The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-08-16 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AUGUST 16, 2016 Halsey, Sexton, Berman, Arena, Ensminger LeLacheur 3a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the certificate of recognition for Tessa Sender achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award. 5a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve amending the license for an Underground Storage tank at 83 — 85 Main Street to change one tank from gasoline to diesel. 5b) Move that the Board of Selectmen, at the request of the applicant, continue the hearing on the transfer of the liquor license from Brooks Brew and Fine Wines, 676 Main Street to Anastasi Brookline, 25 Walkers Brook Drive to September 6, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street. 5c) Move that the Board of Selectmen close the hearing on the alteration of premises for Bistro Concepts Inc. Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the alteration of premises for Bistro Concepts, Inc., d /b /a Fusilli's Cucina, 107 Main Street, for the addition of outdoor seating consisting of 12 seats as indicated on the plan that was submitted with the application. 5d) Move that the Board of Selectmen instruct Town Counsel to prepare ballot question(s) relative to overriding the Town's levy limit, to include the following parameters: dollar amount(s) of Override stated purpose(s) of Override such question(s) to be considered at a future Board meeting for inclusion in the warrant for a Special Election to be held on Tuesday October 18th from 7:OOam to 8:OOpm at the Walter Hawkes Field House at Reading Memorial High School on 16 Oakland Road. l.% 5e) Move that the Board of Selectmen close the Warrant consisting of 8 Articles for the September 12, 2016 Special Town Meeting to take place at the RMHS Performing Arts Center, 62 Oakland Road at 7:30 p.m. 6a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of July 19, 2016 as amended. 6b) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of July 26, 2016 as amended. 6c) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of June 16, 2016 as amended. Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn at p.m. It] Staff I Estimated 811512016 Responsibility Start time Office Hour Barry Berman Certificate of ecognition - Girl Sco ut Gold Award LeLacheur Amend license for underground storage tank at 83 - 85 Main Street to change one tank from gasoline to diesel LeLacheur 7:20 Hearing LeLacheur 7'30 Fine Wines, 6 76 Main Street, to Anas t i ssr m ldine, 25 Walkers Broo ' ""°°e Hearing Alteration of Premises for Bistro Concepts Inc. LeLacheur 7:45 Override discussion - joint meeting with School Committee and Board of Library Trustees Halsey 8:00 Close Warrant for September 12th Special Town Meeting LeLacheur 9:30 I I I --d Community Financial Forum 9/1/16 gRMHS I Thursday 1 7 00pm Office Hour Kevin Sexton Fire Department Badge Pinnings Burns 7:20 Transfer Liquor License from Brooks Brew and Fine Wines, 676 Main Street, to Anastasi Hearing (continued) Brookline, 25 Walkers Brook Drive LeLacheur 7:30 FY17 Goals & Reading 2020 update LeLacheur 8:00 Preview Warrant for November Subsequent Town Meeting (begins 11/14/16) LeLacheur 9:00 Special Town Meeting September 12, 2016 Monday Call for Special Election on October 18, 2016 (formal notification to Town Clerk) Trust Fund Commissioners 7:30 Schoolhouse Commons - 40B project at 172 Woburn St (former St. Agnes school) 8:00 Close Warrant for November Subsequent Town Meeting (begins 11/14) LeLacheur 8:45 Town Manager Performance Evaluation IHalsey 9:30 U Office Hour Dan Ensminger Close Warrant for October 18, 2016 Special Election LeLacheur Vote Warrant Articles for Subsequent Town Meeting 11/14/16 LeLacheur Close Warrant for Presidential and State Elections 11/8/16 (Finacial Forum 10 /26/2016 1 Pleasant St Ctr 1 7;30 Town Meeting November 14, 2016 (Monday I ;j 0 Office Hour John Halsey Town Meeting November 17, 2016 Thursday Town Meeting November 21 2016 Monday' Town Meeting November 28, 2016 Monday Town Meeting December 1, 2016 Thursday Office Hour I John Arena I I I Future Agendas Board of Selectmen Policies: Article 1 General Operating Procedures LeLacheur Board of Selectmen Policies: Article 2 Volunteer Boards /Committees /Commissions LeLacheur Reports to BOS Board of Selectmen Policies: Article 3 Licenses LeLacheur tltrty Recurring Items RCTV members Report Semi -ann Close Warrant: Nov TM by 9/27 Semi -ann Close Warrant: Presidential & State Elections by 11 /1 (Elections are 11 /8) Annual Review BOS /TM Goals Mar & Sep Semi -ann Appointments of Boards & Committees June Annual Hearing Approve Classification & Compensation June Annual Hearing Tax Classification October Annual Approve licenses IDecember Annual Reports to BOS Town Accountant Report tltrty RCTV members Report Semi -ann CAB (RMLD) member Report Semi -ann MAPC member Report Annual Reading Housing Authority Report Annual Reading Ice Arena Report Annual BOS Appointed Boards & Committees Annual Housing, LLC for the subject Property. As currently proposed, the development will consist of twenty (20) residential rental units, of which four (4) units would be affordable to households at Fifty percent (50 %) of median income. Reading Equitable Housing, LLC has requested this determination of Project Eligibility as it relates to MHP's FHA Treasury Risk Share Program, which provides for a 40 -year fixed -rate first mortgage loan, and requires the owner of the development to execute an Affordable Housing Restriction, filed with the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds, which would remain in effect for a minimum of 15 years. The affordability program proposed by the applicant would meet MHP's minimum affordability requirements. Other funders, or the town of Reading, may require that the affordability requirements remain in effect after the initial 15 -year term. We would appreciate any comments that you may have with regard to this proposed development that would assist us as we consider the applicant's request. The comprehensive permit regulations require subsidizing agencies such as MHP to make the findings as set forth on the attachment to this letter in order to make a determination of Project Eligibility; any comments you can provide relevant to these matters would be especially helpful. Please direct any comments that you have, if possible within the next thirty (30) days, to my attention at the address listed above. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that in the event an application is made to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) fora comprehensive permit, technical assistance is available to the ZBA to review the permit application. MHP's Chapter. 40B Technical Assistance Program administers grants to municipalities for up to $10,000 to engage qualified third -party consultants to work with the ZBA in reviewing the Chapter 40B proposal. For more information about MHP's technical assistance grant visit MHP's web site, www.mhp.net or contact Philip Crean at 617- 330 -9944 ext. 128, at PCrean(@,mhP.net. v rind a S S Em C ith Il,� S sat t S a �q� a a Housing g 2016 AUG -Q All 9: 19 Partnership August 3, 2016 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL John R. Halsey, Chairman Board of Selectmen 160 Federal Street Reading Town Hall Boston, Massachusetts 02110 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 7e1:617- 330 -9955 Fax: 617- 330 -1919 Re: Schoolhouse Commons, 172 Woburn St., Reading, Massachusetts (the "Property ") 462 Main Street Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 Dear Mr. Halsey: Tel: 413 -253 -7379 Fax: 413- 253 -3002 Please be advised that Massachusetts Housing Partnership ( "MHP ") has received a request for a determination of Project Eligibility from Reading Equitable www.mhp.net Housing, LLC for the subject Property. As currently proposed, the development will consist of twenty (20) residential rental units, of which four (4) units would be affordable to households at Fifty percent (50 %) of median income. Reading Equitable Housing, LLC has requested this determination of Project Eligibility as it relates to MHP's FHA Treasury Risk Share Program, which provides for a 40 -year fixed -rate first mortgage loan, and requires the owner of the development to execute an Affordable Housing Restriction, filed with the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds, which would remain in effect for a minimum of 15 years. The affordability program proposed by the applicant would meet MHP's minimum affordability requirements. Other funders, or the town of Reading, may require that the affordability requirements remain in effect after the initial 15 -year term. We would appreciate any comments that you may have with regard to this proposed development that would assist us as we consider the applicant's request. The comprehensive permit regulations require subsidizing agencies such as MHP to make the findings as set forth on the attachment to this letter in order to make a determination of Project Eligibility; any comments you can provide relevant to these matters would be especially helpful. Please direct any comments that you have, if possible within the next thirty (30) days, to my attention at the address listed above. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that in the event an application is made to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) fora comprehensive permit, technical assistance is available to the ZBA to review the permit application. MHP's Chapter. 40B Technical Assistance Program administers grants to municipalities for up to $10,000 to engage qualified third -party consultants to work with the ZBA in reviewing the Chapter 40B proposal. For more information about MHP's technical assistance grant visit MHP's web site, www.mhp.net or contact Philip Crean at 617- 330 -9944 ext. 128, at PCrean(@,mhP.net. Thank you. Sincerely, A "Wa Laura Shufelt Community Assistance Manager fikh"I" ass a C h tuq S etts 760 CMR 56.04(4) Findings in Determination of Project Eligibility (a) that the proposed Project appears generally eligible under the requirements of the housing subsidy program, subject to final approval under 760 CMR 56.04(7); (b) that the site of the proposed Project is generally appropriate for residential development, taking into consideration information provide by the municipality or other parties regarding municipal actions previously taken to meet affordable housing needs, such as inclusionary zoning, multifamily districts adopted under M.G.L. c.40A, and overlay districts adopted under M.G.L. c.40R, (such finding, with supporting reasoning, to be set forth in reasonable detail); (c) that the conceptual project design is generally appropriate for the site on which it is located, taking into consideration factors that may include proposed use, conceptual site plan and building massing, topography, environmental resources, and integration into existing development patterns (such finding, with supporting reasoning, to be set forth in reasonable detail); (d) that the proposed Project appears financially feasible within the housing market in which it will be situated (based on comparable rentals or sales figures); (e) that an initial pro forma has been reviewed, including a land valuation determination consistent with the Department's guidelines, and the Project appears financially feasible and consistent with the Department's guidelines for Cost Examination and Limitations on Profits and Distributions (if applicable) on the basis of estimated development costs; (f) that the Applicant is a public agency, a non profit organization, or a Limited Dividend Organization, and it meets the general eligibility standards of the housing program; and (g) that the Applicant controls the site, based on evidence that the Applicant or a related entity owns the site, or holds an option or contract to acquire such interest in the site, or has such other interest in the site as is deemed by the Subsidizing Agency to be sufficient to control the site. -3- 0 Schena, Paula From: Joanne Senders < kjsenders @verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 8:16 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: RE: RE: [Reading MA] Girl Scout Gold Award Here is summary from Tessa's project. SUMMARY: The project addressed the issue of hearing loss and how to prevent it. I hoped to impact teenagers and the parents of young children and encourage them to protect their ears /their children's ears in order to prevent.permanent damage. I created a mannequin called "Jolene" using her can measure the decibel levels of music on a phone or MP3 player. I donated the mannequin to the High School Health Department and they plan to use her and brochures I created geared for teenagers in the school's health classes. I also gathered my team to help me prepare and run booths at two major events in town (Street Faire & Friends and Family Day) in order to hand out flyers, earplugs, and other items. With the guidance of a doctor at Boston's Children's Hospital I created a second brochure for the parents of infants. These brochures went to pediatrician offices in Reading, North Reading and Melrose. From: Schena, Paula [ma ilto :pschena @ci. reading. ma.us] Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 8:29 AM To:'kjsenders @verizon.net' <kisenders @verizon.net> Subject: RE: RE: [Reading MA] Girl Scout Gold Award I need to know what she did to achieve the Gold Award. Did she do a project? From: kjsendersCabverizon.net [mailto: kjsenders verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:46 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: Re: RE: [Reading MA] Girl Scout Gold Award No problem just let me know what you require. Thanks Joanne On 07/12/16, Schena, Paula< pschena ci.reading.ma.us> wrote: I will need details for the proclamation. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: vtsdmailer(a)-vt -S. net [mailto:vtsdmailerCcD-vt- s. net] On Behalf Of kjsenders verizon.net Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:36 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: [Reading MA] Girl Scout Gold Award Hello pschena, Joanne Senders (kjsenders verizon.net) has sent you a message via your contact form (http://www.readingma.gov/users/pschena/contact) at Reading MA. If you don't want to receive such e- mails, you can change your settings at htti): / /www.readingma.gov /user /227 /edit. Message: �6�1Z �N OFRt, HEADQUARTERS o _ e READING FIRE DEPARTMENT Readin g, Massachusetts 01867 639 INCOAQO�P GREGORY J. BURNS, Chief 757 Main Street BUS. Phone: 781- 942 -9181 STA. Phone: 781- 944 -3132 Fax: 781- 942 -9114 July 12, 2016 Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA. 01867 Attn. Chairman John Halsey Re: Application to Amend License 83 -85 Main Street Sir, Attached is an application to amend the license in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 148, Section 13. Presently the license is for 36,000 gallons of gasoline stored in three underground tanks. The owner is seeking to amend the license to permit storage of 24,000 gallons of gasoline and 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Currently the facility is in compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Fire Prevention Regulations. The applicant has filed all the required documentation with the Reading Fire Department for the requested change. I have reviewed the application and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Fire Prevention Regulations and have determined the change as requested will comply with all regulations. Based upon these factors I recommend the Board of Selectmen approve the application Sin ry, F Paul . J kson Ass' to Fire Chief 10 We're Your Friends for Life 1 LATHAM LAW OFFICES LLC 643 MAIN STREET O. BRADLEY I.ATHAM. CHRISTOPHER M. O. LATHAM JOSHUA E. LATHAM' ' ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIRE Paul Jackson, Deputy Chief Reading Fire Department 757 Main St. Reading, MA 01867 READING, MA 01867 June 7, 2016 TEL. (781) 942 -4400 PAX; (781) 944 -7079 RE: Request-for Amendment of License pursuant to M. G. L. Chapter 148 section 13 as to existing underground storage tanks at 83 -85 Main Street, Reading, MA Dear Chief Jackson: We submit an application for permission to change the contents of an existing 12,000 gallon underground storage tank from gasoline to diesel. The premises are currently licensed for three 12,000 gallon tanks. The purpose of the application is to modify the content of one of the tanks from gasoline to diesel. No tanks need to be removed or installed as a consequence of this changes. We respectfully request that your Department approve this change and submit this application to the Board of Selectmen for the issuance of an amended license. We thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, iCl l'. r tI W iJ C C5, t�J�C dley �!-ham ney for Property Owner �� S v LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING 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 August 16, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts on a transfer of an all alcohol package store license from Brooks Brew and Fine Wines, .676 Main Street to Anastasi Brookline, Inc., 25 Walkers Brook Drive. A copy of the proposed doCU- ment 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.readingDa..flov All-kderested parties are invit- ed.-to.-attend the bearing, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior to 6:00 p.m. on August 16, 2016 to townmanager@ci.read- ina.ma.us By order of Robert W. LeLacheur Town Manager 7.21.16 LA NNI OFHCLSO F I iNiCOLA, SELIGSON & UPTON, LLP August 15, 2016 Via Electronic Mail Robert W. LeLacheur, Reading Town Manager townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us Six Beacon Street, Suite 700 Boston, MA 02108 Tel (617) 279 -2592 Fax (617) 426 -0587 Email info@dsu- 1aw.com Michael E. Brangwynne 857 - 250 -0446 Mike.Braugwyuue @ dsu- law.com Re: Application for Transfer of §15 All Alcoholic Beverages Package Stove License Anastasi Brookline, Inc. d /b /a Reading Fine Wine & Spirits, 25 Walkers Brook Drive Mr. LeLacheur: This office represents Anastasi Brookline, Inc. d/b /a Reading Fine Wine & Spirits ( "RFWS ") with respect to the above referenced application for the transfer of a § 15 All Alcoholic Beverages Package Store License. The application has been scheduled for a hearing before the Reading Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. I am writing to inform you that, due to unexpected circumstances, the owner of RFWS, Anastasios Giannopoulos, will be out of the country and unavailable to attend the scheduled hearing. RFWS therefore respectfully requests that the Board open the matter and move to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting, on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Michael E. Brangwynne .3 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING 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 August 16, 2016 at' 7:45 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street; Reading, Massachusetts on: Alteration of Premises for Bistro Concepts Inc. d /b /a Fusili's Cucina, 107 Main Street. A copy of the proposed docu- ment 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.readiriiama.gov All interested parties are invit- ed to attend the hearing, or may submit their comments in writing or by email prior, to 6:00 p.m. on August 16, 2016 to townmanager@ci.read- ina.ma.us By order of Robert W. LeLacheur Town Manager 7.28.16 f' July 11, 2016 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 /7A RFCEIVED Julie D. Mercier Community Development 4ii<'e &- MASS. Phone: 781.942 -6648 Fax: 781.942 -9071 Z01h JUL 12 AID 13, Website: www.readingma.gov Minor Site Plan Review rv11' Project /Site: 107 Main Street Applicant: Fusilli's Cucina — Michael Palmer, Owner To the Town Clerk.' This is to certify that, at a meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission on July 11, 2016, by a motion duly made and seconded, it was voted: "We, the Reading Community Planning and Development Commission, upon request from Michael Palmer of Fusilli's Cucina (f.k.a. Sam's Bistro), for Minor Site Plan Review for the property located at 107 Main Street (Assessors Map 8, Lot 1) for the addition of patio seating on an existing concrete area at the front of the restaurant, as shown on the Proposed Patio Seating Plan, received on 6/15/16; do hereby vote 5 -0 -0, to approve the project under Minor Site Plan Review in accordance with Section 4.6.3 of the Reading Zoning Bylaw, subject to the Findings and Conditions below." Materials Submitted: The following materials were submitted into the public record: 1. Cover Letter from Michael Palmer to Planning Board, dated 6/15/16. 