HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-15 Board of Selectmen HandoutDRAFT MOTIONS
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 2016
Halsey, Sexton, Berman, Arena, Ensminger LeLacheur
5e) Move that the Board of Selectmen close the hearing establishing the
FY2017 tax rate.
Move that the Board of Selectmen grant /not grant an open space
discount for Fiscal Year 2017.
Move that the Board of Selectmen adopt /not adopt a residential
exemption for Fiscal Year 2017.
Move that the Board of Selectmen adopt a residential factor of for
Fiscal Year 2017.
Move that the Board of Selectmen grant /not grant a commercial
exemption for Fiscal Year 2017.
5f) Move that the Board of Selectmen determine that the real property
shown as "Oakland Road Parcel" on a plan of land entitled "Plan of
Land Oakland Road Town of Reading," prepared by Town of Reading
— Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, Jeffrey T. Zager,
Director D.P.W., Ryan Percival, P.E., Town Engineer, dated September
13, 2016, is no longer required for municipal purposes.
6a) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of October 13,
2016 as amended.
6b) Move that the Board of Selectmen approve the minutes of October 25,
2016 as amended.
Move that the Board of Selectmen adjourn the meeting at p.m.
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:14 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: [Reading MA] Reading Village Street Parking
packet
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: <steve.torchia(abgmail.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 1:09:56 PM EST
To: <selectmenkci.readin .ma.us>
Subject: [Reading MA] Reading Village Street Parking
Hello Board of Selectmen,
Stephen Torchia (steve.torchiagg_mail.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:
Dear Selectmen,
I am writing this letter to voice my concern regarding the proposed parking
at the Reading Village / Depot.
I have been taking the commuter rail for many years now and finding parking
under current conditions is already difficult. It becomes more difficult in
the winter months when temporary parking bans and snow accumulation take away
a fair amount of available spaces.
Therefore I cannot support any plan that has the potential to make parking
even more difficult for commuter rail passengers.
Sincerely,
Stephen Torchia
23 Tennyson Road
emp
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:01 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Parking for proposed "Reading Village" development
packet
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nichola Meserve <nmeserve&gmail.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 2:01:40 PM EST
To: <selectmenkci.readin .ma.us>
Subject: Parking for proposed "Reading Village" development
Dear Reading Board of Selectmen,
I'm writing to encourage you to do what is possible to ensure the proposed "Reading Village"
40B project provides sufficient parking for residents and guests such that there will not be
competition with Reading Depot commuters for street parking. The Depot parking along Lincoln
Street is generally at capacity following the 7:30am train to Boston, necessitating the use of
street parking for commuters. The applicant needs to supply sound justification for the proposed
unit:parking ratio.
Thank you for your consideration of this comment.
Nichola Meserve
14 Nichols Road
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Reading Village - parking
packet
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Suzanne Polizzi <suzanne.polizziggmail.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 2:46:42 PM EST
To: <selectmenkci.reading ma.us>
Subject: Reading Village - parking
Hello,
My husband, James, and myself own 32 Prescott Street (approximately 4 houses down from the
future site of Reading Village). We live there with our 2 young daughters.
The Reading Village project has been an extremely stressful part of our lives since our first
meeting with the Applicant and his team (which they invited us and treated us to) at Portland
Pie. Reading Village will make our neighborhood and in turn Reading a less desirable place to
live, especially will young children. I have only heard negative things that this project will bring
to the area (problems with parking, increased traffic, increased light pollution at night, increased
noise and garbage and pests and rodents in the area (due to demolition), increased wear and tear
on the sewers and water and electricity supply in the area, etc, etc. Reading Village had the
potential to make Reading better and it's not taking the opportunity to do so. Furthermore the
proposed building is ugly and will look out of place.
As you can tell, there are many concerns that my family has about Reading Village, but it's been
most recently brought to our attention that there is the possibility of Reading Village having on
street parking and access to overnight parking at the Depot year round. There is already limited
parking around my house. If Reading Village is given the right to street parking, it is not fair to the
existing tax paying citizens of Reading. Having even more cars trying to park on the streets in this
area is absurd and also seems like a safety hazard (esp on Washington St near the park - there are
many days that my SUV can hardly fit down the street due to how many people park on the street). I
strongly believe that many units in Reading Village will have more than 1 car, even though the
Applicant believes that there is no way this would happen because it didn't happen in one of his
developments in Brighton /Alston. Reading is a very different community /environment from
Brighton /Alston which is why I do not find his argument a good one.
I am not able to attend the meeting tonight as my husband will be working and I have not been able
to find a babysitter. I hope that this email will suffice for you letting you know my thoughts.
