Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-24 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting Minutes26 ADJOURNED ANNUAL TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School April 24, 1986 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Stephen J. O'Leary, at 7:50 P.M., there being a quorum present. The Invocation was given by the Rev. E. Lewis MacLean of the Church of the Nazarene, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Mary S. Ziegler, as amended by Gail F. Wood on April 22, 1986, it was voted that Town Meeting instruct the Board of Selectmen to establish a Study Committee consisting of two Selectmen appointed by its Chairman, two police officers appointed by the Chief of Police, and one member-at-large to be appointed by the Selectmen, to study issues of police turnover and police educational needs and submit a report with recommendations as to steps that can be taken to decrease turnover and provide an equitable educational incentive and assistance program. ARTICLE 3. On motion of John H. ARTICLE 12. On motion of Daniel A. Item 62, be laid on the table until after consi this line item. it was voted to lay Article 3 on the table. ;er it was voted that Article 12, Line of all money articles and to reconsider ARTICLE 2. On motion of John H. Crooker it was voted to take Article 2 from the table. The following report presented by John H. Crooker for the Reading Municipal Light Department, was accepted as a report of progress, to be included in the next Annual Report. A STATEMENT TO THE CITIZENS OF BREADING AND THE RATE PAYERS OF THE READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Last year at this time we reported to Town Meeting on several matters. That report appears in the 1985 Town Report on page 103. We would also call your attention to the Light Department's Annual Report on page 267 of the Town Report. It is our intent to inform Town Meeting to the fullest extent possible on the following matters: 1. DPU Litigation 2. "Wilmington" Light 3. Power supply and rates 1. Litigation On April 23, 1985, the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce petitiond the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to investigate the rates and practices of the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD). The Chamber took the position that the industrial users of Wilmington were paying more than their share of costs and that the RMLD was subsidizing residential rate payers. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities accepted the case under its authority to investigate any utility when a sufficient' number of customers request it. the Towns of Wilmington and Lynnfield through their Town Counsel joined the Chamber citing disproportionate streetlighting rates between Reading and themselves and the method of calculating voluntary payments. (DPU dockets 85-121 & 85-138.) The case has generated a large volume of documents, supporting information requests and transcripts in testimony thus far. (The transcripts can be made available for review by prior arrangement with RMLD Management.) An issue raised by the Chamber is the method of determining the return on Reading's investment. The Chamber would like to have this return calculated only on the depreciated plant in service. We must point out that Reading is entitled to a return on its investment as is allowed all other Municipal Systems in Massachusetts which is on original cost. Municipal Utilities can make a maximum return of 8%. With today's interest rates, a prudent investor would not invest in an operation that returned a maximum of 8%, often much less. We should point out that the Towns of Wilmington and Lynnfield have for all purposes withdrawn f rom the DPU case, having not participated in the hearings. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 27 At issue in this litigation and part of the reason why DPU took the case is the extent to which the DPU can regulate Municipal Utilities. It is possible that the DPU may try to establish some sort of precedent. If a decision is reached that is substantially unfavorable to Reading, it will be appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. To address one of the issues raised by the other towns, Reading has presented a new method of calculating street lighting costs allocations and on the advice of Counsel, has stopped making voluntary payments to the other towns until the DPU reaches a decision. Reading is confident that the entire case raised by the petitioners will be found without merit by the DPU based on existing statutes. There will be at least one more day of hearings. We feel that a decision might be made in August based on the progress to date. 2. The Establishment of Wilmington Light Department Wilmington Town Meeting has an Article on its warrant to establish its own Municipal Light Department. Under the laws governing utilities, it has the right to do so. Chapter 164, Section 35 through 51, contains a detailed agenda for a town to acquire its own utility. The town must make a 2j3 vote affirmatively twice, no closer than two months and no longer than 13 months apart. If the seller and the buyer do not agree on the terms of transfer, the DPU acts as