
SY
$
9.00
$
687.96
Total: . $ 4,613.96
z
OFF?Fgb�ti
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
�A w° Reading, MA 01867 -2683
ls3a, INCORQ*
Fax., (781) 942 -5441
Website; www.cLreading.ma.us
ZERFAS STEPHEN G
JULIE R ZERFAS
3 STEWART RD
READING, MA 01867
October 3, 2012
PUBLIC WORKS
(781) 942 -9077
Enclosed please find the itemized breakdown for the curbing betterment in front of your property. All
improvements were re- measured to insure the quantities billed accurately reflect the quantities within
the limits of the extension of your property line. in re- measuring the improvements made in front of
your property, it was discovered that in the original betterment cost you received, the quantities for
new curb supplied and installed by the contractor and the quantities for existing curb supplied by the
Town, were inadvertently transposed, resulting in an incorrect betterment charge. The new betterment
cost enclosed represents the corrected quantities to be billed based on the verification of the
measurements and the correction of the transposed items. We apologize for the error.
9 5jp--'
Stewart Rd. / Edgemont Ave.
Curb Betterment
Re- Measured Quantities 9125112
3 Stewart Road
Total: $ 8,080.19
Billed
Actual
Quantity
Units
Unit Price
Cost
Granite curb - Straight
168.49
LF
$
30.00
$
5,054.70
Granite curb corner
2
EA
$
150.00
$
300.00
Remove and reset granite curb
88.48
LF
$
16.00
$
1,415.68
Paving for driveway apron
0
SY
$
35.00
$
-
Loam and seed
145.53
SY
$
9.00
$
1,309.81
Total: $ 8,080.19
TO: Board of Selectmen
From: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager FIT
Date: Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Re: Water Improvements
The Board of Selectmen will hear a presentation on a new master plan of the Town's water
distribution system. As follow -up there are several items that I would suggest:
1. The distribution plan indicates that once the second access point to Reading's water system is
constructed by the MWRA, there will be no need for the Bear Hill Water tank. I would suggest
that the Board of Selectmen authorize the Town Manager to begin negotiation with the
MWRA to convey that site to the MWRA for them to demolish the Bear Hill water tank and
build an MWRA storage facility at the site. Negotiation would be subject to a public process,
Town Meeting action, and Board of Selectmen approval.
2. The master plan proposed significant capital investment. As part of the FY 2014 Budget and
Capital Improvement Plan, staff will put together a plan to finance the highest priority elements
of the master plan — basically the relining of pipe, abandonment of pipe, and replacement of
pipe in various section of Main Street.
3. 1 would recommend that the Board of Selectmen authorize the Town Manager to work with
the MWRA on assuring the maintenance of an adequate supply of chloramine treated water
into the community so that concerns about nitrification are addressed. This can perhaps be
accomplished by adding treatment at the Gillis pump station in Stoneham.
4. North Reading has expressed interest in purchasing water from the MWRA through Reading,
as a supplemental or primary source. As long as this can be done without harm to Reading's
water supply, the Town Manager should be authorized to continue those discussions and
evaluation. This would be subject to Board of Selectmen approval.
a Pnno 1
Scope of Services
Recruitment for the Town Manager
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
October 3, 2012
lop
3ifa s9:Ji :f i 3iz7
EDWARD J. COLLINS, JR. CENTER FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT i ., l,t
UM ASS -�7 z },u�'r,.. rf ;iM: r[_f)i.A, 51
BOSTON
October 3, 2012
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Reading, MA 01887 via email
Dear Members of the Board,
The Edward J. Collins, Jr. Center for Public Management is pleased to provide this proposal
detailing its proven approach and experience in recruiting municipal leaders for organizations in
transition. The Center has a great deal of sensitivity to the pressures of such transitions, and
how they can impact public organizations and the communities and constituencies they serve.
The Collins Center was established in July 2008 at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy
and Global Studies to further the public service mission of the University of Massachusetts
Boston. The Center is a vehicle to provide assistance to municipalities and state agencies to
help improve public management. As part of the Center's work it has established an executive
recruitment practice in the belief that helping public organizations select the best leaders will
result in increased organizational effectiveness.