2. Certified Abutters List, dated 6/13/16. ' 3. Plan Review Approval from the Board of Health, dated 5/19/16. 4. Proposed Patio Seating Plan, depicting 12 seats, unlabeled, undated, received 6/15/16. 5. Sheet 1 of 1: As -Built Plan — prepared for 107 Main Street, Reading, MA, prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group, LLC, dated 10/11/10. 6. Sheet A.26: Proposed First Floor Seating Plan — prepared by Domenic Sicari Associates, LTD, depicting indoor seating only, dated 8/27/09, revised 11/3/09 — existing condition. 7. Sheet A.13: Proposed Front and Right Side Elevations — prepared by Domenic Sicari Associates, LTD, dated 8/27/09, revised 11/3/09 — existing condition. 8. Sheet A.9: Proposed Foundation Floor Plan — prepared by Domenic Sicari Associates, LTD, dated 8/27/09, revised 11/3/09 — existing condition. Findings: 1. The project involves the addition of twelve (12) outdoor seats to an existing concrete area with dimensions of approximately 22' x 13' along the front facade of the restaurant. The t proposed use of this outdoor space for patio seating, with its adjacency to the parking lot and potential public safety concerns, triggered the need for Minor Site Plan Review by the CPDC. 2. The Applicant is requesting permission to use propane heating units to provide heat to the tables on chilly evenings. 3. The patio will be accessible via panel doors off of the interior bar area, and will be enclosed by an array of 7.5" diameter concrete - filled bollards, railings, and flower boxes which will deter patrons from exiting and entering the patio from the outside of the restaurant, and will provide a degree of safety from the adjacent parking lot. 4. There are two existing wall sconces currently illuminating the space. No additional lighting is proposed at this time. 5. No audio system will be added to the outdoor seating area. 6. No cooking will take place outside. 7. The proposed hours of operation are consistent with the currently permitted hours for the restaurant: Sun -Wed 11:30AM- 10:OOPM and Thurs -Sat 11:30AM- 11:OOPM. 8. The property is located in a Business A Zoning District, which requires a front yard setback of 15 feet, a side yard setback of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The proposed outdoor seating will comply with all of these required setbacks. 9. Abutters were notified of the application and hearing date. Conditions: 1. The approval herein includes the addition of twelve (12) seats to the outdoor patio space, which will be enclosed by an array of bollards, railings, and flower boxes. 2. At all times, the total number of seats in active use shall be no greater than 152, as depicted on Sheet A.26: Proposed First Floor Seating Plan, inclusive of indoor and outdoor seating. 3. No lighting, signage, audio, or outdoor cooking has been proposed or approved with this application. 4. The approval herein is for Minor Site Plan Review only. The Applicant shall seek building, electrical, plumbing, and gas permits as needed for the work. 5. Prior to pulling any building, electrical, plumbing, or gas permits, the Applicant shall review the plan with the Building Inspector for compliance with ADA and MAAB requirements. 6. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the patio area, the Applicant shall provide a specification to the Community Development Director for the proposed propane heating units. 7. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the patio area, the Applicant shall consult with the Community Development Director regarding signage and lighting on the site. 8. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the patio area, the Applicant shall amend the restaurant's liquor license with the Board of Selectmen and the State's Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC). Modifications/Revisions - Plan Changes after Approval by the Approving Authority Contemplated future changes to the plan approved herein shall be presented to the Community Development Director and the Zoning Enforcement Officer /Building Inspector, or other relevant Town staff, for review prior to implementation of proposed changes. 1. Minor Modification: Changes that do not substantially alter the concept of the approved Plan in terms of the specific location, the proposed land use, the design of building form and approved �� 3 building details and materials, site grading or egress points. These include but are not limited to small changes in site layout, topography, architectural plans, landscaping plan, traffic eirculation,t'. parking, lighting, signage, open space or other criteria set forth in Section 4.6.9.1. Requests for approval under a minor modification for future renovations /alterations to the approved site plan or for future tenant changes shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine if the proposed work qualifies for review through the Minor Site Plan Review process of Section 4.6.3 of the Reading Zoning Bylaw. If the work is eligible for review under Minor Site Plan review, the Community Development Director may review and grant approval of the proposed work by administrative approval of the Minor Modification. At the determination of the Community Development Director, the Applicant may be required to present the proposed project at a public meeting of the CPDC. 2. Major Modification: Substantial additions, deletions or deviations from the approved plan, including but not limited to changes in site layout, topography, architectural plan, landscaping plans, traffic circulation, parking, lighting plan, signage, open space or other criteria set forth in Section 4.6.9.1 of the Reading Zoning Bylaw. (Note: Approval of the major modification shall be grounds for reconsideration of the Site Plan application. Denial of proposed major modifications shall not invalidate the Site Plan in conformance with the previously approved Plan). Signed as to the. accuracy of the vote as reflected in the minutes: Julie D. Cc: Ann' 2 Community Development Director Town Clerk, CPDC, Development Review Team, Building Inspector, planning file t1 wN- iso ►m I Mal 0 Em { t „o-.e ',*A Vz I ,Z m GOO w w H O �o M w 0 a W O� UQ Q� U aH � �U H w 0 Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:09 PM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: Tonight's Override Discussion For tonight's packet Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 townmanaaerPci. readina. ma. us (P) 781- 942 -9043, (F) 781 -942 -9037 www.readinama.aov Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED From: John Halsey Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:52 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: Tonight's Override Discussion Bob, Please share my thoughts and recommendations with the rest of the BOS in my absence tonight.... Vice Chairman Sexton may want to share these thoughts during the meeting at his discretion. Best Regards, john August 16, 2016 Re: Proposition Override To Members of the Reading BOS and Town Manager; Regrettably I am unable to either attend or participate remotely in our BOS meeting this evening. Regarding the discussion as to both wording and amount for a proposed Proposition 2 % override this fall in Reading I offer my thoughts and opinion for your review and consideration..... A thorough review of all the consolidated material we have available brings me to the conclusion that a single ballot question would be the most user friendly approach for the citizens of Reading. Furthermore, I believe this would avoid polarizing diverse voter groups and would stick to a more common purpose for the voters to decide upon. In reviewing the amount, I feel we must address the structural deficit issues for both the School Department and the Town...... it seems the need here is 6 M (3M of base with an additional 3M to allow this relief for a period of approximately 8 year). Both Schools and Town are hopeful for some level of additional funding to initiate and complete overdue projects and staffing needs. I believe this should be limited to 1.5M with the customary split between both entities. Such a combination would in my opinion lead us to a maximum request to the voters of a maximum of 7.5M for the Override amount. I would be supportive of 7.5M or less not to be reduced below the 6M level necessary to address the structural deficit for approximately 8 years. 1 Obviously in my absence I cannot vote at this evenings meeting but felt it was important to share my thoughts with my fellow BOS members as you contemplate wording and amount of this proposal. Respectfully and sincerely offered, John R Halsey Chairman, Reading Board of Selectmen . C2-)� COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. Officer's Return, Reading: By virtue of this Warrant, I, on , 2016 notified and warned the inhabitants of the Town of Reading, qualified to vote in Town elections and 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 Walter S. Parker Middle School, 45 Temple Street 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 September 12, 2016, 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 .2016. A true copy Attest: Laura Gemme, Town Clerk , Constable TOWN WARRANT 0 0 6J9 ?NCOFeO�P 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 Performing Arts Center, 62 Oakland Road, in said Reading, on Monday, September 12, 2016, 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 hear and act on the reports of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Library Trustees, Municipal Light Board, Finance Committee, Bylaw Committee, Town Manager, Town Accountant and any other Town Official, Board or Committee. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 2 To choose all other necessary Town Officers and Boards or Committees and determine what instructions shall be given Town Officers and Boards or 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 Boards or Committees to carry out the instructions given to them, or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 3 To see if the Town will vote to amend the FY 2017 -27 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 4 To see if the Town will vote to amend the vote taken under Article 15 of the May 2010 Annual Town Meeting to further increase the elderly tax exemption specified in Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41C of the Massachusetts General Laws from $750.00 to $1,000.00; or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 5 To see if the Town will vote to accept the provision of General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5 added by Chapter 181 of the Acts of 1995, which authorizes an annual increase in th 5e2 amount of the exemption granted to senior citizens, surviving spouses and surviving minors under General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D, by up to 100% of the percentage increase in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the previous year as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue, and to fix that annual increase at 100% of the CPI, to be effective for exemptions granted for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2017; or take any other action with respect thereto.. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 6 To see if the Town will vote to reduce the interest rate specified in any tax deferral and recovery agreement to be entered into pursuant to Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41A of the Massachusetts General Laws, for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2017, from 8% to 4 %; or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 7 To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen, on behalf of the Town, to petition the General Court for passage of a special law substantially as provided below. The Legislature may make clerical or editorial changes in form only to the bill, unless the Board of Selectmen approves amendments to the bill before enactment by the Legislature. The Board of Selectmen is hereby authorized to approve amendments that shall be within the scope of the general public objectives of this petition. AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF READING TO ESTABLISH A MEANS TESTED SENIOR CITIZEN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION SECTION 1. With respect to each qualifying parcel of real property classified as class one residential in the town of Reading there shall be an exemption from the property tax in an amount to be set annually by the board of selectmen as provided in section 3. The exemption shall be applied to the domicile of the taxpayer only. For the purposes of this act, "parcel" shall be a unit of real property as defined by the board of assessors under the deed for the property and shall include a condominium unit. The exemption provided for herein shall be in addition to any and all other exemptions allowed by the General Laws. SECTION 2. The board of assessors may deny an application if they find the applicant has excessive assets that place them outside of the intended recipients of the senior exemption created by this act. Real property shall qualify for the exemption under section 1 if all of the following criteria are met: (a) The qualifying real property is owned and occupied by a person whose prior year's income would make the person eligible for the circuit breaker income tax credit under section 6(k) of chapter 62 of the General Laws; (b) The qualifying real property is owned by a single applicant age 65 or older at the close of the previous year or jointly by persons either of whom is age 65 or above at the close of the previous year and if the joint applicant is 60 years of age or older; (c) The qualifying real property is owned and occupied by the applicant or joint applicants as their domicile; Z (d) The applicant or at least 1 of the joint applicants has been domiciled and owned a home in the town of Reading for at least 10 consecutive years before filing an application for the exemption; (e) The maximum assessed value of the domicile is no greater than the prior year's maximum assessed value for qualification for the circuit breaker income tax credit under Section 6(k) of chapter 62 of the General Laws as adjusted annually by the Department of Revenue; and (f) The board of assessors has approved the application. SECTION 3. The board of selectmen shall annually set the exemption amount provided for in section 1, provided that the amount of the exemption shall be within a range of fifty per cent to two hundred per cent of the amount of the circuit breaker income tax credit under section 6(k) of chapter 62 of the General Laws for which the applicant qualified in the previous year. The total amount exempted by this act shall be allocated proportionally within the tax levy on all residential taxpayers. I SECTION 4. A person who seeks to qualify for the exemption under section 1 shall, before the deadline established by the board of assessors, file an application, on a form to be adopted by the board of assessors, with the supporting documentation of the applicant's income and assets as described in the application. The application shall be filed each year for which the applicant seeks the exemption. SECTION 5. No exemption shall be granted under this act until the Department of Revenue certifies a residential tax rate for the applicable tax year where the total exemption amount is raised by a burden shift within the residential tax levy. SECTION 6. This act shall expire after 3 years of implementation of the exemption. or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen ARTICLE 8 To hear the reports of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Board of Library Trustees and Finance Committee regarding the Town's budgeting for future Fiscal Years, and to provide any advice or guidance or take any other action with respect thereto. Board of Selectmen <61q 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 September 12, 2016, 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 12016. John Halsey, Chairman Kevin Sexton, Vice Chairman Barry Berman, Secretary John Arena Dan Ensminger , Constable SELECTMEN OF READING ses-- J-/c-, &� -5 LeLacheur, Bob From: Samantha Carreiro <s Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:31 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Cc: Forwarding Account for John Halsey Subject: Re: [Reading MA] Clarity on the Senior Tax Relief Thanks Bob. We can use the argument as "the right thing to do" in many situations.. If it stands alone- The BOS should have provided stats and rational as to why it is the right this to do now? How many seniors are about to lose their homes right now before an added tax burden? 10, 20, 642? And Yes, each issue can stand or fall within their own merits, but it is very clear to me that they are closely tied together and both are now complicated based on the existence and timing of the other. I am not against helping seniors but am just very discouraged at the timing. Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my previous message, Samantha A side note: I was talking to a colleague who lives in Sudbury. He explained that this senior tax relief was put in place in Wayland and Sudbury, as they are wealthy suburbs where, most likely the seniors would have no possibility of downsizing and staying in town. Thus, they needed to find a way to protect their ability to stay in TOWN (which happened to be their current home due to a lack of more affordable options). If your home is worth 400, 500 or 600K there most certainly is the possibility of downsizing. It is not ideal... but it MANY do this (we just did it with my 85 year old grandmother as she couldn't afford to stay in her Newton Condo anymore .... she complains every time that she cooks a meal in her smaller kitchen ;) (true story) ... BUT she has much more free cash to live on now). She doesn't blame other facets of the population for this circumstance. - In Reading, relief only makes sense as a safeguard against the big raise in taxes as a RESULT of the override. Without the tax increase from the override, there is actually not as big of a driving need for us to cover these seniors costs right now. They are not at risk yet. (And given the points raised about the income levels and lack of asset test, does hit some big issues of fairness). From: "LeLacheur, Bob" <blelacheurPci. reading. ma. us> To: Cc: Forwarding Account for Jonn Halsey < Forwardingaccountforjohnhalsey @ci. read ing. ma. us> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:42 PM Subject: RE: [Reading MA] Clarity on the Senior Tax Relief Hi Samantha, I will put your email and my response in the next packet for the Selectmen next week. In keeping with Open Meeting Law, the Board cannot discuss this via email, but I have included Chair Halsey in my response. Originally the Board asked us to look for a way to protect the Seniors from an impact of an Override, and that was discussed last May during Community meetings. Over the summer it became apparent that the tax relief tools could be a much higher value (in almost every case) than simply the additional extra cost of an Override. The Board also ran into some community objection in combining the two thoughts, as perhaps an effort to 'buy Override votes'. Therefore John explained the rational for the Board NOT linking the Senior Tax Relief to an Override because it is 'the right thing to do'. The impacts of each issue should be considered by all participants, and the overlap of the impacts are clear, but each issue can stand or fall on its own merits. The Board could wait for an Override to pass, and then propose Senior Tax Relief afterwards. If that sequence were followed, for one year the Seniors would be fully exposed to the Override cost on their tax bill. So from a timing standpoint, the current sequencing is the only way to ensure that Senior protection is in place before the impact of an Override would be in place. I hope this helps. Thanks, Bob Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 town manager .ci.reading.ma.us (P) 781- 942 -9043; (F) 781 - 942 -9037 www.readingma.gov Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED - - - -- Original Message---- - From: vtsdmailer(D_vt -s, net [mailto:vtsdmailer(a)vt- s.net] On Behalf Of stcarreiro@vahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:56 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [Reading MA] Clarity on the Senior Tax Relief Hello Board of Selectmen, _ .._.._. gas sent you a message via your contact form .............. (http: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /contact) at Reading MA. If you don't want to receive such e- mails, you can change your settings at http://www.readingma.gov/user/475/edit. Message Dear Selectman, attended the meeting at the Senior Center last night and was hoping to gain clarity on one issue: Can you please explain why the senior tax relief, as presented (which I am supportive of IF it is connected to an override) cannot be tied to an override or voted on AFTER the override?)