arbiter. Chapter 164, Section 43 says in part, "Such price shall include damages, if any, which the department (DPU) finds would be caused by the severence of the property proposed to be included in the purchase." The information we have acquired strongly indicates that Reading cannot be economically damaged by Wilmington and that Reading would be entitled to recover all costs expended on behalf of Wilmington. A new WLD would have rates considerably higher than Reading for the foreseeable future. Their costs of establishing a Light Department, we believe, make the project financially unfeasable. Any transfer of property to Wilmington would, of course, require approval of Reading Town Meeting. A realistic overall economic evaluation would indicate that there could not be a separation' from RMLD despite Wilmington rhetoric. This possibility was reviewed extensively' some time ago by the RMLD. 3. Power Supply and Rates Seabrook Station is now 97% complete. The plant will be ready to operate by late Fall. ` The "last major stumbling block is approval of the emergency evacuation plan by Governor Dukakis. The Governor's approval cannot be presumed, but there may exist acceptable compromises. The plant should be "On Line" in 1986. Milestone III is running and will go commercial the first week in May. Hydro Quebec Phase I is discussed in the Town Report and should be available July 1, 1986. ' Hydro Quebec Phase II is not economic at today's oil prices. The project will likely be renegotiated, or put on hold until oil prices rise again, or until Quebec Hydro improves its financial position. At the present time, the RMLD residential rates are among the lowest in the Commonwealth. For example, our customer's bill for 500 KWH in February was $31.64. Massachusetts Electric charged $43.10, and Boston Edison charged $46.69. In March our bill increased to.$35.19. Our Commercial and Industrial rates are well within those of private utilities. In conclusion, the RMLB would like to assure the citizens of Reading and the system-wide rate payers, that we have continued to place the RMLD in the proper legal and financial posture. READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT BOARD John H. `Crooker, Chairman Allan E. Ames, Secretary Frederick J. Nemergut Norbert D. Rhinerson, Manager 28 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 ARTICLE 2. On motion of John H. Russell, the following report presented by John W. Agnew, Jr. for the John Street Task Force, was accepted as a report of progress. REPORT OF JOHN STREET TASK FORCE April 17, 1986 At the last November Town Meeting the Task Force gave you a report of progress in which they made certain recommendations to solve the problems for which they were charged. These were to find an acceptable site for the DPW, to find a solution the Town could afford and to find a site solution that would not prove detrimental to the establishment of an industrial park in the Town on the John Street Landfill Site. The Task Force outlined their future actions for a solution which was to request proposals from private developers to develop the landfill and to link this with relocation of the Department of Public Works. It was felt the developers had the resources and knowledge the Town did not have and by requesting linkage the Town might find a solution to both the industrail development problem and the relocation of the DPW. In addition, the Task Force stated they intended to continue to pursue their efforts in applying to the County and State for permission to construct a grade crossing across the railroad tracks. This crossing would give a John Street access to property currently owned by Biggio-Transitron located on the west side of the tracks. The Biggio-Transitron land has been considered a possible site for the relocation of the Department of Public Works. All of these recommended actions, as just outlined, have been carried out. The request for proposals and the back-up information for the developers were developed by the Industrial Development Commission and reviewed by the Task Force. This was a monumental job and the final product consisted of several hundred pages. Advertisements were placed in several publications the first week in January requesting a preliminary round of proposals by March 17th. Several companies bought the package at a cost of $175.00 each, and on March 17th, five companies submitted preliminary plans. These are well known national companies: Cadillac Fairview, Fafard, Homart (a division of Sears), Schochet and Flatley. The preliminary proposals scanned a wide area of options; lease, lease purchase, turnkey operations, purchase, etc. A variety of financial offers ranging from Two to Eight and One-Half Million Dollars with various conditions were set forth. All except one offered a hotel with additional buildings for office and/or retail space. Although the linkage as proposed by the Task Force for the DPW was not offered in the preliminary proposals, such alternatives as outright cash and use of professional design people were. In addition to the request for proposals, the Task Force pursued the option of trying to obtain a grade crossing over the railroad tracks as outlined. On January 7th, the Task Force members