I will provide overall engagement oversight. Dick Kobayashi, formerly President of Bennett
Yarger Associates, leads the Collins Center's recruiting practice. Mr. Kobayashi worked with
Bennett Yarger, a national recruitment firm based in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for over a
decade. The Collins Center has also retained Mary Flanders Aicardi, an experienced
Massachusetts municipal human resources specialist as an integral member of its recruitment
team.
This Recruitment Team has recently carried out successful recruitments in Massachusetts for
Belmont, Hanover, Orange, Framingham, Lawrence, Burlington, Chatham, Worcester,
Winthrop, Princeton, Seekonk, Springfield and Plymouth. Other successful recruitments include
the Chief of Police for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the Town Manager for
Derry, New Hampshire and the Town Manager of East Hampton, Connecticut. Mr. Kobayashi
has lead searches for positions as varied as cabinet officers for the District of Columbia and the
executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the largest regional planning
agency in New England. Mr. Kobayashi also led the search for Springfield's first Chief
Administrative and Financial Officer. This position was created by state law as a condition for
terminating the State Financial Control Board that controlled the City's finances for five years.
1
0
Attached is a comprehensive proposal to provide recruitment services for Reading's Town
Manager. A careful definition of the challenges that the Town will face and the organizational
environment that the new Town Manager will engage and manage is a key component of the
recruitment process. To be successful the Town needs to be clear about these matters and the
recruitment team needs to fully understand them in order to attract the best candidates.
Typically a considerable amount of effort is invested in gaining a thorough understanding of the
client system before the Center engages in the actual recruitment of candidates.
All of the Center staff has substantial knowledge of local and state government in
Massachusetts. The Center staff does not merely collect resumes; rather they learn the client's
organization from the inside out and help the client identify the key characteristics that will
lead a new incumbent to a successful tenure.
We understand that the manner in which this search is carried out as well as the outcome will
serve as a signal to Reading residents of the Town's open and transparent approach to
governance.
We want to advise the Town that transactions with the Commonwealth, including the
University, are exempt from the provisions of Chapter 308, the Uniform Municipal Procurement
Act (Section 1 (b)(4)).
Sincerely,
Stephen McGoldrick
Interim Director
2 (9
How the Collins Center Will Assist Reading Recruit a Town Manager
The Collins Center works with public organizations to understand the most critical issues they
are facing, as well as the culture and the leadership styles that would be best suited to move
them forward. Only after gaining an understanding of the client's critical needs does the Center
proceed to recruit quality candidates for the position.
In implementing this approach, the Center will:
• Carefully consider Reading's legal structure, which sets the parameters for the
Town Manager's powers and duties.
• Carefully consider the challenges a new Town Manager will face, particularly in
the context of following a long -term professional Manager.
• Develop a Profile of the community and the Town Manager position with
particular attention to identifying Reading's priority issues. The Profile will
specify the professional and personal qualities needed to succeed as Town
Manager. It is important that the Profile represent the views of key Town
officials, not the recruitment team. Accordingly, extensive interviews will be
conducted with Reading's key officials and other stakeholders during the
preparation of the Profile. The recruitment team will not proceed to seek
candidates until the Town approves the Profile.
• Confirm and refine the schedule for this project to meet Reading's specific
requirements. Most recruitments take approximately 120 days from the date the
engagement is authorized.
• Build a competitive pool of candidates utilizing the Center's extensive network as
well as traditional advertising; and
• Support the Town's evaluation of candidates. The recruitment team will help
plan the interview process and help the Town close the deal, if requested.
3
149
Project Approach
The following information is provided to illustrate the Center's approach to executive
recruitment and what it believes are successful outcomes of each stage of a search. The Center
believes that a significant risk in selection is choosing the best person from a mediocre pool of
candidates. The Center's principal effort is directed at giving its clients a pool of well - qualified
candidates, thereby reducing this risk.