- z Also- are the other programs off the table? It IS good public policy to allow aging in place. And I am sure you have discussed it in the past independent of other issues. However, that is not how it was presented during the override discussions. It is ALSO good public policy to provide level services to students. That population, roughly 25% of our residents, isn't coming to these meetings saying that we will be impacting their future (sounds dramatic, but IMO so does the notion a 65 year old making 50K with good equity in their home, is going to be forced out if their taxes increase 250 annually). We as parents have -to speak on their behalf. Good schools benefit ALL populations. Seniors who have lived here 10+ years have seen increased values part in partial to families like mine wanting to move here. I fully support those who need it most- and am willing to take on some of those costs. I am not in agreement of how you are sequencing the votes. This does harm the chances of an override passing and also extends beyond `those who need it most ". Samantha Carreiro Middlesex Ave (qq/ a (,7 la Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:23 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: [Reading MA] Senior tax relief For BOS packet this week Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us (P) 781 - 942 -9043; (F) 781 - 942 -9037 www.readingma.gov Town Hall Hours: Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.;Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.; Friday: CLOSED - - - -- Original Message---- - From: vtsdmailer @vt -s.net [mailto:vtsdmailer @vt- s.net] On Behalf Of mariannedowning @comcast.net Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:18 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [Reading MA] Senior tax relief Hello Board of Selectmen, Marianne Downing (mariannedowning @ comcast.net) has sent you a message via your contact form (http: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /contact) at Reading MA. If you don't want to receive such e- mails, you can change your settings at http: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /edit. Message: Dear Town Manager and Board of Selectman: I want to offer my comments on your discussion of senior tax relief from your meeting last week and express my concerns. I share the opinion of those who feel that this policy is difficult to discuss by itself as. a stand alone item, apart from the override. Citizens are faced with the potential (for an average $499.5K home) of $125 per year for this relief, on top of my estimate of $795 per year for a $6 million dollar override, plus potentially in 2017 a debt exclusion or other bill for for the TLT litigation settlement, which our own Supt told us could be up to 3 million at 12.5% interest going back 10 years (in other words, 6.6 million). Of course we are going to want to view and discus these in total. It is not simply about senior tax relief being "the right thing to do ". It might be "the right thing," but I respectfully submit it is "the wrong time ". Senior tax relief, to my knowledge, is not a pressing or common municipal tax policy being actually implemented all over commonwealth. Only two other communities in Massachusetts, out of 351, Sudbury and Wayland, are implementing it, and those communities are demographically nothing like Reading. Wayland has roughly half our population, Sudbury two thirds. Median household income (based on 2015 Boston Globe chart) is $169K in Sudbury, $142K in Wayland, compared with $102K in Reading. Further, to my knowledge, neither Wayland nor Sudbury is facing the financial challenges Reading is now facing. Each town (based on Boston Business journal data) has an average property tax bill that is $5K -$7K more than Reading, with tax rate 3 to 4 dollars per thousand more than Reading. Sudbury, unlike Reading, has a split tax rate, with commercial paying $8 more per thousand than residents. These towns seem nothing like Reading. And, with their high incomes and high residential property values, it is far more understandable why such wealthy towns offer senior tax relief and can afford to do so. In addition, it appears, effectively, that we are attempting to offer far more tax relief than they are, because it seems we will have many more citizens potentially eligible based on income. One article I read said that, in Sudbury for example, only about 118 seniors got a total of 289k, costing avg taxpayer $45 per year (see http : / /www.metrowestdailynews.com / article /20150204/NEWS/150208383). Of course, as I noted above, Sudbury average household income, at close to $170K, means there likely are many wealthy seniors ineligible for such tax relief. In sharp contrast, your information at last week's meeting seemed to infer that Reading potentially would have several hundred eligible households, such that it could result in a shift of more than a million dollars of tax revenue onto the rest of us, costing an average Reading homeowner of an avg $499.5K home about $125 a year. Once again, this is on top of any operating override amount and any debt exclusion (which would not be asked of us until 2017) to pay off the possible 6.6 million total TLT litigation settlement. This senior tax relief apparently is up to town meeting, not the voters at large (unless I misunderstand this). But I can envision town meeting voting for this relief and seniors still not supporting the override. As was noted at the your meeting by at least one audience member, the state already provides senior circuit breaker tax relief, paid for by all other taxpayers (effectively). In addition, as Selectman Berman noted, the income limits (if property taxes are up to 10% of income) seem to be rather high, even if the relief is "capped" and seniors at the upper end don't get the full amount of relief. Think about that: the average home in Reading is worth $499.5K and pays total property tax of $7242, so a married senior couple making $72,000 would be subsidized, potentially, by a single or young couple who owns a condo or small house worth less, with little to no equity in their home, and who potentially makes significantly less income. Further, I wonder, does the relief you propose also prohibit seniors from owning additional homes (e.g., vacation homes) elsewhere? I know of several seniors who might have small or average valued "local" homes but who also own vacation homes, unlike many young families. I also respectfully disagree that, besides being the right thing to do, that we ought to provide senior tax relief as sort of a negotiating strategy, to provide "something for them" to make the seniors feel they are getting something from the town or from any proposed override. Rather, I respectfully submit that any operating override benefits all of us, seniors and non seniors alike. True, seniors may not be using the schools but the reverse mortgages they often seek are based on home value, which is directly related to the quality of schools and town services. And an operating override benefits public safety and emergency services, which I understand seniors might use disproportionately more than families with school kids. So, seniors have "something in it for them" from an override, even without a special, additional, tax break, which in my opinion our town simply cannot afford at this time. I agree it is beneficial to keep seniors in Reading, in their homes, etc., but in my mind this decision cannot be a solely a moral one, as nice as we'd like it to sound. It must be based on the realities of our financial difficulties -- which citizens want to discuss in total, not in isolation. It may sound like "the right thing to do," for elderly folks, but only 2 other of Massachusetts 351 communities have taken advantage of this thus far. There is a financial reason for that, I suspect. I submit Reading cannot afford, at this time, to be the third such community I will be sending these comments to the School Committee, as well, for information purposes, as I am unable to make the meeting tomorrow in person (though I'll watch from home). Z �b Sincerely, Marianne McLaughlin- Downing Town Meeting Member, Precinct 3 13 Heather Drive Reading MA Schena, Paula From: LeLacheur, Bob Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:38 AM To: Schena, Paula Subject: FW: [Reading MA] Real Estate Taxes Attachments: i_recently_attended_a_board_of_ selectman_ meeting_ wherein _the_issue_of_providing_a_r eal_ estate_ tax _break_to_property_owners_in_ excess _of_age_65_was_discussed.docx BOS packet From: vtsdmailer @vt -s.net [vtsdmailer @vt- s.net] on behalf of mkmona04 @vahoo.com [mkmona04 @yahoo.coml Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 9:42 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [Reading MA] Real Estate Taxes Hello Board of Selectmen, Michael Monahan, CPA; MST (mkmona04 @yahoo.com) has sent you a message via your contact form (http: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /contact) at Reading MA. If you don't want to receive such e- mails, you can change your settings at http: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /edit. Message: Board Members, I would greatly appreciate your time in your hoped for review of my thoughts /suggestions reflected in the attached MS Word file. Thank you, Michael Monahan, CPA; MST Bancroft Ave., Reading, MA I recently attended a Board of Selectman meeting wherein the issue of providing a real estate tax break to property owners in excess of age 65 who resided within Reading for a period of ten or more years and whose Real Estate Taxes combined with 50% of their Water Bill exceed 10% of their income was discussed. The Board explained that the estimated loss of revenue to the town would be in the range of $625,000 to $1,000,000 per year and that the town would recoup the lost revenue by increasing real estate taxes of residential homeowners under age 65 and commercial property owners. Income Qualification for the Credit as Proposed by the Town Income for a married /coupled property owner would have to be less than $85,000. Asset Qualification for the Credit as Proposed by the Town The ONLY asset test for the town is that the value of the residence must be less than $683,000. While I believe that most residents of Reading are willing to pay more in Real Estate Taxes to help elderly that are struggling, I think the board's income and asset threshold qualifications are deficient in that financially strong families may realize a real estate tax credit in Reading that struggling younger families and commercial property owners will be subsidizing. My conclusion is based on the below factors. The Board's income and asset qualification tests do not account for: • The primary residence is the ONLY asset considered. Property owners may have uncounted assets that may include for example IRA's, other real estate, trusts, checking /savings accounts, CD's, mutual funds, etc.; potentially worth millions of dollars. But as long as their primary residence is worth $682,999 or less and they make $84,999 or less, they meet the income and asset tests; • Equity in the residence. An older couple may have purchased their home decades ago when property was inexpensive compared to current times and may have paid the mortgage off entirely or have a very small balance remaining on the mortgage with a tremendous amount of equity in the home. Contrasts this to a younger family who purchased their home within the last few decades. The younger family has a significantly larger mortgage debt and monthly mortgage payment, married with an increased financial burden of raising young children and paying for college, which the older couple does not experience. • Decreasing an elderly couple's real estate tax bill by approximately $1,050 in Reading correspondingly decreases that same couples Federal Tax Schedule A Itemized deduction by the same $1,050 amount; thereby increasing the couple's federal taxes by approximately $250.00. This means that the under age 65 residents of Reading will be shifting a Real Estate Tax reduction for the elderly from the Federal government as a whole to the residents of Reading under age 65 and commercial property owners. • The residents of Reading are already funding an almost identical refundable credit to the elderly through the Massachusetts State Circuit Breaker Credit. This is a refundable tax credit paid to over age 65 individuals that meet the above discussed income and asset tests. The credit is equal to approximately $1,050 per year per property owner. In addition, if the Reading Board of Selectmen's proposal passes, the amount of the state Circuit Breaker Credit could conceivably be reduced due to the decreased actual real state tax paid to the town by the elderly property owner. This means that the under age 65 residents of Reading will be shifting a Real Estate Tax reduction for the elderly from the State as a whole to the residents of Reading under age 65 and commercial property owners. Possible Unintended Consequences Two identical hypothetical couples. Both couples have a home worth $682,999 with an Annual Real Estate Tax bill of $12,000 and a water bill of $1,200 and income of $84,000. Couple One is over age 65, their kids are adults that are out of the home, the college bills are behind them, there mortgage is paid off and they have close to $1 million dollars in IRA's and mutual funds. Their income is $84,000 per year (comprised of social security income and optional distributions from IRA's). Under the Board's proposed plan, this couple will qualify for the full Real Estate Tax Reduction of approximately $1,050 to $1,500 per year every year because their taxes and 50% of their water costs exceed 10% of their includable income and their residence is worth less than $683,000. Couple Two is under age 65. Their home is worth only $500,000, which they purchased 5 years ago and have $375,000 in mortgage debt associated with the property. They are still relatively young, so their bank and IRA balances are less than $10,000 and they are trying to save to pay upcoming inflated college costs for their three children. Their only source of income is $84,000 per year from the husband's employment because the wife recently lost her job. Under the board's plan, this struggling couple's real estate tax will increase in order to pay for the real estate tax reduction of couple one and other similar couples who are financially very well off. My Proposed Solution • Tweak the income test by multiplying the state income test amount of $85,000 by 50% and • Tweak the state asset test by multiplying the home value threshold amount of $683,000 by 50% for a home value of $341,500 and Have applicants submit a financial asset form that includes ALL assets and equity amount in the home and include those amounts in the total assets available in qualifying for the credit. When approximately six members of the audience attempted to discuss the above concerns with the Board of Selectmen Board, the board's replies included: 1) Because it is the "right thing to do "; 2) We don't want elderly people having to lose their homes because they can't afford their real estate taxes; 3) The Chairman of the Board, John Hansley stated, "Maybe there is a couple that lived their whole life in Reading and like living in Reading and don't want to leave because I cannot afford their taxes ". It was clear that there was a overriding amount of audience concern to the above weakness in the proposed credit's income and assets tests, but the Selectmen's position was apparently unwavering. Also, I think it highly unlikely that any property owner is going to loose or surrender their home over $1,050 - $1,500 (really less than that due to the above discussed decreased Federal Schedule A deduction) a year when and of they have equity in that same home. Seniors Already Get a Break It is relevant to note that the town already will allow an elderly home owner that can not afford their real estate taxes to stay in their home by allowing the unpaid taxes to accrue via a lien on the home. When the home is eventually sold, the unpaid real estate taxes are then collected at the time of the property sale - hopefully with interest? Another Concern On numerous times in response to numerous expressed audience concerns, the Board of Selectman stated they were willing to discuss the above proposed tax matter in partnership with their proposed support for a proposition 2 1/z override real estate tax increase. As numerous members of the audience stated, the two issues are connected. Also, I think the treatment that the Chairman of the Board tendered to one member of the audience was extraordinarily rude to the point where the woman felt so demoralized, she started to cry and had to leave the room because she was loosing her composure. The board should welcome comments by members of the public that are legitimate and courteous and members of the public should not be spoken over and insulted, as that woman was. Michael Monahan, CPA, MST. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -07 -19 Building: Pleasant Street Senior Center Address: 49 Pleasant Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 6:45 PM Location: Great Room Session: Open Session Version: Chairman John Halsey, Vice Chairman Kevin Sexton, Secretary Barry Berman, John Arena and Daniel Ensminger Members Not Present: Others Present: Town Manager Bob Lelacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Julie Mercier, Paula Schena, Donna Morin, Nancy Twomey, John Cain, Dave Freeman, Sheila Mulroy,Greg Johnson, Mark Beckley, Jane Parenteau, Greg Stepler, Caitlin Grant, Ed Sartell, Michael Giacalone, Tom O'Connor, Carl Mittnight, Jack Williams, Jacquie Carson, Jeff Hansen, Tom Connery, Heather McLean, Christie Moore, David Cory, Michael Kyes, David Traniello, Linda Snow Dockser, Mark Dockser, Peter Avtges, Stephen Weymicz, Angela Binda, Stephen Crook, Donna Beaulieu, Tony D'Arezzo, Robert Ferrari, Karen Dolan, Everett Blodgett, Chris Baird, Eilish Havey, Lorraine Willwerth, Rebecca Longley, Zachery Camenter, Jean Jacobs, Michael Bean, Jonathan Barnes, Michael Doyon, Neil Sumner, Chuck Tirone, Elaine Webb, John Coote, Elaine Stone Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary Topics of Discussion: Overview of Planning Efforts and Objectives Selectmen Chairman John Halsey noted that all Boards and Committees were invited to be here. He asked for everyone who was present representing a Board, Committee or Commission to stand and note which one. The following committees were represented: School Committee, CPDC, Historic District Committee, Permanent Building Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Trails Committee, Finance Committee, Fall Street Faire Committee, and the Historical Commission. John Halsey noted that three years ago we had a new Town Manager and it was time to look at what was being done and how. Communication was imperfect and residents and businesses were spending a lot of time with night time government. Communication internally is excellent. Communication to all levels of the organization was not as excellent leading to partial vision so we made some part time employees full time. The next step is how to improve communication with Boards and Committees so they made the Health Director and Conservation Administrator full time positions. The Board of Selectmen wants to involve all Boards and Committees in major items. Page 1 1 Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 19, 2016 - page 2 John Halsey noted that the last rewrite of the Charter was in 1990's. They Bylaws are in better shape. The animal control bylaw had fallen out of date so it was brought into compliance with the state level. The Selectmen formed Reading 2020 working groups. The Selectmen all have varied background and they meet with staff and sometimes Selectmen from other communities. The fact that they agree to disagree has led to some very productive discussions. John Halsey reviewed the working groups including Financial, Communication, Policy, Long Term Planning and Operational Efficiency. He noted that there has been a loud message to diversify the tax base and streamline interactions with government. Economic development will follow the expansion of commercial property. We need to develop the space we have. He also noted that we actually have one of the fastest permitting processes now. He feels we need to change the Town in a positive away that doesn't change the fabric of the Town. He encourages Boards and Committee to do coffee shop sessions at their meetings. Presentation on Zoning Feedback, Options and Process CPDC Chairman Jeff Hansen noted this is a continuation of the April 11th workshop to discuss how to align zoning. The Master Plan was approved in 2005 - 2006 and includes preserving architectural heritage, managed growth, an improved downtown, a variety of housing and an increase in affordable housing. Jeff Hansen reviewed the Economic Development Action Plan. He noted that we have a vibrant downtown and commuter rail station. We have adopted policies for mixed use in the downtown. The Town is in the process of hiring an Economic Development Coordinator. We are looking at parking management and way finding. Jeff Hansen discussed mixed use. He noted that mix uses support and maintain each other. Residential in the downtown area creates foot traffic and supports the retail and dining businesses on the weekends. He noted that 80 people attended the April 11th meeting when they looked at possible zoning enhancements. Two area - Main Street and Lincoln Street are the fastest opportunities and they are looking at putting it on the April 2017 Town Meeting Warrant. Elaine Webb asked. who pays the town for the 40R overlay district. Jean Delios noted that 40R is an overlay such as Haven Street. It allows an option without wiping out the zoning. This gives property owners a menu of options to choose from. The state cuts the Town a check when we change the zoning and then they cut a check for each residential unit. The Town Manager noted that there are no rules or strings attached to that money. We used the money for capital near areas being developed but it could have been used to hire an additional Police Officer. Someone asked about the difference in the number of parking spaces. Jean Delios noted that residential is 1.5 per unit, smart growth is 1.25 per unit, Reading Village is 1.00 per unit because a 40b can do whatever they want. Smart Growth gets the Town proposal. If a business is within 300 feet of public parking lot then they don't have to provide parking. Jean Delios noted that 40R offers a walkable community so people get out of the car. A Green Street resident noted that people park all day with stickers in a densely populated area. Heather McLean, resident of Green Street, asked how things will change. Jean Delios noted that they are putting a hold on Green Street right now. John Arena noted that a 40R is proactive. The ability to control projects is most important and the 40R gives us control. It is the vehicle by which we say sorry, not here. �� Lwz Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 19, 2016 - page 3 Michael Giacolone asked how close to the 10% are we and Jean Delios noted 7.48 %. A big 40B would get us ahead of the curve. Jonathan Barnes, 41 Pratt Street noted that he supports the 40R. He asked to what degree can we impose the design especially when developers' designs are not what we want. Jean Delios noted we have design guidelines that include landscaping, height restrictions, setbacks, parking and how they get deliveries. Jonathan Barnes noted he is talking about design control not general parameters. John Weston noted that they do get into windows i.e. what percentage of windows, how they are arranged, etc. and if it doesn't fit the character of the Town they do public meetings and try to get those details worked out. Jonathan Barnes asked if the Town can deny an application as a result of that process if they fail to comply. John Weston noted that the 40R allows us to develop a set of guidelines. A lot of waivers were requested for 30 Haven Street. CPDC can decide not to issue a waiver but he assumes they cannot deny on guidelines because they would then become a requirement. Angela Binda, 10 Orchard Park Drive, asked if a 40R precludes a 40B and Jean Delios noted they do not unless we have met the 10 %. Angela Binda asked if the 40R's make net even and Jean Delios noted we get 20% for 40R's. Angela Binda asked if that is for a lifetime and Jean Delios noted the old deed riders are jumbled up but the new deeds are at least 30 years or in perpetuity. John Weston noted that 40B's have to be approved by the State first. A developer noted that the lots on Main Street are not deep enough for green space so the Town will never get what it wants. John Weston noted that he was correct but they are not talking about big development. They are looking at small commercial with residential over it. John Halsey noted that Family Dental put in two residential units and in increased the value of the property and no additional parking was needed. He noted that people want to stay in Reading and some want to downsize. He also noted that when there is an overlay on your property it increases your options. You can change one story buildings into two stories. Elaine Webb asked if we can put 40R over residential zoning and John Weston indicated we can be we are not proposing that now. Barry Berman asked CPDC if they talked to people in development when the boundaries were being developed and John Weston noted that they had spoken to developers about size but that is a different discussion. Kevin Sexton noted that the Economic Planner Coordinator would act as a person to work with developers. Tom Connery asked. how infrastructure is addressed and Jean Delios noted that when we created the Smart Growth District the state asked us to address this to show we have the capacity. Tom Connery asked who pays if there isn't enough infrastructure. The Town Manager noted that we have plenty of pipes and water. North Reading on the other hand has the land but doesn't have enough water. The developer pays the I/I fee upfront to get into the infrastructure. The owner of the property on Green and Main noted that Quiznos is gone. He is looking for tenants and the 40R gives him options. He noted that Professor's market is great. John Halsey noted that the Board received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce today endorsing the concept. Page 1 3 e) 4 a•3 Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 19, 2016 - page 4 Daniel Ensminger asked if the industrial zone is being looked at and Jeff Hansen noted not right now, staff is working on that. Daniel Ensminger asked if this is going to Town Meeting this fall and Jeff Hansen noted they have a few articles but nothing specific to this. The Board of Selectmen and CPDC adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 4 � OFJt O c Town of Reading - e Meeting Minutes f 639' INCORg�� . Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -07 -26 Building: Reading Town Hall Address: 16 Lowell Street Purpose: General Business Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 7:00 PM Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Session: Open Session Version: Vice Chairman Kevin Sexton, Secretary Barry Berman, John Arena and Daniel Ensminger Members - Not Present: John Halsey Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Executive Assistant Paula Schena, Erin Calvo Bacci, Bill Brown, Al Sylvia, Lisa Egan, Mark Dockser, Dan Demar, Robert Griffin Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary Topics of Discussion: Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - John Arena noted that he was °flamingoed" last night by EMARC so he made a donation then picked Daniel Ensminger to be next. Barry Berman commented on last week's zoning charrette with CPDC and noted that he was awed that they had approximately 50 people show up. John Arena noted that some of the developers chose not to make comments of certain things and the Board of Selectmen might want to target developers specifically. Barry Berman noted that the Board should listen to them to create the tool that they will use. The Town Manager noted that he spoke with John Halsey and he has agreed to have a meeting with the contractors. Public Comment - Erin Calvo Bacci, 494 Main Street, .asked if the Selectmen have a plan to track and support retailers. Kevin Sexton noted that he does not know of a plan in place. Erin Calvo Bacci noted that five storefronts are empty and asked if the Town is doing anything to attract retail. Barry Berman noted that zoning will increase retail in Reading if more people live there then they will shop. Erin Calvo Bacci noted that the sign on the common can promote downtown businesses. The Town Manager noted that there is an agreement with the Historical Commission that the sign board is just for specific events. She should talk to Jean Delios about signage. James Martin, 245 Charles Street noted that the attended the community listening sessions and he asked if there is language for the override. He also asked why we are not having an election with the Presidential Election and the Town Manager noted that the Town Clerk cannot get enough staffing because we would need double the workers because we would need two separate ballots. James Martin noted that people feel the Selectmen are being manipulative. He noted that the Secretary of State said we can put it on the same ballot. Page 1 1 9 �L� Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 26, 2016 - page 2 The Town Manager noted that the Attorney General says we cannot put it on the same ballot. Mr. Martin noted that a lot of people are saying that the Selectmen are predisposed. He noted that the Library project left a bad taste in people's mouths. He also noted that the "Yes" group is giving out misinformation and a member of the Finance Committee was advocating for the "Yes" group. Bill Brown, Precinct 8 assured Mr. Martin that if there is any manipulation he will be the first to tell him. Lisa Egan, 8 Oakridge Road thanked the Board for the charrette and she is thrilled that they are thinking about another session. She feels the overlay and smart growth need to be as inclusive as possible. She knows of two businesses looking outside of Reading because they want residential. John Arena noted that developers had a different outlook and can help make some changes. Lisa Egan noted she would be willing to talk to the Historical Commission about the sign to remind people to shop local. John Arena noted that the Town Manager will speak with the Historical Commission. Town Manager's Report - The Town Manager noted on page 21 of the handout is a memo regarding the lead, testing in public buildings and all the Town buildings come back showing nothing. On pages 4 and 5 is an update of the working groups to include cable negotiations. Discussion /Action Items Approve the Town Manager's Contract - Town Accountant Sharon Angstrom noted that she surveyed other Town Manager salaries and the average salary is $172,045. Our Town Manager is 13% behind the average. She noted that Bob LeLacheur would not accept an increase higher than non -union increases so he agreed to go to a 40 hour work week and to sell back a week of vacation if it is not used and if the funds are available. The increase in the step and 2% COLA mirrors non -union and he still trails by 5 %. Sharon Angstrom noted that one change in the contract is the amount of notice of nonrenewal of the contract to be given is changed to six months' notice. The Board thanked the Town Manager for his hard work and long hours. John Arena noted that the Town Manager's work ethic and work quality shows he is a consummate professional. He denies himself of what he should have and you don't find that very often. The Town Manager noted that paying average is reasonable. He noted that the Board of Selectmen are obliged to do a performance evaluation and he offers the sample on page 13 of the packet for his evaluation. He noted this is the evaluation used for Town employees. A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to approve the employment agreement between the Town of Reading and Robert LeLacheur for services as Town Manager effective August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2018 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Birch Road Utility Easements - The Town Manager noted this is to expand the water and sewer. Drainage needs to be added to the motion. A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminger that the Board of Selectmen vote to approve the plan of land entitled "Easement Plan of Land located in Reading, Massachusetts (Middlesex County- Southern District) prepared for Sage Development scale 1 " =20' Date May 1, 2016 prepared by Sullivan Engineering Group. LLC, P.O. Box 2004, Woburn, MA 01888" to be recorded at the Middlesex zj Page 1 2 �Jl Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 26, 2016 - page 3 South Registry of Deeds with a grant of a water, sewer and drainage easement to the Town of Reading, said easement and plan are required in order for the commencement of a Reading Department of Public Works' utility project was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Abandon Drainage Easements - 21 Hunt Street and 20 Lee Street - The Town Manager noted that Engineering is still working with Town Counsel on this so it will be brought back to the Board in the future. Hearing - Driveway Waiver - 43 Track Road - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted that there is an email from an abutter, Ruth Silva in the handout and she has no objections. The Parking, Traffic and Transportation Task Force has reviewed and staff had no objections. Engineer Bob Griffin was present to represent the property owner. He noted that the property is distressed at 43 Track Road and the owner will raze the structure. He is requesting a waiver of the driveway set back from the intersection from 50 feet to 30 feet. There is very little traffic in that area. He will be removing approximately four feet of granite curbing. A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to close the hearing on the driveway waiver for 43 Track Road was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Berman seconded by Arena that the Board of Selectmen approve the driveway for 43 Track Road with a 30 foot offset was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Preview of September 12th Special Town Meeting Warrant - The Town Manager noted that Article 3 is to amend the Capital Improvement Program. The Fire Chief is $1500 short for a new ambulance and he wants an additional piece of equipment for the ambulance which is $24,000. Article 4 is to increase the Senior Exemption from $750 to $1000. Article 5 is to accept optimal cost of living increases for seniors and surviving spouses. Article 6 is to lower the interest rate on tax deferrals. Article 7 is a Home Rule Petition for tax relief for state senior circuit breaker filers. The Town Manager noted this will allow seniors to stay in their home and defer tax payments. If they move they pay a lower interest rate and if they die then the heirs pay the full interest rate. Article 8 is the override. Town Counsel will word the question for discussion at Town Meeting but Town Meeting has no authority over an override. The Town Manager noted that on August 9th the Board of Selectmen will discuss tax policy and the Town FY18 budget. The Selectmen could have a number decided by August 31, 2016 but they don't have to. The Selectmen need to vote at Town Meeting on September 12, 2016. Barry Berman noted that waiting until September 1 is a long time. He feels they should try to decide ASAP to get the word out to the community. He feels the fact that we didn't ask every year for an override when others did is a generational thing. At some point we get to the end of the cliff. Page 1 3 096-63 Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 26, 2016 - page 4 The Town Manager noted that the Town is cheap and doesn't like to spend money. We have run out of tools. Town side has run out of options but we will do whatever the Town wants. John Arena noted that we are not changing out spending discipline and at the end of the period then there is a $4.5 million gap. The Town Manager noted that 2 1/2 is too low to cover it. Barry Berman noted that a lot of debt exclusion falls off in 8 - 10 years. The Town Manager noted that the Selectmen need to speak with the School Committee to decide the amount. Senior Tax Relief - Assessor Victor Santaniello was present. He noted he is looking at additional forms of relief for senior tax payers and there are not a lot of options. He noted that Sudbury has a means tested tax. The exemption is based on income. The higher the income, the lower the exemption. The lower the income, the higher the exemption. The residential class will have a higher tax rate to make up for exemptions. The circuit breaker allows up to $1030 off the income taxes for seniors who file taxes. Joint owners must be 60 years old. Victor Santaniello noted that the amount shifted is inside the levy so if a lot of seniors apply then he can reduce the amount to keep it under the cap. Barry Berman asked if there is any back testing that $1million gets split equally between commercial and resident. Victor Santaniello noted with a 1.5 shift the rates would be 14.51 for commercial and 14.89 for residential. Tax Relief - Victor Santaniello noted that the average assessed value and income cannot lower taxes more than 50 %. Once it is set the cap can't change for three years. Barry Berman noted that Sudbury had an onerous asset section in the application and we need to reserve the money for people who really need it. Victor Santaniello noted that we can go through asset testing and we can cap it. Daniel Ensminger asked about the application process and Victor Santaniello noted it is an early process. All applications would be due by the end of August in order to determine how many qualify. Victor Santaniello noted that Sudbury's biggest problem was what to with tax deferrals. There is not a lot of support from his peers on these. He noted that some communities do a match. If they qualify for the circuit breaker then they match that amount. John Arena noted that there is a desire to provide a cushion for seniors who want to stay at home. He asked if we can look at the number of years a senior has been in Town and Victor Santaniello noted that it can be structured along the same way others are requiring domicile in MA for five years. Kevin Sexton asked how many years Sudbury tested it and Victor Santaniello noted three years. John Arena asked what happened at the end of year four and the Town Manager noted that Sudbury had to renew the Home Rule process. Daniel Ensminger asked how many participants did Sudbury have and Victor Santaniello noted 135 the first year and 125 the following year. Approval of Minutes A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminger to approve the minutes of June 21 2016 as amended was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0 f ID Page 1 4 Board of Selectmen Minutes - July 26, 2016 - gage 5 A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminaer to approve the minutes of July 12, 2016 as amended was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0. Respectfully submitted, Secreta ry Page 1 5 N oFRfia Town of Reading Meeting Minutes ,63g'INCONQ�pP� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2016 -06 -16 Building: School - Parker Address: 45 Temple Street Purpose: Community Listening Session Attendees: Members - Present: Time: 7:05 PM Location: Multi- Purpose Room Session: Open Session Version: Chairman John Halsey, Vice Chairman Kevin Sexton, Secretary Barry Berman, John Arena and Daniel Ensminger Members - Not Present: Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary Topics of Discussion: Process The Town Manager noted that there will probably be one or two more public meetings. The next important date is August 16 to call for a special election and an override vote. If the Selectmen do call for a special election, there will be a community financial forum on Thursday, September 1. On September 12 there will be a Special Town Meeting, and