Thank you,
Suzanne Newell
Schena, Paula
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
email &attachment for tonight
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
LeLacheur, Bob
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:07 PM
Schena, Paula
Fwd: Reading Village
image.png
From: "Christine Lusk" <christine.luskkgmail.com>
To: "Reading - Selectmen" <Selectmengci.readin .ma.us>
Cc: "Bradley.Joneskmahouse.gov" <Bradley.Jones(a�mahouse.gov >,
"James.dwyerkmahouse. ov" < >, "Mercier, Julie"
<imercier@ci.reading ma.us>
Subject: Reading Village
To: the Board of Selectmen, Reading, MA
Cc: Zoning Board of Appeal, Reading, MA
Brad Jones, Representative
James Dwyer, Representative
I understand that this evening you will be hearing from the developer of the proposed Reading
Village apartment complex. I have some serious concerns with the safety of this project. While
I understand many of my concerns do not fall under your realm, I do believe you have some
oversight related to the the on street parking, crosswalks and traffic issues that may arise if this
developer does not take into consideration the pedestrian and vehicular patterns in this area.
Above I have posted a drawing as provided by the developer. It clearly shows that with their
proposed on street parking Prescott Street will be reduced to one lane of traffic. Does the town
have any plans to make lower Prescott one way?
(9
Having parking spots / loading zone on Lincoln Street street is also very concerning. I am not
certain if this will limit Lincoln to one lane of traffic but I am certain it will lead to some safety
concerns with cars backing out of Swiss Bakery and Century 21 parking spots (at the Depot) and
the added egress from Reading Village onto Lincoln Street will add significant traffic into an
area that is already a bit worrisome due to the lack of proper pedestrian cross zones.
With the on street loading zone and on street parking there will be reduced visibility at this
already dangerous intersection. During rush hour cars will be entering and exiting Reading
Village, as well as cars entering and exiting the parking lots at the Depot and pedestrians will be
racing to the Depot to catch a train. I get very worried about the possibility of a major accident
at this intersection if the plans proceed without alteration.
Further, the front doors of the complex will be at the southeast corner of Lincoln and Prescott
street. Pedestrians will be expected to cross Prescott Street and then cross Lincoln Street to get
to the Depot or lower Haven. The reality, as we all know, is that the majority of individuals will
cross directly from the front doors to the Depot. This will have them walking straight into cars
exiting the commuter parking lot for the Depot as well as the parking lot for the retail shops at
the Depot. This entire intersection needs to be looked at by the police chief, and a traffic
consultant to best determine how this is going to safely be constructed. I imagine a traffic light
will be necessary. If so, shouldn't the town be requesting the developer provide this? Or will the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts pay for this entire intersection to be revamped?
The current plans also include a trash disposal plan that has the trash (for 70 apartment units)
will be placed on Lincoln Street twice a week. I am fully aware of the amount of trash our
family of four generates in one week so I can only imagine the amount of trash to be placed on a
major street in Reading twice a week. I would demand that all trash must remain on the
premises at all times.
The building does have very limited set -backs and a slight overhang at the roof line. This
concerns me in terms of icicles forming and dropping onto pedestrians walking below. Once
again, this will become a public safety issue for the residents of this town.
As someone who has lived a block from the commuter rail for the last ten years I am very aware
of the parking issues in this neighborhood. I have neighbors who rent parking spaces from other
neighbors to ensure overnight parking in the winter. When visitors come to visit we are sure to
rearrange our cars in the morning so we have space in our driveways available for our
visitors. The developer has a total disregard for the parking constraints of this neighborhood and
how building a large apartment building with insufficient parking will negatively impact the
neighborhood. Given their lack of compromise I have no optimism that they will be good
neighbors during construction or when they are landlords. We have one chance to make this lot
an enhancement to the community. I ask you to do everything in your power to make that
happen.
Kindly,
Christine Lusk
52 Washington Street
Reading, MA 01867
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Reading Village related parking regulations
packet if possible
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "S. Nazz" <sjnazz(amail.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 5:20:10 PM EST
To: <selectmengci.readin .ma.us>
Subject: Reading Village related parking regulations
Dear Selectmen,
I recently learned that you are considering changing overnight parking regulations to support the
Reading Village development. I am very concerned by this proposal and believe this will have
an extremely negative impact on commuter parking. I also feel that the development should be
required to support parking (including overnight guests) within their property just as I need to do
with my home. Otherwise, this development proposal should be rejected.
I am also concerned that there has not been adequate notice of these proposed changes to the
commuter population.
Again, I do not support any parking regulation changes in support of this development.