Task One: Understanding Reading and Preparing a Profile
The recruitment team begins the search with a simple question. What criteria would the
organization use to determine that the appointment was successful?
The recruitment team needs to learn how the organization works from the inside out. It wants
to see the organization from the viewpoint of major stakeholders, and it wants to understand
and document the major challenges facing the organization. It can then determine what type of
experience, technical skills, and personal style candidates will need to be effective in the
position. Major stakeholders will be asked their views on the characteristics required for a new
Town Manager to be successful.
A common statement is that when organizations chose a leader they chose a path. The
recruitment team needs to understand the path Reading desires to follow in order to identify
and recruit a pool of candidates that can meet Reading's needs.
Outcome: A Profile Statement will be prepared for the Town's approval. Once approved, the
recruitment will commence using the Profile Statement as a marketing tool for the Town
Manager position.
Task Two: Networking, Screening, and Presentation of Paper Candidates
Standard advertising will be prepared and placed in various venues. At the same time, the
recruitment team also engages in extensive network recruitment activities using electronic
means and personal contacts. Often the best person for a job is not looking for a job, so
networking is a critical part of the process. To attract candidates, the unique challenges of the
employment opportunity will be stressed. Work is conducted to find candidates that have
faced challenges that are of similar magnitude and importance to those faced by Reading. At
the conclusion of networking, the applications from a pool of prospective candidates who best
meet the Profile will be presented to the Screening Committee.
The recruitment team will review the applications of recommended paper candidates with the
Screening Committee to help it reach a decision on which candidates should be invited for first
round interviews. Typically the Collins Center presents six to twelve candidates to the
Screening Committee based on the team's professional judgment of the "fit" between
30
candidates and the requirements specified in the Profile.
Assumption: The Center's primary contact will be with a Screening Committee.
Outcome: Candidates to be invited for a preliminary interview will be identified. (Note: The
Collins Center Scope terminates when Task Two is complete unless the Town authorizes Tasks
Three and Four.)
Task Three: Interviewing and Reference Checking
After candidates are selected for an interview, the recruitment team will conduct more
intensive telephone interviews, solicit and document references, and reconfirm candidates'
interest. Personal interviews and reference checks are extremely thorough. The recruitment
team will speak with employers, professional peers, and subordinates, systematically posing the
same questions to references for each candidate. At the Town's request the Center will arrange
for credit, criminal history, and verification of educational credentials for the finalists. At the
conclusion of Task Three, the Screening Committee will make recommendations of finalists for
consideration by the Board of Selectmen.
Outcome: Presentation of qualified well- vetted candidates to the Board of
Selectmen
Task Four: Selection
The recruitment team will help the Town plan its interview process by providing written and
oral guidance. The Center recommends that all candidates be interviewed on the same day or
weekend to facilitate a fair comparison. The recruitment team can help structure the
discussion, suggest questions, and offer a format for comparison.
Negotiating the conditions of employment is the sole responsibility of the Town, but the
recruitment team will work to clarify issues, establish a framework, and facilitate
communication. At the end of the search, all finalists will be notified of the result by Center
staff.
Outcome: A selection for Town Manager that meets the standards defined in
the Profile.
5
0
Timetable
The following table illustrates the typical sequence of a recruitment of a municipal or public
sector professional.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Task 1: Profile
X
Task 2: Networking/
Paper Candidates
X
Task 3: Interviews
and References
X
Task 4: Selection
X
In the Center's experience, in a well- organized and structured recruitment process there are
typically two main points of intensive interaction with the client. Specifically, during Tasks One
(Profile Development) and during Task Three (Interviewing and reference checking).
The Center will begin the recruitment within 10 days of receiving a signed agreement. The
generic schedule above is dependent on personal schedules with most delays caused by
holidays, vacations, and professional schedules. The Center will develop a specific schedule for
Reading at the commencement of the engagement.
Professional Fees, Expenses and Payment Schedule
The fee for carrying out Tasks One and Two is $7,000. If the Town wants the Center staff to
carry out Tasks Three and Four, the fee will be an additional $7,000.