that night an override will be voted on. The reason that it needs to be voted on that night is because the Selectmen need to formally tell the Town Clerk that there needs to be an election in October. Finances The Town Manager noted that revenues have grown just over 3 %. Property tax grew over 3.6% - on average over those three years new growth at 1 %... New growth comes from additions, builds new house, or if a vacant lot grows into a new house or business. On average 1% new growth per annum, though lately that number is lower. State aid has grown at a little over 2.7 %. Over the next three years: Not using cash reserves shows revenue growth of just over 2 %. If we are able to use cash reserves then we get to 2.5 %. Spending is just over 3 % - 3.1% for Schools and Town. The reason that this has all worked is that we have lowered our debt spending, and pensions, OPEB, health insurance, and other costs that grow faster than 2.5 %. Health insurance premiums paid are just over 5% - but lower than the 8% typical in the market. The Town Manager noted that retirees and employees have taken on more costs of health insurance in order to preserve jobs, but the rates have risen in excess of 3% growth - this is a national problem. Page 1 1 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16, 2016 - page 2 Using cash reserves the Town could achieve 2.6% growth, but only .7 % growth without using cash reserves. The Town has been growing the cash reserve account and it creates stability, which contributes to the AAA Bond Rating. Litigation with RMHS has been going on for ten years. He found out over the last month that the remaining construction costs will not be enough to settle the lawsuit, but he could not release the sum expected for settlement. Reviewing revenues against peer communities; generally peers collect more in taxes than Reading does. The real difference is that on average peer communities have revenue from CIP properties. Reading is more reliant on State Aid. The real increase in health care is 64% and State aid has dropped. People think that the taxes in Reading are high. However, compared to our peers, Reading's taxes are low - including the high school debt. If you look at the pure mathematical average we are lower by $500, and under regression we are closer to $700 below. In terms of property taxes against our peers Reading is doing pretty well. How do we spend money compared to peers? None of them are as "boring" as Reading... Stoneham spends far less on education because they don't have as many students. We spend a little more on general government and a little more on public safety. Why is per pupil spending low? Reading on average has 17.4% of the population enrolled in school. Westford is the high. Running the school is the more expensive part of running the Town. There is state aid to help compensate some of those costs. Reading is below average per pupil even though we are above average in overall educational spending. Reading has a large student population with a high level of services from the Town and Schools. We are working on some economic development efforts. The Town wants a high level of services but the Town and Schools will have to reduce staffing. An Operating override is a permanent increase in taxes. Right now we have two debt exclusions (Library and RMHS). In eight years those projects will be paid off and taxes will go down. An operating override fixes a permanent gap. There are plenty of people who have lived here a long time who are happy with the level of service. There is also a population that wants a higher level of services. The last override was 13 years ago. Concerns have been raised about the elderly residents' ability to pay. We want to help the elderly age in place. This issue is becoming a challenge in our region because housing is very expensive. We have done some things to help in margins - we have in -law apartments by right - which is way ahead of the curve. And the reason we are ahead of the curve is elderly residents' ability to pay. At a future Town Meeting these three articles will come up for a vote: 1. Accept optional cost of living increases for seniors and surviving spouses. 2. Increase the elderly exemption from $750 to $1000. 3. Lower the interest rate on those who qualify to defer taxes on their homes from 8% to 4% - but if die in that state the taxes rise to 16% - but it will be the problem of the heirs. 4. Home Rule Petition to shift taxes to other taxpayers. Potentially shift a million dollars away from residents that qualify for the elderly circuit breaker. Sudbury has a framework like this. Met with three legislators - who caution that the DOR doesn't like this. The net result there probably will be some seniors who not only don't pay for an override but also see their taxes go down. nd� Page 1 2 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16, 2016 - page 3 Peer communities slide with override comparative analysis: Communities that do not split the tax rate tend to be more residential and in some towns the commercial property owners pay a large share. The Town Manager met with Standard and Poors and the credit rating for Reading is AAA - better than the Federal government. Superintendent Doherty reviewed the breakdown of costs between personnel and non - personnel reductions. The district tried to stay away from reductions in the classroom but had to make a cut of $849K in FY16. In FY17 they had to shift that a little bit and made some significant personnel reductions. Elementary level 2 Elementary teachers at Killam were reduced resulting in higher class sizes. Middle school level reduced a .5 teacher. The High School had the most reductions which cut 4.6 classroom teachers, 1 paraeducator, and elimination of freshman advisory classes. Reduction of course sections across all departments except special education and guidance. FY18 will only see a .7 increase in the budget, so that results in a $2M budget shortfall for the School department. How to cut this down? One question raised: could you make non - personnel reductions? In FY17 we already made personnel cuts. Wages are $25.78 million, and expenses $75 million. The non - required expenditures are things like the contracted cleaning services and supplies. There isn't a lot of non - personnel expenses - cuts would translate into personnel cuts. Cuts would eliminate professional development, technology purchases, curriculum materials, classroom supplies but would still leave $1.6M in wages that would need to be cut. How many FfE teachers would that be? The average salary is $55,000 so it would be 30 FfE in teacher reductions. That won't happen, so it would be a combination of teachers, administrative, and support staff reductions. The impact would be higher class sizes at all levels, elimination of programs, and reducing student support using the revenue projections that Town Manager talked about earlier. The Town Manager noted that Department Heads asked for budgets that we cannot afford as part of the budget process to show what is needed. Looking ahead at FY18 - we have more expenses... on the Listen to the Community slide. Wages $17.2 million and expenses are $8.2 million. The Town Manager believes the Town could reduce a couple hundred thousand dollars out of expenses, but would still need to cut an estimated $690K out of wages or roughly 14 full time jobs. The Town could reduce depth and hours... public safety, public works, library (hours), and Town Hall specific services. In Town Hall there is not a lot of repetition or depth. Town Manager reiterated that he is neither for nor against an override, but advocating for getting the real information out there. "We want the community to be informed and vote to have the government they want. We have waited awhile before asking, but now we cannot wait any longer to ask," said Mr. LeLacheur. What services should be added? What services that are provided should be eliminated? Page 1 3 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16, 2016 - page 4 What services do you use that you would be willing to give up? Would you prefer to target fees instead of taxes? What are you concerned about as a resident of Reading? EVERY and ANY question are good questions. The Town Manager ended his presentation and handed the meeting over to the Moderator at 7:43 PM. Question and Answer portion of the meeting: Tom Grant, 15 Northrup Road indicated he is trying to understand prop 2.5. Shouldn't the Town revenues increase 2.5% per year... so why are they projected to fall? The Town Manager responded that 2.5% plus new growth brings it up to 3.6 %. New growth is the reason we see it dropping from 3 to 2.6... other areas that are not growing at 2.5% and are not projected at 2.5... It is very hard to have revenues go up much more than 2.5 %. A Ridge Road resident asked what drives the expenses? He understands that health insurance is a big piece of that. He also asked if employees will receive raises when wage stagnation is a national issue. The Town Manager responded that on the Town side - that comment has come up in prior meetings - we expect top quartile performance for an average wage but we pay 7% below average. Wages are growing albeit slowly. Wages have grown somewhere around 2.5% over 13 years... there are some portions of the private sector that 2.5% is high, but plenty of other places that it is low. Looking at our peers - we are asking for top quartile performance but we pay lower than our peers. Superintendent John Doherty responded that we are in the bottom half when compared to peer communities. It is becoming hard to fill some of the more challenging positions. We see staff leaving who are moving on to make $7 -$10K more per year in salary and it is getting harder to retain quality staff. Amy Malsconow, 66 John St. asked why are we charging our businesses lower taxes than our peer towns? The Town Manager brought up the Peer Community Comparative Analysis slide. Wakefield is charging double the tax rate to its businesses. In order to split the rate, these numbers are to illustrate the point, while the average home would go up $100, while the average business would go up $2000, and then those costs will go to Reading residents. The communities that charge more don't make more money, but they allocate the burden differently. Colleen O'Shaunessy, Walnut Street asked a new growth question: There are new condos on 128 and maybe they pay $2 -$3K in property taxes each. How is that chunk of money not improving the budget? The Town Manager responded it did. It was part of new growth over several years. We had $900K in new growth, usual new growth it is $500K. Looking forward we don't have any projects in the pipeline like that. Our Assessors know how much value has been involved. That growth is reflected in the math. Ann Landry, Precinct 5 and a member of the Finance Committee asked what additional financial pressures were related to the elevated lead levels found in a few school buildings recently? The Town Manager responded that we have worked with our schools, most problems are low cost items, some may be more long terms - like August instead of June - Repairs will come out of the water budget - it is a water enterprise fund issue. If the water rate goes up it would be maybe 2 cents of that increase. Mr. Brown, resident on Forest Street and Member of Town Meeting remarked on the projected new growth. He noted that most of the value is in the land, not the home. If the new home is built on an older lot where the previous value was $450K that is now $900K.. i1 Page 1 4 "I Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16 2016 - page 5 that additional $450K is the new growth. Have to have hundreds and hundreds of these additions or new builds in Town to really notice. It is not going to make the number go from $500K to $1M. Towns with more new growth have big projects - such as Market Street in Lynnfield or the Pulte project. A resident asked if there is a fixed ratio about how we allocate between schools and towns. The Town Manager responded that the truth is that we have a fairly regimented budget process. Accommodated Costs are a philosophy that we pay those costs right off the top - snow and ice, out of district special education, etc. Once you take fixed costs away it is a traditional split. Typically 1/3 to the Town and 2/3 of the budget to the School Department. When we first added a School Resource Officer, both sides wanted it - a Police Officer was put into accommodated costs in the first year. The default is that if you are adding something you are subtracting something. An Emerald Drive resident asked what determines the amount of state aid we receive. The Town Manager responded that the state has certain revenues, project a 4 +% increase in revenue. State aid is done by the Governor in January, then the House proposes a figure and then the Senate gets together and then they all agree on a number. He read this morning of a $750M reduction. Beacon Hill totally determines that. There are no guarantees that we will get it. Thomas J. Ryan, 87 Daniel Road noted that he doesn't care what other communities spend money on, but he cares what we do in Reading. But every single year since Prop 2.5% we have gone up. The Town Manager explained that the Selectmen may vote to hold an override and that Town leadership wants to listen to the community and ensure that the town is well informed before voters need to make a choice. It needs to go up 3% a year... the problem is that some of our costs are going up more than 3% and that leaves less for schools and so forth. At the local level 2.5% is a very small increase relative to where things are today, especially with health insurance. A School Street resident asked how much of the operating expenses of the library are increasing? The Town Manager responded that right now there are not any more operational budget increases requested in this budget. One consultant said that over five years the library may want to add three positions. However, with financial problems hours will likely be cut at the library. A resident asked for an explanation about the school department slides. Confusion about the difference between a Level Services budget, which continues the same staffing and programming levels as the previous year, and a Level Funded budget, which is the same amount of money allocated to the budget from one year to the next. The Superintendent responded that a level service budget reflects increases in wages (though collective bargaining agreements - steps and lanes). A level services budget increases on the same amount of services. The Superintendent noted that the current budget does not provide level services, as each year we are cutting more and more. An average increase is 3.1 %, but that isn't enough to maintain the services being delivered. A resident from 11 Jerry Road - Wants us to open up the books so we can see it. He wants to see where the money is going. The Town Manager responded that if he is asking for budget information there is more than you could ever want on the website. Look at the budget on the front page and there is more information you could ever want. The Superintendent said the same with the School Department budget. In addition, our expenses are audited every year and that is public information. Page 1 5 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16 2016 - page 6 Leah Barton, a resident from Thomas Drive asked about the High School litigation. The Town Manager couldn't comment noting that it is in litigation. The construction fund is about $750K and the final settlement will be more than that, and that is the most he could say. A Hancock Street resident asked whether the increase in revenue that will come with the override would give us status quo or would that increase the level of services? The Town Manager said that is one of the philosophical questions for the community. The School Department needs $2M and Town needs $1M to fund a level service budget in 1=Y18. If you want to sustain it, you need it a little higher so you can bank it. Then, do you want increased services? The driving need for an override is to maintain level services. Linda Phillips, Town Meeting member, asked how will paying off our building projects affect our taxes? The Town Manager responded that the High School and small parts of two other schools and the library will go away in eight years. About $400 of the average household tax bill will go down by that much if nothing changes. Ms. Phillips noted that she feels the School Department budget it's always a concern. Three or four years ago it was $5M more to provide services for the same number of students. She said government social security isn't increasing, but the cost of living has increased. Pensions that the Town and Schools get are way better than the private sector. Then the Town's costs for health insurance go up every year. She asked how many employees actually use that and how many have spouses could get health insurance through their provider? The Town Manager responded that employees pay 29% of health insurance premiums, however employees in peer communities average 24 %. If we do nothing else... the employees are paying $1M more in Reading than other towns. In terms of the number of people who are taking health insurance, the Town Manager didn't offer a number but noted that in the last three years the town has offered a payment to employees that opted out of the town's plan. The town has saved $500K annually by using spousal options. In terms of the health insurance product it is Blue Cross Blue Shield through MIIA. Some neighboring communities have joined GIC. Broadly the appeal of the GIC was marketing but not financial and members didn't save as much money. The GIC doesn't look attractive - as the state legislature was subsidizing the GIC. If we are going to pay health insurance for state employees, and if that organization runs on an equal playing field, we are concerned that if the legislature backed away from that support, then costs would rise. What is a Level Services Budget? The Town Manager noted that if the population is 24,000, then we need 24 Police Officers. A level service is how much demand in the community to maintain the services commensurate with demand. If a 4% growth in population need a 4% growth in public safety. Superintendent John Doherty noted that a lot has changed in education in 17 years: technology needs, special education costs (which is why building more in- district programs - to reduce out of district placements - has driven Special Ed staffing in district up). Reading pays in the bottom half of our comparable communities. If we don't pay competitive salaries then we lose competitive teachers. We try to make the working conditions as best as we can. Ms. Phillips noted that Special Ed is a number that concerns her. The number going out is the same as 17 years ago, IEPs are level, so she is not sure what really explains the difference. The school is virtually at a standstill. The percentage of the students going out has increased, and the severity of the needs has increased - social /emotional and students with autism. Page 1 6 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16, 2016 - page 2 The Town Manager pointed to unfunded mandates - that the legislature also passes laws and rules that cost more money but funding doesn't increase. A new law may cost the town $50K but the town won't receive additional funding to cover the cost. The amount of unfunded mandates has soared. Something as simple as public records - public information for instance. It costs money to produce public records - but we didn't get any more money to do that work. A Woburn Street resident noted that a rubbish collection fee could raise $1M. What other fees and sources of revenue have been considered? The Town Manager responded under state law the Town may only charge the cost of a service. Selectmen are comfortable being below average, trying not to gouge people with fees. The only deal is the $25 deal for parking and composting center... non - Reading residents pay $800+ per year. As an example, three years ago ambulance fees increased. We don't want to gouge people, we now collect $800K+ in ambulance fees - but again a philosophical question for the community. Students and families pay fees for athletics, drama, etc. The fee has to reflect the costs of the service. Resident Bill Brown noted that he continually hears that we are going to lose teachers... in 1916 they said the same thing. A resident