Regards,
Stephen Nazzaro
fj
LEGAL NOTICE
OF-
• XNCO�
TOWN OF READING
To the .Inhabitants of the Town
of Reading:
Notice, is hereby given :that a
public .hearing will be held in
accordance with .the
.Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 369 of the Acts of
1982 on the issue of;deter-
mining :a, residential factorl,in
assessing the percentage; of
tax.. burden to be -borne by
each .class of :property: for
Fiscal Year 2017. The Bearing
will be held on Tuesday,
November 15, 2016 at 8:30
p.m. in the Sele.ctm:en's
Meeting: Room, 16 Lowell
Street, Reading; MA. The five
classes of property. involved
are residential, open I space;
commercial,: industrial and
personal property.
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., Toes from.;7.�0 :a.m, _
7:00. p.m. and is attached to
the hearing notice on. the
website at
www.readingma.gov
All interested. parties are invit
ed. to attend the hearing, or
may submit their comments in
writing or- b:y email prior to
6:00 p.m. on November 15.,
2016 to
:town manager@ci.readina.ma.
Us
By-order of
Robert W... L.eLacheur, Jr:
Town: Manager
1.1.1:1 "6.& 11:8..16
Schena, Paula
From:
LeLacheur, Bob
Sent:
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 7:40 AM
To:
Schena, Paula
Subject:
FW: Split tax rate
BOS packet
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
townmanaaerCo)ci.readina. ma. us
(P) 781 - 942 -9043;
(P) 781 -942 -9037
!M readinc�ma.gov
Town Nall 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: Mark Beckley [ mailto: mark(a)greenmachinecompany.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 7:40 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Split tax rate
Gentlemen!
Businesses do not send children to our schools which is the majority of the town budget. In addition they bring jobs to
our town. A good business environment is a good town environment. Forcing business to carry an extra share of town
taxes will discourage business and will be bad for our town.
This citizen is strongly opposed to the split tax rate.
Mark Beckley
419 Grove Street
Reading, MA 01867
Virus -free. www.avast.com
101)
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:50 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Say Yes for Single Payer
BOS packet
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
townmanaaerPci. reading. ma. us
(P) 781 - 942 - 9043;
(F) 781- 942 -9037
!M .readinpma.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: Peg Raciti [mailto:peeg abpegraciti.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:42 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Say Yes for Single Payer
Hello,
I would like to voice my support for a single payer tax rate for businesses in Reading. Businesses make our
town vibrant and provide needed quality of life for all citizens of Reading. Even during the economic downturn
our local businesses held tight. Not an easy task. Why put added pressure on businesses when the outcome is a
net zero for an increase in town funds.
I urge you to support single payer rates for the terrific businesses community. Supporting single payer supports
Reading businesses.
Sincerely,
Peg Raciti
Peg Raciti
Owner
Peg Raciti Photography
www.pegraciti.com
857.265.8169
v
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Tax rate for businesses
BOS packet
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
townmanaaerna ci.readina.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
From: Diane Manahan [mailto:dirosmail@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:24 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Tax rate for businesses
Dear Selectmen,
I am one of the owners of Pamplemousse on Haven Street. We opened our gourmet cheese and wine store three years
ago. We love being a part of the Reading Community and have held many fundraisers and have donated generously to
various causes in our town. However, we are still in the process of building a clientele and are not breaking even yet. We
have a large overhead for our rent and staff. I feel it would be an unfair burden for the small businesses of this town to
pay a higher tax rate. The downtown is starting to flourish with small shops. Shops that support our schools and so many
other organizations in Reading. The increased tax is an indication that Reading is not a business friendly community. We
would like to stay and continue to grow our business, but if we are strangled with more increased costs, I cannot say if we
will be able to.
Please consider to keeping the single lower tax rate for our small businesses.
Sincerely,
Diane Manahan
Pamplemousse
U�
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:45 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Split tax rate - in favor
BOS packet
From: Angela F. Binda
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:42 PM
To: LeLacheur, Bob; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Split tax rate - in favor
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board of Selectmen,
We are writing to express our support for a split tax rate in Reading, which you will discuss and decide
upon at Tuesday's Board of Selectmen meeting. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the meeting.
We were encouraged last year, as both Selectman Ensminger and Selectman Berman supported the split
tax rate, in advance of the ask for the Proposition 2 1/2 override. At the meeting last year, it was stated
that support of the split tax rate would show good faith to the residents of Reading that the Board
understood that the override would present a heavy burden to some residents, and would do what it
could to alleviate that burden by shifting more of the tax burden to the commercial properties in town.