Additionally, the Town will be responsible for candidates' expenses, advertising, and
background checks requested by the Town. The Center will arrange to have these expenses
submitted to the Town.
Payment: $3,500 is payable when the agreement is executed, and $3,500 is payable when Task
Two is complete. The Center will bill $7,000 for Tasks Three and Four when the engagement is
complete (if the Town requests the Center to perform these tasks).
6 O 3v
Qualifications of Assigned Associates
Richard Kobayashi has over twenty -five years of public management experience including
service as the leader of a development agency in Massachusetts, planning and development
director for an economically distressed Massachusetts city, chief planner for a major
water /wastewater utility and as chief aide to the Mayor of a densely populated urban city. He
has also served as an elected official in his hometown of Belmont, Massachusetts. He worked
with Bennett Yarger Associates, a nation recruitment firm, for a decade and served as its
President in 2007 -2008. Mr. Kobayashi holds a Masters degree in Public Administration and was
a Loeb Fellow at Harvard University. Mr. Kobayashi will serve as the Project Manager for this
recruitment.
Mary Flanders Aicardi has twenty years of municipal human resource experience. She has
served as human resources director for Watertown, human resources consultant to Braintree
during its transition from a town meeting to city form of government, and is an independent
human resources and labor relations consultant. Ms. Aicardi holds undergraduate and graduate
degrees from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She currently serves as a member of
the Commonwealth's Joint Labor Management Committee.
0
The following pages have been added to the minutes of the Board of Selectmen
meeting held on September 11, 2012 in order to more fully and accurately capture
the record of what has been stated by Selectman Schubert.
Date: Board of Selectmen Meeting on August 7, 2012
Agenda Item: Reviewed Town Manager's draft amendments to Demolition
Delay Bylaw
The first draft of amendments to the Demolition Delay Bylaw was presented to the BOS
for the board's review and input. NOTE: This draft was a product of the Town
Manager's work; the Demolition Delay Bylaw Working Group took no formal action
relating to the language of the draft. Selectman Schubert submitted his comments at the
meeting (see subsequent 2 pages for full list of comments); in particular, see comments
relating to Section 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay.
The following is from the Town Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on
August 7:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a
demolition delay may appeal from the imposition of the delay, and /or
conditions of the imposition of the delay, by filing with both the Chairman
of the Historical Commission and the Board of Selectmen a written notice
of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision of the
Commission to impose the Demolition Delay.
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 and the owner or the owner's Legal Representative
for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The appeal shall review the
record of the proceedings before the Commission and input provided by
the owner and Commission representatives. Notice of the hearing shall be
given to the parties and to abutters within 300 feet of the property. Within
fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of
Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal.
The following are a subset of Selectman Schubert's comments regarding the Town
Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on August 7:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay
a. Clarify how this Appeal can impact (or not) the 6 month time frame; does this
take away from the time frame intended for the property owner and RHC to work
together?
b. Clarify role of RHC; to offer record of hearing and opinion only?
c. Clarify vote of BOS; simple majority?
d. Clarify the grounds (basis for decision) by which the BOS can overturn the vote
of the RHC. Without a proper framework, this "Appeal" could:
a. be capricious and random, and /or
b. essentially nullify the by -law.
c. (For comparison, the ZBA has explicit grounds under which they will
grant a variance.)
Selectman Schubert indicated that the intent of the above comments was to point out lack
of clarity without offering specific language or direction.
Date: Board of Selectmen Meeting on September 11, 2012
Agenda Item: Public Hearing on New Demolition Delay Bylaw
A second draft of the Town Manager's amendments to the Demolition Delay Bylaw was
presented by the Town Manager during the public hearing. This revision incorporated
comments from various contributors, and most revisions were attributed to the individual
who submitted a relevant comment.
The following is from the Town Manager's second draft presented at the BOS Public
Hearing held on September 11 with revisions in bold and /or strike - though:
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the imposition of Demolition Delay
The owner of a structure for which the Commission has imposed a
demolition delay may appeal from the imposition of the delay, and/or
conditions of the imposition of the delay, by filing with both
Chair-man of the Histo -ieal Commission and the Board of Selectmen a
written notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days of the date of the
decision of the Commission to impose the Demolition Delay. Filing of an
appeal will not extend the delay of up to 6 months imposed under
section 7.2.6.1 of this bylaw.