noted that she heard that 65 teachers have resigned. Is that true? She has seen some really good teachers leaving. Superintendent Doherty responded that the number of teachers resigning has increased a little bit. Average is 25 -30 teachers that leave annually for a variety of reasons. This generation of staff is a more transient generation. One teacher left to go teach environmental classes in Colorado. We have teachers that are leaving to go out of state or go to neighboring communities. We have seen an uptick in the number of teachers that are leaving. The Town Manager noted that people can earn more money in the private sector. We have seen more turnover or lack of ability to hire. We have positions that are unfilled, because we cannot hire at the posted salary. The next generation doesn't work at Town Hall. As we see turn over it will be difficult to retain employees. Overtime is not very interesting for some employees because they wanted time off. We know that money and wages are not the attraction for the job, but it has to be reasonable. Mark Docksor, a member of the Finance Committee, asked what are some new services that we might have some interest in? There are some things that we haven't thought of. We do have a big problem with opiods and drug abuse so maybe another school resource officer. More residents are aging in place, they want to stay in the town, and need more in the town. A resident noted he wouldn't prefer fees instead of taxes... ie a trash fee would be charged the same for a low income family so it is a non - progressive fee. Those that generate the most pay the most, but generally it isn't progressive. A resident asked about networking structures, the cost of technology broadly, and what are we paying to outside providers. The Town Manager responded that we have software licenses, all the infrastructure, we have a staff that does it all. We are a lean organization ... we have vendors that want to see us. For certain costs it is effective. A resident asked about the dividend the Town receives from hosting RMLD. The Town Manager responded that is set by a very long term agreement with 10 year renewals. Figures are based on a regional Consumer Price Index but CPI is a poor measure of inflation. Nancy Powell asked if the construction projects have been paid for and how is it in the budget? The Town Manager responded that West Street is 90% State work. The bulk of the bigger construction projects, including the hiring of police detail officers, is paid by the Page 1 7 9 Board of Selectmen Minutes - June 16, 2016 - page 8 State. He noted that we do way more than other communities. He wants to charge tolls to non - residents. We are a huge cut through community and that wears and tears our roads. Communities near us are about the same. By policy the FINCOM wants to pay 5% of revenue on maintenance. Take debt to cover big projects. It is a lot easier to cut capital than cut teachers or police officers. There should be a certain level of maintenance or it would cost more money. A resident asked if the Birch Meadow project money going back into the budget? The Town Manager responded for FY 17 the budget is in place for about $100,000 that we will need to spend, but in future years there is $120,000 that won't be spent to service that debt. But in years 2 -10 it is worth $120,000. And I expect the Recreation Committee to bring the whole project back. Peter Brown, Forest Street noted that there has been 30 years of budget discussions, and he thinks this Town is really well run and well managed. He thinks we get a lot of value for our money and the fundamental problem that we face, is are we going to be able to accept a $2.5M cut in our operation budget? What is that going to do our school system? Really, it is the bread and butter of the Town. Everyone benefits from the school system being as good as it is." When he refinanced he was surprised at the value of his house given its condition. He said that if you spend $300 -$500 more (for an override), you will get it back when you sell it. "My house is not in good shape, the value of the house is going to be way higher spending $300- 400 -500 dollars per year to keep the community in a high value. You're going to get it back and you're going to get it back in a big way." Frank Wiggins asked if there are any strategies to try to raise more income from corporate or business revenues? The Town Manager responded absolutely a very strong yes. No vacant land. Have to put to better use your existing commercial land. Landfill helped the budget for two years, only. Burlington - only 62% residential, but they still have a lot of land to develop and it probably won't be houses. We need to ask for money more often than communities with more industrial property. A Resident noted that we have the opportunity now to plan ahead. How much can the local government control development in Town? He raised the issue of the 40B project downtown. The Town Manager responded that the Town has virtually no say in it. If a developer wants to buy private property and develop it, that is theirs. The Senate passed zoning changes and reminds the Towns that they have zero control over land - the State is driving affordable housing. Reading doesn't decide how many nail salons and how many bagel stores. The market decides that, you decide that. The Lynnfield lifestyle mall was originally proposed for Reading, and it moved next door. By and large Reading doesn't have a choice over land use like that. All new housing, somehow, means more children in the district. A resident asked when do you decide which roads get paved every year? The Town Manager responded that the decision on what roads to pave is an interesting one. Do we have to do water or sewer work? What about National Grid... MWRA? So work to coordinate such that all those infrastructure elements are aligned. Otherwise, every road in Town has a paving condition, we don't fix just the worst roads, then you would slowly decrease the quality of all the roads. It is really an art to combine the best, worst and average roads and actually let the town be drivable. It's been a challenge with some non - Reading projects that we didn't know were coming. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Page 1 8 �Z Massachusetts Department of Revenue Division of Local Services Na jeet K. Bat, Commissioner Robert G. Nunes, Deputy Commissioner & Director of Municipal Affairs Proposition 2Y2Ballot Questions Requirements and Procedures October 2008 Visit our website at mass. aov/dls `�pCHUgB Of TABLE OF CONTENTS PROPOSITION 2'/2 BALLOT QUESTIONS REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES I. INTRODUCTION Page 1 II. TYPES OF BALLOT QUESTIONS 1 A. Overrides 1 B. Exclusions 1 1. Debt Exclusions 2 a. Pre - Proposition 2Y2 Debt Exclusions 2 b. Post - Proposition 2Y2 Debt Exclusions 2 2. Capital Expenditure Exclusions 3 C. Underrides 3 1111. REFERENDUM PROCEDURE 3 A. Placing Questions Before Voters 3 1. Overrides and Underrides 3 2. Exclusions 3 B. Election Procedure 4 C. Form of Questions 4 1. Statement of Purpose 4 a. Specificity of Purpose 4 b. Definition of Purpose 5 2. Other Information 6 D. Approval of Questions 6 E. Approval of Multiple Questions on Same Ballot 6 1. Overrides 6 a. Pyramid Overrides 6 b. Menu Overrides 7 2. Exclusions 7 F. Voter Information 7 G. Campaign Activities 7 H. Revocation of Questions 8 IV. RELATIONSHIP TO APPROPRIATIONS 8 A. Use of Additional Taxing Authority (Earmarking) 8 1. Overrides 9 a. General Overrides 9 b. Stabilization Fund Overrides 9 2. Debt Exclusions 9 a. Total Exclusion 9 b. Annual Exclusion 10 3. Capital Expenditure Exclusions 10 B. Appropriation - Referendum Sequence 11 C. Contingent Appropriations 11 1. Statutory Requirements 11 2. Appropriation Types 12 V. ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 13 I_11:2 4i! I_a] Is] =K A Proposition 2Y2 Ballot Question Forms 14 B Levy Limit Override Purposes 16 C Levy Limit Override Approaches 18 D Sequencing Options 22 E Sample Contingent Appropriation Motions 23 F Division of Local Services Contact Information 27 PROPOSITION 2'/z BALLOT QUESTIONS REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES General Laws Chapter 59, § 21C I. INTRODUCTION Proposition 2Y2 limits the amount of revenue a city or town may raise from local property taxes each year to fund municipal operations. This amount is known as the annual levy limit. However, the law allows a city or town to increase tax revenues above that limit with voter approval. It also requires a city or town to reduce its levy limit as specified by the voters. This summary explains the referendum procedure established by Proposition 2Y2 and the different types of referenda questions communities may ask voters to approve. II. TYPES OF BALLOT QUESTIONS Proposition 2Y2 establishes two types of voter approved increases in taxing authority. It also allows voters to mandate a reduction in taxing authority. A. OVERRIDES A levy limit override increases the amount of property tax revenue a community may raise in the year specified in the override question and in future years. It increases the community's levy limit and becomes part of the base for calculating future years' levy limits. The result is a permanent increase in taxing authority. G. L. c. 59 § 21C(g). The purpose of the override is to provide funding for municipal expenses likely to recur or continue into the future, such as annual operating and fixed costs, although it may be used for any municipal spending purpose. The only limitation on the amount of the override is that the new levy limit, including the override, cannot exceed the overall Proposition 2Y2 levy ceiling of 2Y2 percent of the community's full and fair cash value. B. EXCLUSIONS An exclusion increases the amount of property tax revenue a community may raise for a limited or temporary period of time in order to fund specific projects. The amount of an exclusion may be raised in addition to the community's levy limit. It does not increase the community's levy limit nor become part of the base for calculating future years' levy limits. The exclusion may be used to raise additional funds only for a capital purpose, which is any purpose for which a city or town is authorized to borrow. See generally G.L. c. 44, §§ 7 and 8. This includes most public building and public works projects, as well as land and equipment acquisitions. An exclusion may be used by a community to fund its own capital spending, or its assessed share of capital spending by a regional school district or other regional governmental unit of which it is a member, whether the spending is financed by borrowing (debt exclusion) or within the annual budget (capital expenditure exclusion). There is no limitation on the number or dollar amount of exclusions. Debt Exclusions If a capital project is being funded by debt, approval of a debt exclusion permits the community to raise the amount of the annual debt service payment for that project each year until the debt is retired. See Section IV- A-2 below. Debt exclusion questions may be presented to and approved by the voters before or after the related debt is authorized or issued. An exclusion approved after repayment of the debt had begun applies prospectively, i.e., to the remaining debt service payments owed on the obligation. a. Pre - Proposition 2Y2 Debt Exclusions A community may fund its remaining debt service payments on obligations issued and outstanding on November 4, 1980 by presenting a single "Pre- Proposition 2Y2" debt exclusion question to the voters. If approved, the community may exclude the remaining debt service payments on all of those obligations until the debts are retired. An approved "Pre- Proposition 2Y2" debt exclusion also covers the community's apportioned share of the debt service on any bonds that were issued by a regional governmental unit of which it is a member and were outstanding on November 4, 1980. G.L. c. 59, § 21 CO). b. Post - Proposition 2Y2 Debt Exclusions A community may fund debt service payments on obligations issued after November 4, 1980 by presenting a "Post- Proposition 2Y2" debt exclusion question to the voters for municipal or regional governmental unit borrowings it wishes to exclude. G.L. c. 59, § 21 C(k). A separate question may be presented for each borrowing or multiple borrowings may be included within a single question. 2 2. Capital Expenditure Exclusions If the capital project is being funded by an appropriation, voter approval of a capital expenditure exclusion question permits the community to raise the amount of the project costs up to the amount stated in the question. This additional taxing authority is available for just the one fiscal year specified in the question. G.L. c. 59, § 21C(iY2). A separate question may be presented for each budgeted project or multiple projects may be included within a single question. C. UNDERRIDES A levy limit underride decreases the amount of property tax revenue a community may raise in the year specified in the underride question and in future years. It decreases the community's levy limit and becomes part of the base for calculating future years' levy limits. The result is a permanent decrease in taxing authority. G. L. c. 59, § 21 C(h). III. REFERENDUM PROCEDURE A. PLACING QUESTIONS BEFORE VOTERS Proposition 2Y2 referenda questions are placed on an election ballot by vote of the "local appropriating body," which is defined in towns as the board of selectmen, not town meeting. In towns without selectmen, a vote of the town council is required to present a referendum question to the electorate. In cities, a vote of the city council, with the mayor's approval where required by law, is needed. G.L. c. 59, § 21 C(a). This is the only way an override or exclusion question may be placed on the ballot. They may not be placed on the ballot by a town meeting vote or any local initiative referendum procedure authorized by law. A local referendum procedure, however, may be used as an alternative method of placing an underride question on the ballot. The board or council must vote the question exactly as it will appear on the ballot. Overrides and Underrides A majority vote of the board or council is needed to place an override or underride question on the ballot. G.L. c. 59, § 21C(g) and (h). 2. Exclusions A 2/3 vote of the board or council is needed to place an exclusion question on the ballot. G.L. c. 59, § 21C(iY2), (j) and (k). B. ELECTION PROCEDURE Proposition 2Y2 referenda questions may be placed on a regular or special municipal election ballot. Questions may also be placed on the state biennial election ballot. However, those questions must be submitted to the Secretary of State for certification by the first Wednesday in August preceding the election. G. L. c. 59, § 21C(i). The usual laws and procedures relating to municipal elections apply. The municipal clerk must receive written notice of the referendum at least 35 days before the date of the election. G.L. c. 54, § 42C. The vote to place a question on the ballot must take place in sufficient time to meet this advance notice requirement. A city or town may present Proposition 2Y2 questions to the voters as many times during the year as it chooses. The only constraint on the interval between these elections is the time needed to call and hold each election. The Office of the Secretary of State is responsible for administering and enforcing municipal election laws. Specific questions about the application of these laws to the Proposition 2Y2 referendum procedure should be directed to the Elections Division of that office at 617- 727 -2828. C. FORM OF QUESTIONS Proposition 2Y2 specifies the form of each type of ballot question. This exact language must be used to properly place a question before the voters. The question forms are found in Appendix A. Statement of Purpose All override and exclusion questions require a statement of the purpose or purposes for which the monies from the tax "assessment" or debt "issue" will be used. a. Specificity of Purpose The purpose must be described in a manner that enables voters to determine the appropriations) or debt obligation(s) covered by the question. The degree of specificity required to do this will depend on the type of question. (1) Overrides Override questions are designed to increase the amount of revenue generally available for appropriation. As a result, the spending purpose in an override question may be broad in scope such as general or departmental operating purposes. V More specific spending purposes may also be stated such as where a service will be reduced or eliminated without the override. Examples of acceptable spending purposes are found in Appendix B. (2) Exclusions Exclusion questions are designed to fund specific capital projects. Therefore, the borrowing or spending purpose in an exclusion question must describe the particular project(s) being funded by the question. b. Definition of Purpose The purpose used in an override or exclusion question must be a spending or borrowing purpose. This means a purpose for which a community's appropriating body could vote to appropriate money or authorize debt. The purpose cannot be used to provide voters with information on the impact of an unsuccessful vote on the question or the underlying events or circumstances that may cause budget difficulties. Nor may it be used to promote or advocate for the override or exclusion. For example, language that does not meet the definition of spending purpose would be questions with the stated purpose of "restoring monies lost due to local aid reductions" or "increasing free cash." These questions do not state a spending purpose because communities do not appropriate funds for these purposes. In addition, language that explains the impact of voter action on the question and is intended to promote the override or exclusion does not meet the definition of spending purpose. For example, "preventing substantial reductions in town services, programs and personnel and further deferral of vital capital projects," "preventing a reduction in the police department budget," "preventing the layoff of 4 police officers," "maintaining current municipal and educational services" or "restoring school athletic programs" would be inappropriate. The question must simply specify the personnel, services or programs for which the additional funds will be used. Thus, appropriate purposes for the examples above would be "funding the town's operating and capital expenses," "funding the police department operating budget," "funding the salaries of 4 police officers," "funding municipal and educational services," or funding school athletic programs." Finally, the spending purposes should not be characterized in a manner intended to promote the question by including financial information usually provided during the budget process. Examples would be "funding uncontrollable increases in employee health 5 insurance costs" or "funding a 28% increase in the town's regional school district assessment." The question should just state the spending purpose: "funding employee health insurance costs" or "funding the town's regional school district assessment." 