At the same meeting last year, Selectman Sexton mentioned that he would like to hear more from
residents about the issue, so we are now letting our opinion be known. It was also made clear at the last
Town Meeting that the majority of Town Meeting members support a split tax rate, above that to just
compensate for the senior tax credit, but which actually shifts tax burden to the commercial sector. We
hope that he Board listens to all the citizens who have voiced their support for the split tax rate.
Economist Barry Bluestone spoke in Reading several years ago and stated that the tax rate has virtually
no effect on attracting businesses and commercial development to a town. We have studied the data, and
believe the significant number of towns with comparable residential /commercial percentages with split
tax rates indicates that it is time for Reading to move in this direction also. And while we do not want to
adversely effect local small businesses, we would like to see the larger commercial properties pick up a
larger share of the tax burden. The Home Depot in Danvers pays a 21.37 rate, the home Depot in
Tewkesbury pays a 27.46, and the Home Depot in Dedham pays a 33.02 rate.
We would like to see a significant split tax rate adopted by the Board of Selectmen before it asks the town
for an override again. A significant reason why citizens did not vote for the override was due to the lack
of a split tax rate in town. We will support an override when a split tax rate is adopted. Thank you for
your consideration.
Sincerely,
Angela Binda and Jeffrey Dietz
Schena, Paula
From:
LeLacheur, Bob
Sent:
Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:20 PM
To:
Schena, Paula
Subject:
Fwd: split tax rate
BOS packet
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Heidi Bonnabeau <heidijerrykverizon.net>
Date: November 13, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM EST
To: <Selectmenkci.reading ma.us>
Subject: split tax rate
Selectmen,
I am writing to express my support for a split tax rate. I support a rate that is greater than the
differential to support the senior tax credit. I believe the commercial properties should accept
more of the tax load since the assessment for residential properties seems to be rising more than
the commercial rate.
I do believe there was a direct correlation with the override not passing and the split tax
rate. Many were surprised that the override didn't pass, but frankly all I was hearing from the
citizens of Reading was they would never support the override until there was a split tax rate.
This came from a diverse group of people including, young professionals, the elderly and most
definitely residents that had children in the school system.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion and I hope you take it into consideration.
Sincerely,
Heidi Bonnabeau
Schena, Paula
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
packet if possible
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
LeLacheur, Bob
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:21 PM
Schena, Paula
Fwd: regarding the tax rate hike
image001.png
From: Reading, MA - The Goddard School® <ReadingMA @goddardschools.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 5:19:20 PM EST
To: "selectmen @ci.reading.ma.us" <selectmen @ci.reading.ma.us>
Subject: regarding the tax rate hike
To the board of Selectman and Town Manager,
As a small business in this town, I would like to weigh in on the impact of the split
rate to my school.
As you probably know, providing education and care for our children is a very
labor- intensive effort without a very high profit margin. We employ 39 people
here at The Goddard School. Seven of our beloved employees are Reading
residents. The burden of the small business owner trying to keep their employees
happy and retained is very expensive (including medical, dental, retirement
accounts, generous vacation, tuition reimbursement, etc.).
$5.50 per month is not a tremendous savings for Reading residents, but an
additional tax burden would require me to either eliminate employees or
services. Since our parents are mostly Reading residents, I feel passing an
increase on to them will cause further ripples down the line.
The largest expense in the Reading budget is the schools, and I do not have
children in the school system here! Additionally, I put no burden on the Public
Works Department for trash or recycling services. I support so many of the clubs
and events in the Reading community — school and charitable causes; police and
fire department — which will also be impacted by this change.
I thank you for taking this into consideration when you vote. The Goddard School
is proud to be part of this great town. Uk - .�
Sincerely,
Sarah Blumenstock Girrell
Sarah Blumenstock Girrell, Owner
EMAIL: readingma@goddardschools.com
MAIN: 781 - 942 -0023
FAX: 781 - 942 -0115
10 Torre Street
Reading, MA 01867
GoddardSchool.com
Follow The Goddard School' on:
Facebook, Twitter and The Goddard School Blog
■
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Split Tax Rate
packet if possible
Sent from my Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leslie Leahy <Ileahy @ hitch ingpostgifts.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 5:20:19 PM EST
To: <selectmen @ci.reading.ma.us>
Subject: Split Tax Rate
Board of Selectmen,
Unfortunately at the last minute I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I did want to write &
express my concern about a split tax rate in Reading.
As a Reading resident & Reading business owner, I am opposed to a split tax rate in our town. As a town
resident, of course I wouldn't mind a lower tax bill but the small decrease does not warrant hurting our
local businesses. In my opinion the end doesn't justify the means.