appeared at a hearing before the County Commissioners to present their request for the crossing. The request was granted, quickly followed by an approval from the Department of Public Utilities which was filed with their list of conditions with us on February 24th. In effect this approval means that if the Town wishes to pursue this alternative, the location of the DPW on the Biggio-Transitron land, the obstacle of getting permission for the crossing no longer exists. The Task Force has proceeded to request the final detailed plans of the five developers and expects to receive these by May 20th. By June 4th, the Task Force will make their recommendation to the Selectmen and request a Special Town Meeting be called for June. 16th to implement this recommendation. The Task Force feels at this time a solution is in sight not only for the relocation of the DPW and the development of the industrial land, but also the Town's two other space problems: The Town Hall/Library complex and the Fire Station. It becomes clear that the money indicated by these preliminary proposals coupled with funds existing from the previous sale of Town property should cover the financial needs of the space problems. In addition, the final result will mean an increase in our tax base and replenishment of our Stabilization Fund. While the attainment of these goals is not an accomplished fact, and a great deal of work and effort remains, the possibility of reaching these goals is real. On a point of personal privilege, Mr. John W. Agnew, Jr. advised the Town Meeting body of his resignation and thanked the Town Meeting Members, Town Officials and all for the cooperation he has received. His comments were followed by a standing ovation for Mr. Agnew. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 29 ARTICLE 2. The following, report of the Industrial Development Commission, presented by Daniel A. Ensminger, was accepted as a report of progress. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO ANNUAL TOWN MEETING April 24, 1986 The Industrial Development Commission is pleased to provide Town Meeting Members with additional information on the status of the John Street Request For ,Proposals (RFP). - The Chairman of the Task Force has just given you an overview of our progress to date since November Town Meeting. In this report we will describe the information that we have requested from prospective developers in the RFP, summarize the various developers' proposals that we have received and elaborate further on the timetable which the Task Force has established for bringing the landfill development and DPW relocation issues before Town Meeting for final resolution. I would first like to give a brief financial report on the costs of preparing the RFP's. At Fall Town Meeting, we requested a total of $6000 for preparation, reproduction, and mailing of the RFP's to interested developers. We spent $213 for typing expense, $1,812 for reproduction costs, including costs for large base maps, $1,685 for advertising in the Boston Globe, Reading Chronicle, and the New England Real Estate Journal, and $179 for postage and packaging materials, for a total of $3,889 in expenses. We sold 21 complete RFP's at $175 each and another 7 partial RFP's at $25 each for a total income of $3,850. These monies were deposited to the Town's General Account. Thus the net direct cost of the bidding process has been $39. _ We believe that the Town gots its money's worth!! In the RFP, the Town stated to the developer that it was seeking first-class office and hotel development on the landfill, along with ancillary retail activities (e.g., restaurants, shops, and service establishments) to support the complex. The condition of linkage to the DPW relocation effort was clearly stated in the RFP, namely, that proposals must include specific provisions for siting the Town of Reading's Public Works Facility. We had no way of knowing in advance how many developers would respond to our ads. Because of 'this, two rounds of proposals were requested in the RFP. The first proposal, due E March 17th, was designed to allow the various developers to state their qualifications (including track record and fiscal stabililty), give a conceptual description of their development plans for the landfill, and briefly state their plans for siting the DPW facililty, either on or off-site. We did not expect developers to commit a great deal of resources to their first-round submissions. Once these initial proposals were received by the Task Force and a workable number of finalists was chosen, a much more detailed second-round proposal would be requested. This second proposal would request detailed financial data about the developer, year-by-year estimates of sale (or lease) and tax revenues which the Town could expect over the next twenty years, traffic, water and sewer impacts, and detailed architectural plans of the development concept, right down to three-dimensional models of the building, if necessary. If a developer were to propose one or more alternative sites for the DPW facility, the Task Force required that the second proposal must: (a) indicate the specific site location(s); (b) show that the alternative site(s) are viable; (c) propose a