Within twenty -one (21) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the Board
of Selectman shall convene an appeal hearing. Notice of the hearing
whieh shall in elude the be sent to the Chairman of the Historical
01
Commission and to the owner or the owner's Legal Representative, for the
purpose of adjudicating the appeal. The Board of Selectmen at the
hearing appeal shall review the record of the proceedings before the
Commission and input provided by the owner and by Commission
representatives.
Notice of the hearing shall be given to the parties owner, to the
Commission, and to abutters within 300 feet of the property.
Within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board of
Selectmen will render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be
based on the record of the Commission's hearing at which the
Demolitions Delay was imposed; information provided by the owner
or the Commission at the Board of Selectmen hearing; consideration
of the purpose of the bylaw as stated in section 7.2.1; how the
structure meets the criteria established in 7.2.3.1.; the uniqueness of
the structure; quality of the materials remaining on the - outside of the
structure; and financial or other hardship that might be created to the
owner
With respect to the second draft of Section 7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the
Demolition Delay, the new language was attributed to Selectman Schubert — but only
because his August 7 comments questioned the clarity of the language in the first draft,
prompting the Town Manager to revise the wording. During the hearing, Selectman
Schubert pointed out that the new language was not authored by him and offered no
support for the revised wording.
3�
The following 2 pages are Selectman Schubert's full list of comments regarding the
Town Manager's first draft presented at the BOS Meeting on August 7:
Historic Demo Delay Draft
August 7, 2012
RS comments
General questions about process:
a. What is the process and timeline from now until Subsequent Town Meeting?
b. Review /update of language; input from BOS, Town Council, RHC, others?
c. Public hearing; BOS and /or RHC?
7.2.1 Purpose
a. Replace: "intent" with "purpose" (The intent purpose of this bylaw... )
b. Replace: "is not to permanently prevent demolition" with "even if it ultimately
cannot prevent demolition, is to find a reasonable option to prevent complete
demolition" (something along those lines)
7.2.2.7 Premises
a. Is "Significant Structure" the correct wording? Should it be replaced with
"Historic Structure that appears on the List as defined in 7.2.2.6"
7.2.3 Commission to Establish a List of Historic Structures
a. This list shall be made up of:
Add: 3rd bullet to include structures that were added in 2010
7.2.3.2 Owner's Appeal
a. Delete reference to "on the inside" (not within jurisdiction of RHC)
7.2.6 Determination of whether the Demolition Delay is imposed
a. The word "detrimental" (in the first sentence) should have some definition or at
least a reference back to the first paragraph of 7.2.1 Purpose; otherwise, the
interpretation could be too broad.
7.2.6.1 Demolition Delay Imposed
a. Add language that allows for a "partial save" as an option. It's not always "all or
nothing" from the RHC's perspective.
3�
b. Tweak wording... should it include responsibilities of property owner?
7.2.6.3 Release of Delay
a. Same as above: Add language that allows for a "partial save" as an option. It's
not always "all or nothing" from the RHC's perspective.
b. Replace "and" with "or" in 2nd bullet ( "rehabilitate or restore" instead of
"rehabilitate and restore ")
7.2.6.4 Appeal of the Imposition of the Demolition Delay
e. Clarify how this Appeal can impact (or not) the 6 month time frame; does this
take away from the time frame intended for the property owner and RHC to work
together?
f. Clarify role of RHC; to offer record of hearing and opinion only?
g. Clarify vote of BOS; simple majority?
h. Clarify the grounds (basis for decision) by which the BOS can overturn the vote
of the RHC. Without a proper framework, this "Appeal" could:
a. be capricious and random, and /or
b. essentially nullify the by -law.
c. (For comparison, the ZBA has explicit grounds under which they will
grant a variance.)
End of added pages.
0