2. Other Information Override and capital expenditure exclusion questions must also include the total amount of additional taxing authority being requested and the fiscal year in which it will be used. This information is not included in debt exclusion questions. Any additional information about the requested amount, the services and programs to be funded by the requested amount, and the impact the vote will have on those services cannot be included in the question or on the ballot. That type of information should be provided in the course of a balanced, comprehensive, public information effort. Public information efforts undertaken by local officials must be consistent with election and campaign finance laws. See Sections III -F and G below. D. APPROVAL OF QUESTIONS A question is approved if a majority of the people voting on that question vote "yes." E. APPROVAL OF MULTIPLE QUESTIONS ON SAME BALLOT A community may place as many questions on a regular or special municipal election ballot as it chooses. However, if the community decides to place questions on the state biennial election ballot, it is limited to three questions. G.L. c. 59, § 21 C(i). Overrides a. Pyramid Overrides A community may present a "pyramid" override to the voters. A pyramid override asks voters to determine which, if any, of two or more funding levels they are willing to approve. A separate override question is placed on the ballot for each funding level, with each question stating the same purpose or tiered purposes. Tiered means that the purposes of a higher funding level include purposes in addition to the purposes of all lower funding levels. Any question is approved if a majority of the persons voting on that question voted "yes." If more than one question is approved, the question specifying the highest dollar amount governs. This rule also applies where the questions are presented as alternative proposals to the voters. A The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's Office advises communities presenting "pyramid" overrides to include voting instructions on the ballot. The following language is recommended: Questions 1 a, 1 band 1 care separate questions. You may vote for or against each question independently. Each question requires a majority of those voting on that question to pass. If more than one question passes, the question with the highest dollar amount will prevail. b. "Menu" Overrides A community may place several override questions each of which will fund different services or programs on the same ballot. If voters approve more than one override question stating different purposes, the community's levy limit may be increased by the total of the amounts specified in all approved questions. Appendix C provides examples of single, pyramid and menu override approaches. 2. Exclusions A community may place several exclusion questions for different capital projects or groups of capital projects on the same ballot. The community may raise the additional amounts excluded by each question approved by the voters. F. VOTER INFORMATION Local officials may not publish and provide voter information materials at public expense unless specifically authorized by statute. See the following special acts that authorize certain officials to prepare and distribute voter information on municipal elections: St. 1987, c. 274 (Newton Election Commission), St. 1989, c. 630 (Cambridge Election Commission), St. 1996, c. 180 (Sudbury Board of Selectmen), St, 1998, c. 89 (Burlington Board of Selectmen), St. 2002, c. 238 (Dedham Board of Selectmen), St. 2004, c. 149, §§ 285 -288 (Lancaster Board of Selectmen), St. 2006, c. 404 (Yarmouth Board of Selectmen) and St. 2006, c. 427 (Shrewsbury Board of Selectmen). In addition, a community may not include any explanatory information on the ballot, such as a summary of the impact a "yes" and "no" vote will have on local services. Questions about voter information or ballot content should be directed to the Elections Division of the Office of the Secretary of State at 617- 727 -2828. G. CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES General Laws Chapter 55 governs the raising and spending of money for referenda questions as well as political candidates. The law also regulates the conduct of public officials and employees undertaking campaign finance activities. In general, the law regulates conduct not speech. Thus, while local officials can take a position on an override or exclusion question and speak in favor of or in opposition to it, they cannot spend public funds or use public resources, such as personnel, supplies and facilities, to promote or oppose the question. Anderson v. City of Boston, 376 Mass. 178 (1978). Public employees may work on an override or exclusion campaign on a volunteer basis, on their own time, in any capacity other than fundraising. They may also make personal contributions to political committees established for the purpose of promoting or opposing the ballot question. The Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) is responsible for administering and enforcing campaign finance laws. Its website includes materials that provide guidance about the application of these laws to the conduct of local officials and employees in the Proposition 2Y2 referendum procedure. See, for example, Interpretative Bulletins 91 -01, The Use of Governmental Resources for Political Purposes, and 92 -02 Activities of Public Officials in Support of or Opposition to Ballot Questions. Specific questions should be directed to OCPF at 617- 727 -8352. H. REVOCATION OF QUESTIONS Proposition 2Y2 does not provide for the revocation or rescission of an approved referendum question. An override can be negated, however, by voter approval of an underride. An exclusion can be negated by not funding the related borrowing or appropriation. IV. RELATIONSHIP TO APPROPRIATIONS Proposition 2Y2 establishes a limit on the annual property tax levy and approval of an override or exclusion question only increases the amount a community may raise in taxes. It does not authorize or require spending for the purpose of the question. Similarly, an underride only decreases the amount a community may raise in taxes. The legal power to make spending decisions is still vested in the community's appropriating body (town meeting /town council /city council). A. USE OF ADDITIONAL TAXING AUTHORITY (EARMARKING) Approval of an override or exclusion question establishes the maximum amount of additional taxing authority available to the community. The spending decisions made by the community's appropriating body determine if any or all of this additional taxing authority is actually used. Thus, while the additional dollars are still part of the community's general unrestricted revenues (levy) and are not a separate financing source for the purpose of making appropriations, those dollars are considered "earmarked" because they cannot be raised in the tax levy unless the community appropriates them for the purpose stated in the question. 9 Overrides a. General Overrides A community's levy limit is increased by the amount stated in an override for any purpose except for a stabilization fund so long as all appropriations made for the stated purpose and fiscal year equal or exceed that amount, i.e., the first dollars appropriated for that purpose are deemed to come from the override. If total appropriations for the year are less than the stated amount, then the community may only increase its levy limit by the amount actually appropriated. The additional funds raised by the override are "earmarked" for the stated spending purpose only in the first fiscal year. b. Stabilization Fund Overrides The additional funds raised by an override to fund a stabilization fund are earmarked for that purpose in the first fiscal year and in subsequent fiscal years upon appropriation. Any change in the purpose for which the additional levy capacity may be used in future years must be approved by a majority of voters at a referendum election. See Bureau of Accounts Informational Guideline Release OGR) 04 -201 Creation of Multiple Stabilization Funds and Proposition 2 112 Overrides for Stabilization Funds (January). In the first year, town meeting, town council or city council makes an appropriation into the fund of any amount up to the amount stated in the override. The community's levy limit is increased by the amount stated, or amount appropriated if less. In subsequent years, the community's levy limit is increased only where the additional levy capacity is "appropriated" by a 2/3 vote of the selectmen, town council or city council, with the mayor's approval if required by law, for the same stabilization fund purpose. If "appropriated," the assessors raise the amount in the tax rate. 2. Debt Exclusions a. Total Exclusion A debt exclusion covers debt service on the amount of borrowing authorized or contemplated for the stated purpose at the time of the referendum. Debt service includes payments of principal on permanent debt and interest on permanent and temporary debt. Any premiums received on the debt issue must be offset against the stated interest cost when calculating the debt exclusion so that it R7 reflects the true interest cost incurred to finance the project. G.L. c. 44, § 20. See Bulletin 2003 -20B, Tax Rate Recapitulation Details Re: Premiums on Bonds or (Votes under Proposition 2% (October). The debt service on any additional borrowing above the amount fixed at the time of referendum is not covered unless (1) it is a modest amount attributable to inflation, new regulatory requirements or minor project changes, or (2) another debt exclusion is approved by the voters. See Section I of Bureau of Accounts IGR No. 02 -101, Proposition 2% Debt Exclusions (March). b. Annual Exclusion The additional taxing authority available to a community each fiscal year until the debt covered by the exclusion is retired is the total principal and interest payment due net of any reimbursement received from the state or federal government for the project. This amount represents the community's share of the project's debt service for that year. If user fees, betterments or other local revenues are being used to fund all or part of the debt service, a community may exclude the principal and interest net of the local revenue, but it is not required to do so. If an additional borrowing for the project is not covered by the exclusion, the additional taxing authority for each year is calculated by applying the percentage the borrowing amount fixed at the time of the referendum bears to the total debt issued for the project. The annual exclusion amount may be adjusted from year to year in order to moderate the impact on taxpayers, provided that (1) in any year in which the exclusion raised is more than the actual local share of the debt service due for that year, the accounting officer reserves the excess for appropriation to pay debt service costs for future years, and (2) the total amount excluded during the adjusted schedule does not exceed the amount that would be excluded otherwise. See Section II of IGR No. 02 -101. 3. Capital Expenditure Exclusions A community may use all of the additional taxing authority provided by an approved capital expenditure exclusion question so long as the amount appropriated for the specified capital project for the fiscal year, net of any reimbursement received from the state or federal government for the project, equals or exceeds the amount stated in the question. This amount represents the community's share of the project cost for that year. If the community's share is less than the amount stated in the question, then the community may only increase its taxing authority by its share. If user fees, betterments or other local revenues are being used to fund all or part of the project, a community may net out the local revenue, but it is not required to do so. 10 B. APPROPRIATION - REFERENDUM SEQUENCE A community should adopt a budget process that will result in a balanced budget by July 1, but in any event it must have a balanced budget within the limits of Proposition 2Y2 by the time it sets a tax rate for the year. It may establish its expenditure and revenue budgets in any order it chooses. It could first seek voter approval of an override or exclusion question and then make appropriations for the year within a fixed revenue estimate. Alternatively, the community could choose to first adopt its expenditure budget and if that budget requires additional revenue to fully fund it, then seek voter approval of an override or exclusion question. If the question is successful, the budget will be balanced and a tax rate may be set without further action. If the question is not successful, then the community will have to reduce appropriations and /or increase non -tax revenues in order to establish a balanced budget and set a tax rate. The chart in Appendix D summarizes the sequencing options explained in this section and Section IV -C below. C. CONTINGENT APPROPRIATIONS A third budgeting approach available to towns only is to adopt a balanced budget and then appropriate additional amounts to supplement that budget expressly contingent on the subsequent approval of an override or exclusion question. G.L. c. 59, § 21 C(m). A contingent appropriation vote does not place a question on the ballot. The decision whether or not to present any Proposition 2Y2 referendum question to the voters is still made by the selectmen. See Section III -A above. They may choose not to present a question for any or all contingent appropriations made by town meeting. They may also place a question on the ballot for less than the contingent appropriation, which if approved, makes the appropriation effective to the extent of the amount stated in the question. Statutory Requirements Contingent appropriations may be made from the tax levy, available funds or borrowing and are subject to the following statutory requirements: • A contingent appropriation is not effective until the override or exclusion question is approved. This means that until the question is approved, a town cannot spend from the contingent appropriation. The statement of purpose in the override or exclusion question must be substantially the same purpose as the contingent appropriation. This means the question need not be worded in exactly the same way as the appropriation. However, it must describe the purpose in a sufficiently similar manner that the voters can identify the particular appropriation the question is intended to fund. In the case of operating appropriations, this may mean the 11 selectmen do not have as much flexibility in describing the specific positions, programs or services the question is intended to fund. See Section III -C -1 -a above. In addition, each contingent appropriation need not be the subject of a separate question. The selectmen retain the power to decide the content of all questions and may include several contingent appropriations within a single override or exclusion question. In that case, the question must state the purpose of each appropriation it is intended to fund. The deadline for obtaining voter approval of override or exclusion questions for contingent appropriations made at an annual town meeting is September 15. More than one election may be held, but the contingent appropriation is null and void if the related question is not approved by September 15. The deadline for obtaining voter approval of override or exclusion questions for contingent appropriations made at any other town meeting is 90 days after the close of the town meeting at which the contingent appropriation vote was taken. More than one election may be held, but the contingent appropriation is null and void if the related question is not approved by the end of the 90 day period. • If the contingent appropriation was made from the tax levy, the tax rate cannot be submitted to the Department of Revenue for approval until the override or exclusion question has been voted upon, or the applicable deadline for holding an election has passed, whichever occurs first. 2. Appropriation Types Town meeting may make any appropriation contingent on a Proposition 2Y2 referendum even if "contingency" language was not included in the warrant article under which the vote was taken. Any language in the vote that indicates the appropriation is subject to the approval of a Proposition 2Y2 referendum is sufficient. Contingent appropriations may be used for appropriations for operating budgets, capital projects and regional school assessments. Towns often approve a regional school debt issue contingent on passage of a debt exclusion, but no appropriation is being voted at that time as required by G.L. c. 59, §21C(m). While most regional school committees treat contingent debt approvals coupled with an unsuccessful referendum within 60 days of the date the committee authorized the debt as a disapproval for purposes of G.L. c. 71, § 16(d) anyway, bond counsel should be consulted regarding these votes. Appendix E provides examples of articles and motions that may be used for contingent appropriations for operating budgets, capital projects and regional school assessments. 12 V. ROLE OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE The Division of Local Services (DLS) in the Department of Revenue has general supervisory authority over local property tax administration and financial practices. It issues guidelines to assist local financial officials in the performance of their duties, renders legal opinions on local tax and finance issues, conducts training programs and approves revaluations and tax rates. The DLS is also responsible under Proposition 2Y2 for calculating a community's levy limit and for ensuring that a community does not set a tax rate that results in a tax levy exceeding the amount allowed by the law. G.L. c. 59, § 21 D. The DLS legal staff is available to answer general questions about the use of the Proposition 2Y2 referendum procedure. Other DLS staff members can provide data on the number of communities using the procedure and specific information about a community's levy limit. Appendix F contains DLS contact information (address, telephone number and website). 13 Appendix A PROPOSITION 2'/2 BALLOT QUESTION FORMS The form of each type of Proposition 2Y2 referendum question is prescribed by G.L. c. 59, § 21C. To properly present a question to the voters, the following statutory language must be used: Levy Limit Override (G.L. c. 59, § 21 C(g)): Shall the (city /town) of be allowed to assess an additional $ in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of (state the purpose(s) for which the monies from this assessment will be used) for the fiscal year beginning July first ? Yes No Levy Limit Underride (G.L. c. 59, § 21C(h)): Shall the (city /town) of be required to reduce the amount of real estate and personal property taxes to be assessed for the fiscal year beginning July first by an amount equal to $ ? Yes No Capital Expenditure Exclusion (G.L. c. 59, § 21C(i %)): Shall the (city /town) of be allowed to assess an additional $ in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of (state the purpose(s) for which the monies from this assessment will be used) for the fiscal year beginning July first ? Yes No Pre - Proposition 2% Debt Exclusion (G.L. c. 59, § 21C(0)): Shall the (city /town) of be allowed to exempt the total amounts required to pay for bonded indebtedness incurred prior to the passage of proposition two and one -half, so- called, from the city's /town's limit? Yes No 14 Post - Proposition 2% Debt Exclusion (G.L. c. 59, § 21CM): Shall the (city /town) of be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one -half, so- called, the amounts required to pay for the bond issued in order to (state the purpose or purposes for which the monies from the local issue will be used)? Yes No 15 Appendix B LEVY LIMIT OVERRIDE PURPOSES Voter approval of a levy limit override under G.L. c. 59, § 21C(g) increases the amount of revenue a community may raise from the property tax on a permanent basis. An override is designed to provide a community with the ability to generate sufficient revenues to fund costs that are likely to continue into the future, such.as annual operating and fixed expenses, although it may be used to provide funds for any valid municipal spending purpose. All override questions require a statement of the purpose or purposes for which the additional monies will be used. The purpose used in the question must be a spending purpose. This means a purpose for which a community's appropriating body could vote to appropriate money. The spending purpose may be broad in scope, such as general or departmental operating purposes, or may be stated as a specific program or service. If the override is to fund personnel costs and other expenses normally appropriated as part of departmental operating budgets, the spending purpose may be broadly stated as in the following examples: • Funding the Town's operating budget. • Funding operating expenses and capital expenditures. • Providing for the general administrative cost of operating the schools, police department, fire department and other town departments. • Funding the operating budget of the Public Schools and the Municipal Government. • Defraying school operating expenses. • Funding the Town's Regional School District assessment. Specific positions, programs and services ordinarily funded within an appropriation for a municipal department or regional governmental unit may be the subject of an override question when the additional funds will be used to prevent the reduction or elimination of those services or to permit their commencement or expansion. For example, if two firefighter positions within the fire department operating budget were being eliminated, an override for the purpose of "funding two firefighter positions" would be acceptable. A more specific spending purpose may also be used if the override is to fund a particular purpose or program that is the subject of a separate line item or special article appropriation as in the following examples: 16 • Defraying the costs of retirement contributions and health, life and unemployment insurance premiums. • Funding the contractual costs of trash collection and disposal. • Funding the Stabilization Fund. While local officials have flexibility in describing the purposes of an override generally, less flexibility exists in describing the purposes of an override where it is being presented to fund one or more contingent appropriations because the purpose of the question must state substantially the same purpose(s) as the appropriation(s). Therefore, if, for example, an additional appropriation is made for the municipal school department operating budget or regional school district annual assessment contingent on an override, local officials would be limited to using "funding school operating expenses," "funding the Yourtown regional school district assessment" or similar language to describe the purpose of the override. They could not be as specific about the positions, programs or services that the school committee intends to eliminate from the budget if the override is unsuccessful as they might be if a contingent appropriation had not been used. Moreover, local officials cannot use the question to provide voters with information on the underlying events or circumstances that are causing budget difficulties or to promote or otherwise advocate for the question. For example, "preventing the layoff of 4 firefighters" would be inappropriate because it explains the impact of voter action on the question and is intended to advocate for the override. The question should simply state the personnel, services or programs the additional amounts will be used to fund, which in this case would be "funding 4 firefighter positions." Other examples of purposes in override questions that include advocacy language or would otherwise be inappropriate are the following: • Restoring monies lost due to local aid reductions. • Funding uncontrollable increases in employee health insurance costs. • Preventing substantial reductions in public safety, education and other municipal services. • Maintaining an adequate level of municipal services. • Funding current positions. • Restoring school athletic programs. 