reasonable timetable for land acquisition, obtaining of necessary permits, construction and occupancy; (d) estimate all costs associated with these activities; and (e) address other site considerations as necessary (e.g., access to land, wetlands issues, etc.). If the developer proposed to bear some or all of these DPW facility costs, he would have to indicate what adjustments (if any) would be made to the purchase price offered for the landfill. Initial proposals were received from five development firms, several of whom are among the most prestigious in the nation, and all of whom have some degree of experience in office park and/or hotel development. Each of these firms, in its own way, has addressed the issues of landfill development and linkage to the DPW relocation effort. All have, therefore, been selected as finalists, and we expect to receive final proposals from all five. I would now like to briefly highlight their proposals. The FLATLEY COMPANY of Braintree, Mass., proposed a 400-room Sheraton Tara Hotel complex for the landfill, which is to include a banquet hall, function rooms, and a health club. Two four-story office buildings would be built next to the hotel in the early 19901s. Flatley proposed to lease the land, but to own the buildings. In return, the Town would receive annual lease payments for the land during the 49 year lease period, as well as property tax revenues from the buildings. 30 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 The second proposal was from SCHOCHET ASSOCIATES of Boston, who proposed the initial purchase or lease of enough land for a hotel only, with a fixed-term option to purchase or lease the remaining land. Schochet reported that the Ramada and Raddison Hotels had indicated initial interest in granting a franchise to them. The remainder of the site would be developed as speculative office or R & D space, depending on market conditions. Two development concepts were presented: a shared-site concept with the DPW built as planned on the landfill, and a full-build plan with the DPW located on the Transitron-Biggio site. The third proposal was from CADILLAC FAIRVIEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., of Boston, who proposed to construct 750,000 square feet of Class-A office space, a 250 room hotel, and 25,000 square feet of ancillary retail development. 400,000 square feet of this office space would be built within 6-8 months after the receipt of all permits, for occupancy, by a major prelease tenant. This amount of space is approximately equal to three buildings. the size of TASC. Construction of the hotel would proceed within two years under their plan. The FAFARD COMPANIES of Ashland, Mass., offered to purchase the landfill and construct a one-story retail mall immediately, with 240,000 square feet of Class-A office space to be added at a future date depending on market conditions. Their develoment plan calls for the DPW facility to be built exactly as planned on the landfill next to the mall. The entire rear section of the landfill will be devoted to parking. Finally, HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY of Chicago, a wholly owned subsidiary, of Sears, Roebuck and Company, proposed 750,000 square feet of office park development on the landfill along with a 250 room hotel. Construction of the hotel and the first 150,000 square feet of office space would take place within 12 months after receipt of all permits. Homart has previously built large-scale office parks on reclaimed landfills in Minneapolis, Minnesota and in suburban Washington, D. C. The purchase prices offered for the landfill ranged from a low of $2.75 Million to a high of $8 to $8.5 Million. The degree'of linkage offered by the developers ranged from offers of free consulting services to help the Town acquire a site for the public works facility, to offers to acquire the land outright for the Town and either build a turnkey' DPW facility, or build the facility and lease it back to the Town. The cost of land acquisition and construction would, in all cases, be deducted from the price paid for the landfill. All second-round proposals will be due on May 20th. Each developer has been instructed to come in with a plan for both landfill development and placement of the DPW facility. Public meetings will be held following this submission in late May, during which the developers will present their detailed plans to the Task Force, interested Town Meeting members and the general public. The Task Force will present its recommendations to the Special Town Meeting scheduled to begin on June 16th. The final selection of both the developer and the DPW site is in the hands of Town Meeting. At the beginning of my report, I said that this RFP process has cost us $39 to date. The developers helped pay the cost. In much the same way, they will be working over the next five or six weeks, at their own expense, to present the Town with factual assessments and one or more plans for action. The members of Town Meeting will be presented with specific information in June that will, we feel, enable them to choose a course of action that will solve, once and for all, the long-playing John Street dilemma. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table. ARTICLE 43. On motion of Douglass L. Barker it was voted to take Article 43 out of order. ARTICLE 43. On motion of Douglass L. Barker it was voted that Article 43 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 12. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was voted to take Article 12 from the table. ARTICLE 12. On motion of Philip B. Pacino it was voted that Line Items 84 through 108, excluding Line Items 90, 102, 107 and 108 were voted in the affirmative. ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 90) Line Item 90 was voted in the Affirmative. ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 102) Line Item 102 was voted in the Affirmative. Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 331 ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 107) Line Item 107 was voted in the Affirmative. ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 108) Line Item 108 was voted in the Affirmative. ARTICLE 12. On motion of Philip B. Pacino it was voted that Line Items 109 through . 117, excluding Line Items 112 and 113 were voted in the affirmative. ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 112) Line Item 112 was voted in the Affirmative. ARTICLE 12. (Line Item 113) Line Item 113 was voted in the Affirmative. ARTICLE 13. On motion of Robert P. Griffin it was voted that the sum of One Million One Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars ($1,127,549.00) be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for,the water department. Such sums to be spent by and under the Board of Public Works. All references herein to the Board of Public Works shall also refer to the board or officer succeeding to the Board of Public Works-powers and duties under the new Town Charter. ARTICLE 14. On motion of Robert P. Griffin it was voted that the sum of Two Hundred, Seventy-Seven Thousand One Hundred Ten Dollars. ($277,110.00) be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for operations of the sewer department. Such sums to be expended by and under the direction of the Board of Public Works. All references herein to the Board of Public Works shall also refer to the board or officer succeeding to the Board of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter. ARTICLE 15. On motion of James W. Boucher it was voted that the sum of Five Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars ($567,147.00) be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority sewer assessment, such funds to be spent by and under the direction of the Board of Public Works. All references herein to the Board,of Public Works shall also refer to the board or officer succeeding to the Board of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter. ARTICLE 16. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was unanimously voted that the Town raise from the tax levy and appropriate to the Board of Selectmen the sum of $3,500.00 for leasing for a period not to exceed ten years, with an option to purchase a copy machine for all departments in Town Hall. ARTICLE 17. On motion of Mary S. Ziegler it was unanimously voted that the Town authorize the Board of Selectmen to sell, or exchange, or dispose of upon such terms and conditions as they may determine, three cars in use by the Police Department. ARTICLE 18. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro it was voted that the Town authorize the Board. of Selectmen to sell, or exchange, or dispose of upon such terms and conditions as they. -may. determine, the 1960 Civil Defense Rescue Truck and that the sum of Sixty Five Thousand ($65,000.00) Dollars be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the purchase of a new ambulance for the Fire Department. ARTICLE 19.On ^tion of John H. Russell it was voted that the sum of Sixteen Thousand. Five Hundred ($16,500.00) Dollars be raised from the tax levy and appropriated to the Board of Selectmen for the purpose of hiring consulting engineers to make the required studies- and design work and whatever else is necessary for the implementation of a traffic light system for the intersection of South Main Street and Summer Avenue. ARTICLE 20. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that Article 20 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 21. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that the Town authorize the Board of Cemetery Trustees to sell or exchange or otherwise dispose of upon such terms and conditions as they may -determine, one (1) 1978 pick-up truck with snow plowing equipment; and that the sum of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00) to be transferred from the .Cemetery Sale of Lots Fund and appropriated, together with receipts, if any, for the sale, exchange, or disposal for said 1978 pick-up truck for the purpose of purchasing one (1) new %2 ,ton pick-up truck equipped for snow plowing to be used by the Cemetery Trustees. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Gretchen Latowsky it was voted -to take Article 3 from the table. 