17 - Appendix C LEVY LIMIT OVERRIDE APPROACHES I. SINGLE QUESTION OVERRIDE Presents voters with a single choice of additional funding for general or specific spending purposes. The following are examples of single question overrides: Example 1. General Purposes Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $2,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the operating budgets of the Town and the Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Example 2. General Categories Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $2,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding local and regional school, public safety, library, highway, parks and recreation and general government expenses for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Example 3. Multiple Departmental Purposes with Allocation Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $2,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the following departmental expenses: School Department ($750,000), Police Department ($250,000), Fire Department ($250,000) Public Works Department ($250,000), Public Library ($250,000), Parks and Recreation Department ($150,000), Council on Aging ($25,000) and Financial Offices, including Assessors Collector - Treasurer, Accountant, ($75,000) for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Example 4. Single Departmental Budget Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $200,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the Fire Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 18 Example 5. Specific Positions /Programs /Services Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $200,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding four full -time firefighter positions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? II. MULTIPLE QUESTION OVERRIDES Presents voters with multiple choices of additional funding for general or specific spending purposes. There are two multiple question approaches: "menu" and "pyramid" overrides. A. "MENU" OVERRIDE The "menu" approach presents two or more questions each of which will fund different services or programs. Each question stands on its own merits. Therefore, if the voters approve more than one question, the community's levy limit is increased by the total of the amounts specified in all approved questions. The following is an example of a "menu" override: Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $_1,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the Yourtown Public and Yourtown Valley Regional High Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $250.000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the Fire Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $250,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the Police Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $100,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the Public Library for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? B. "PYRAMID" OVERRIDE The "pyramid" approach provides voters with a choice of two or more different funding levels for general spending purposes or for specific services or programs. A separate question is presented for each funding level. The funding levels are presented as alternative, not independent, proposals, which means a higher funding level proposed in a question also includes all lower ones. Therefore, if the voters approve more than one question, the approved question stating the highest dollar amount prevails and the community's levy limit is increased by that amount. The following are examples of "pyramid" overrides: w Example 1. General Purpose 1A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $1,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Municipal Government and Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1 B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $500,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Municipal Government and Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $250,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Municipal Government and Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Example 2. Multiple Purposes with Allocation 1A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $1,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the school ($500,000), police ($250,000) and fire ($250,000) departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1 B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $500,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the school ($250,000), police ($125,000) and fire ($125,000) departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $250,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding the school ($125,000), police ($62,500) and fire ($62,500) departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Example 3. Multiple "Pyramids" 1A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $500,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $250,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $125,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 20 2A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $300,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Police Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 2B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $200,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Police Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $100,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Police Department for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Example 4. Specific Positions /Programs 1A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $400,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding 8 firefighter positions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1 B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $200,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding 4 firefighter positions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $100,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of funding 2 firefighter positions for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? Example 5. "Tiered" Pyramid 1A Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $2,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools and to fund instructional staff (8 positions), textbooks, technology support (including 1 position) and equipment for Yourtown High School and to fund instructional staff (14 positions), textbooks and technology support and equipment for the other schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1 B Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $1,000,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools and to fund instructional staff (8 positions), textbooks, technology support (including 1 position) and equipment for Yourtown High School for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 1C Shall the Town of Yourtown be allowed to assess an additional $500,000 in real estate and personal property taxes for the purposes of operating the Yourtown Public Schools for the fiscal year beginning July 1, ? 21 Z O a °_ 'O^^ r. Z Q a Z LU D 'W U/ N N O > > V a) U) � > a) _ _c O p V N W N rno N E O p c N E p :r- a) O O N Q O O N CU O *' fee E' a o m c_u E} d a) cu L c tu a.2 N 0- - L c C_ co C L 'i. O E c OL O m 1 cu N 0 O a) (D ° cu 'p � a a a) ca 0 N v ca E �O C " d ai o Qc Q--o O C: a Z a3 =E.9�E�o a)c a- -0 >LO E`° �- m o M 'Q N C cam'@ m Q F— m U t+ 'U a� 3 cp c X U) O— c cu L N O 0 0 _ N d m� E m >' Q c c0 c N u>), c- '� m E N E c O Gi O LO d O� Q= N E �, Q cp E N �� acs N E m 'C _ (0 C p (0 N O C U) N C) L .O 3 N 'a L C (n 0) C 0 L -t O :3 (n m 07 .O 0 '8 Q L Q C C. m,�_� o X m O,� m Q O p C L c N• QQ' • d 0 c0 > N y 0 0 0 0• • >C' Q d CL Q QQ Q, (D/ �Z L 10Z L L V O L cC � " fn N :t-_ C >, cn cn 30 C O Vl t3 _ O cCL ° `�°X C a O O� N (0 t A° CL a O V > m a >' c co W E L ca O O `� +� O N = Q m O L cu Q L U �'(U r- c m O N i C = '� 'C 7 0 E eca O N >, N Q Q N Q O d c U > cn U '' M p Q cr cu O t6 '_ Z .r .a y> O c M.� m cn a)'' 0 —0 N °-C m O a, E S Q 4) 0- -6 M D°.0 :- °^ 000 cn E -a= Xa) °N_r- "o2 0 OV L CL R{ v (0 E (0 'a O N� C N i L L +' X a).- .c Q o.3c cc� L )> oQ-0 a� ) 0) 42 c_4- i O O c L Q i C ++ Q p N 0 O N- :B L Q E 0 7 C> N C. Q m= E .Q c0 w ,F O Z C._ Q) L m L O W _ N L O O O N O C O O G +, E cCL E c 0 Q. :3 ,;,.QX �� a— c C •L > C. C E CO -a E+ C N c O O Q = = cn O ca m o i N— c N c 0 -a L = L Q �� .a -O C C Q m U) Q. �'c r >+ = a) E X c=a Nc�o0 Q -0 c t p N (>p N "0 � c E O L CL O• Z tp ' V 'C W> L O 0 C� M cn a) p c (� R1 C G v N (li — O N cn a Q_ +-� - cn -0 C. '- -0 c > c Q E c _ E 'a c 0 7E cn c = c cn O O O QE u m� ) O 0 X O p o�� L E E +.. (6 E cL° O- O � m E N N V E _O N cn W N = d > N Q O a) rn\ C `� C d C C. 3 C O O c v- N +�+ L o 0 v Q 0 -0 .O ,� OL Q� o N > o 0- d L !0 QU) L�Q °�'� cam,= ca CL E� �'� wrz° Jo-) CL Z m 0 • • Q Z • = • N N Appendix E EXAMPLES CONTINGENT APPROPRIATION ARTICLES AND MOTIONS OMNIBUS BUDGET ARTICLES APPROACH 1: SINGLE MOTION FOR CONTINGENT AND NON - CONTINGENT AMOUNTS ARTICLE _: TO ACT ON THE REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AND TO RAISE AND APPROPRIATE OR TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS MONEY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TOWN'S DEPARTMENTS AND THE PAYMENT OF DEBT SERVICE AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY AND PROPER EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR, OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION RELATIVE THERETO. MOTION: I move that the town vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds the amounts recommended by the Finance Committee for departmental operating purposes, debt service and other town expenses in fiscal year , with each item to be considered a separate appropriation and the amounts shown in the column captioned "Contingent Appropriations" to be appropriated contingent upon passage of a Proposition 21/2 referendum question under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21 C. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR BUDGET THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE COLUMN CAPTIONED "NON- CONTINGENT APPROPRIATIONS" BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE TAX LEVY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, FOR FISCAL YEAR DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING PURPOSES, DEBT SERVICE AND OTHER TOWN EXPENSES, AND THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN THE COLUMN CAPTIONED "CONTINGENT APPROPRIATIONS" BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE TAX LEVY CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF A PROPOSITION 2'/2 REFERENDUM QUESTION UNDER GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 59, § 21C. NON - CONTINGENT CONTINGENT PURPOSE APPROPRIATIONS APPROPRIATIONS Selectmen's Office Salaries $ 45,000 $ 6,000 Expenses 18,000 4,000 School Department 2,800,000 300,000 Town Planner Salary 0 35,000 Expenses 0 12,000 Cemetery Commission Salaries 8,000 Expenses 10,000 (Includes $8,000 transfer from Sale of Lots Fund) TOTAL $ 8,000,000 $ 890,000 23 APPROACH 2: SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR CONTINGENT AND NON - CONTINGENT AMOUNTS MOTION: I move that the town vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds the amounts recommended by the Finance Committee for departmental operating purposes, debt service and other town expenses in fiscal year , with each item to be considered a separate appropriation. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR BUDGET THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE TAX LEVY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, FOR FISCAL YEAR DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING PURPOSES, DEBT SERVICE AND OTHER TOWN EXPENSES: PURPOSE Selectmen's Office Salaries Expenses School Department Town Planner Salary Expenses Cemetery Commission Salaries Expenses TOTAL RECOMMENDED $ 45,000 18,000 2,800,000 8,000 10,000 (Includes $8,000 transfer from Sale of Lots Fund) $ 8,000,000 MOTION: I move that the town vote to raise and appropriate any additional amounts recommended by the Finance Committee for the departmental operating purposes and other town expenses in fiscal year , contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2'/ referendum question under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21 C. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR CONTINGENT BUDGET THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING PURPOSES AND OTHER TOWN EXPENSES CONTINGENT UPON PASSAGE OF A PROPOSITION 2'/2 REFERENDUM QUESTION UNDER GENERAL LAWS CHAPTER 59, § 21C. 24 PURPOSE RECOMMENDED Selectmen's Office Salaries $ 6,000 Expenses 4,000 School Department 300,000 Town Planner Salary 35,000 Expenses 12,000 TOTAL CONTINGENT $ 890,000 APPROPRIATIONS BALLOT QUESTIONS Under either approach, the town has the choice whether to bundle all the contingent appropriations for operating expenditures for the fiscal year into a single override question for the $890,000 in this example, or to put separate questions on the ballot for different departments or groups of departments: for instance, one question for $300,000 for school department operating expenses and another question for $590,000 for operating expenses of all other town departments. The choice of how to structure the ballot questions is within the discretion of the selectmen. If the selectmen do decide to include more than one contingent appropriation in a question, the purpose of each appropriation the question is intended to fund would have to be stated in the question. OTHER APPROPRIATION ARTICLES REGIONAL SCHOOL BUDGET ARTICLE - (Levy Limit Override) ARTICLE _: TO SEE IF THE TOWN WILL APPROVE THE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR AND RAISE AND APPROPRIATE OR TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS $(FULL ASSESSMENT) TO PAY ITS ASSESSED SHARE OF THAT BUDGET, OR TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION RELATIVE THERETO. MOTION: I move that the town raise and appropriate $(non - contingent portion) to pay its assessed share of the Regional School District Budget for fiscal year and that it raise and appropriate the additional $(contingent portion) required to fully fund the assessment and thereby approve the district's budget for the year, provided that this additional appropriation be contingent on the approval of a Proposition 2'/ levy limit override under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21 C(g). 25 REGIONAL SCHOOL BUDGET ARTICLE - (Capital Outlay Expenditure Exclusion) ARTICLE _: TO SEE IF THE TOWN WILL APPROVE THE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR AND RAISE AND APPROPRIATE OR TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS $(FULL ASSESSMENT) TO PAY ITS ASSESSED SHARE OF THAT BUDGET, OR TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION RELATIVE THERETO. MOTION: I move that the town raise and appropriate $(non - contingent portion) to pay its assessed share of the Regional School District Budget for fiscal year and that it raise and appropriate the additional $(contingent portion) attributable to its share of the budget for capital spending not funded by debt so as to fully fund the assessment and thereby approve the district's budget for the year, provided that this additional appropriation be contingent on the approval of a Proposition 2'h capital outlay expenditure exclusion under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21 C(i %). SEPARATE DEPARTMENTAL "CONTINGENT BUDGET" ARTICLE ARTICLE _: TO SEE IF THE TOWN WILL RAISE AND APPROPRIATE OR TRANSFER FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS A SUM TO SUPPLEMENT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF A PROPOSITION 2% REFERENDUM QUESTION, OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION RELATIVE THERETO. MOTION: I move that the town raise and appropriate an additional $ for the Fire Department's fiscal year operating budget to be allocated as follows: $ for salaries and $ for expenses, provided that such additional appropriations be contingent on the passage of a Proposition 2Y2 referendum. BORROWING ARTICLE ARTICLE : TO SEE IF THE TOWN WILL APPROPRIATE A SUM OF MONEY BY BORROWING TO DESIG_N AND CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TREASURER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SELECTMEN, TO ISSUE ANY BONDS OR NOTES THAT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE, OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION RELATIVE THERETO. MOTION: I move that the town appropriate and borrow $5,000,000 for the design and construction of an addition to the Washington Elementary School and authorize the treasurer with the approval of the selectmen, to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose, as authorized by General Laws Chapter 44, § 7(3a), or any other general or special law, for a period not to exceed 10 years, provided, however, that this appropriation and debt authorization be contingent upon passage of a Proposition 2% debt exclusion referendum under General Laws Chapter 59, § 21 C(k). 26 Appendix F CONTACT INFORMATION Division of Local Services (DLS), MA Department of Revenue Website: www.mass.gov /dIs MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 9569, Boston, NIA 02114 -9569 MAIN LOCATION: 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MA 02114 MAIN TELEPHONE: (617) 626 -2300 MAIN FAX: (617) 626 -2330 DLS publications and Proposition 2% data are published to the website. For questions about Proposition 2% election or other data: Contact the Municipal Data Bank staff at databank(cD-dor. state. ma. us or (617) 626 -2384. For questions about a community's levy limit calculation: • Local officials should contact the Bureau of Accounts Representative assigned to their community. • Others should contact the DLS Director of Policy and Communication at (617) 626 -2377. For questions about Proposition 2% referendum procedures, or municipal tax or finance law generally: Contact the DLS legal staff at (617) 626 -2400. 27