32 Adjourned Annual Town Meeting April 24, 1986 ARTICLE 3. On motion of Gretchen Latowsky it was voted that the Selectmen appoint a Traffic Advisory Committee to study the impact of commuter traffic on the Town. Such committee shall be comprisedof a representative from the Board of Selectmen, Board of Public Works until July 1, 1986, the Community Planning and Development Commission after July, 1, 1986, the Police Department, Fire Department and seven residents of the Town. ARTICLE 3. Virginia M. Adams moved that the By-Law Committee prepare and present to the next Subsequent Town Meeting a motion relating to Article 2, Section 1, Rule 7, of the Town By-Laws which will allow for a second standing vote. This motion was voted in the negative. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Paul' E. Landers it was voted to lay Article 3 on the table. ARTICLE 22. On motion of `Cliffo"rd D. Allen it was voted that the sum of $60,000 be raised by borrowing as provided under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority and that said sum be appropriated to the Reading School Committee' for the purpose of remodelling, reconstructing and making repairs to certain areas of the Reading Memorial High School, 62 Oakland Road, Reading, Massachusetts, including original equipping and furnishing said remodelled areas, together with all other costs incidental thereto, including costs of architectural, engineering and construction services, inspection and costs of financing in connection therewith, and all other costs necessary and proper- to carry out the purposes of this vote 81 voted in the affirmative 29 voted in the negative 2j3 vote required ARTICLE 23. On motion of Clifford D. Allen it was unanimously voted that the sum of $90,000 be raised by borrowing as provided under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority and that said sum be appropriated to the Reading School Committee for the purpose of replacing the roof at Joshua Eaton Elementary School, 365 Summer Avenue, Reading, Massachusetts, together with all other costs incidental thereto,,. including costs of architectural, engineering and construction services, inspection and costs of financing in connection therewith, and all other costs necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this vote. ARTICLE 24. On motion of Clifford D. Allen it was voted that Article 24 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 25. On motion of Curt E. Nitzsche it was unanimously voted that the Town accept the report of the Board of Public Works upon the laying out as a public way' of the following private way known as Gavin Circle, under the provision of law authorizing the assessment of betterments, such highways being laid out in accordance with plans duly approved by the Board of Survey and filed in the office of the Town Clerk in accordance` with the statutory requirements and that the Town authorize the Board of Public Works to take such land in fee or rights of easements therein by eminent domain under the provisions of Chapter 79 of the General Laws, as amended, or acquire said land in fee or rights of easement therein by purchase, gift or otherwise and to assess betterments therefore and that the Town vote to accept the public way laid out by the Board of Public Works as Gavin Circle and that the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars be "raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the acquisition of said land or easement therein and for the construction of said way, such sums to be spent by and under the direction of the Board of Public Works. All references herein to the Board of Public Works shall also refer to the board or officer succeeding to the Board of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter.' ARTICLE 26. On motion of James W. Boucher it was unanimously voted that the Town accept the report of the Board of Public Works upon the laying out as a public` way of the following private way known as Latham Lane, under the provision of law authorizing the assessment of betterments, such highways being laid out in accordance with plans duly approved by the Board of Survey and filed in the office of the Town Clerk in accordance with the statutory requirements and that the Town authorize the Board of Public Works to take such land in fee or rights of easements therein by eminent domain under the provisions of Chapter 79 of the General Laws, as amended, or acquire said land in fee or rights of easement therein by purchase, gift or otherwise and to assess betterments therefore and that the Town vote to accept the public way laid out by the Board of Public Works as Latham Lane and that the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred ($1,500.00) Dollars be raised from the tax levy and appropriated for the acquisition of said land or easement therein and for the construction of said way, such sums to be spent by and under the 33 Adjourned Annual 'Ibwn Meeting April 24, 1986 direction of the Board of Public Works. All references herein to the Board of Public Works shall also refer to the board or officer succeeding to the Board of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr., it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, April 28, 1986, in the Reading Memorial High School auditorium. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. 130 Town Meeting members were present. A true copy. Attest: wre ,ne'e Drew Town Clerk