As a Reading business owner for the last 19 years, I have seen many good businesses come & go for a
variety of reasons. The trend over the last few years has been empty storefronts that are eventually
filled with service businesses like dry cleaners, dentists & fitness centers. A variety of retailers &
restaurants keeps our downtown vibrant & interesting — an overrun of service businesses does not. I
believe an increase in property taxes to commercial property owners will have a negative impact on the
character of our town as the additional cost is passed to their tenants. With online competition, state
mandates & general increases in the cost of doing business, I fear this added burden will cause some of
our local businesses to close, further decreasing the character of Reading.
I respectfully ask that you vote against a split tax rate in Reading. Thank you for your consideration,
Leslie Leahy
The Hitching Post Gift Shop
2 Haven St. Unit 103, Reading, MA 01867
781- 944 -9224
www.hitchingpostgifts.com
Like U's on Facebook!
f�
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:36 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Tax Classification Meeting
Packet if possible
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Town Manager, Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867
townmanaaerOci.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: Anthony V. Bastiani
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Tax Classification Meeting
Board of Selectman and Town Manager
I am a supporter of a split tax rate. I feel that the major commercial businesses to do not carry their fair share of funding the Reading
Tax levy. I realize that the majority of the town is residential, however, I believe that a split tax rate is the best option.
Many of the surrounding towns in our area have a split tax rate. The small commercial businesses in Reading, could be protected by a
small commercial exemption. With a small split tax rate, such as 1.1, there would be no attempt for a business to leave town, because
of the split rate.
A split tax rate is a yearly decision, so if one is instituted and it becomes a problem, a town can revert back to a single tax rate in a
future year.
Following is a discussion that I found on the internet, where the Town of Lynnfield discussed in 2013, whether to continue with a split
tax rate. The town of Lynnfield has had the split rate since 2004.
Tax classification information
Mr. Gustus provided the Board with some background information prior to the official public hearing on tax classification
Mr. Gustus provided the Board with a four -page handout that illustrates the calculations for the tax rate for the current fiscal year, as well as the
previous fiscal year. He noted that for the third or fourth straight year, there was a decrease in residential values, with a 1.4 percent decrease in the
value of single - family homes. Commercial, Industrial and Personal (CIP) classes of property saw an aggregate increase in value due to new
development, but existing properties saw a decrease in value of about three percent.
Mr. Gustus explained that tax classification and the adoption of a split tax rate allows the Town to shift some of the tax burden from residential to
commercial taxpayers. Since the Board decided to adopt the shift in 2004, it has followed a policy of adjusting the residential shift factor to negate
the relative appreciation or depreciation of the commercial and residential classes and provide for an equalized average tax bill percentage increase
for all property classes. Each year, Mr. Gustus performs this calculation to determine what the residential shift factor must be in order to achieve this
goal. For Fiscal Year 2013, the residential shift factor would have to be 1.09, or nine percent, to achieve this result. Over the years, the shift factor
has been as low as 1.06 and as high as 1. 19, depending on the relative appreciation or depreciation of residential and commercial property values.
Public hearing — tax classification
At 7:30 p.m., as posted and advertised in the Lynnfield Villager, Chairman MacKendrick declared open the public hearing on tax classification.
Assessing Manager Richard Simmons Jr. explained that the assessing department has been researching property values and reviewing permits to
determine the amount of new growth. He said that under law, property values are the value as of the most recent new year, or in this case, January
1, 2012. The values are based on sales research from 2011; if data is insufficient in a specific category, sales data from 2010 and 2012 is used as
well. The assigned values are checked against sales prices, and if the median sales price is higher than the assigned value, values must be lowered.
If the converse is true, values must be raised. The assessing department aims for a value to sale ratio of 95 to 96 percent.
Values are determined for a number of categories of property, including single - family homes, condominiums, and multi- family dwellings.
Architectural styles, neighborhoods and other factor are used to determine values as well.
Since last year, residential values have depreciated by 1.8 percent, while commercial values have appreciated by 2.6 percent. New growth totaled
$490,566. Most of that new growth came from condominium developments on Salem Street and Lynnfield Street. The recapitulation sheet, a
summary of income and expenses from the current fiscal year, will be submitted to the state shortly.
The equalized tax rate would be $14.94, based on a tax levy of $33,989,078. The matter before the Board of Selectmen is whether to adopt the
residential shift, which it has since Fiscal Year 2004.
Mr. Gustus said that he has followed the policy adopted in past years by the Board of Selectmen, in which the residential shift factor is chosen in
order to ensure the average tax bill for existing residential and commercial properties will increase by the same percentage. This year, taxes will
increase by 2.5 percent, which would require a relatively modest shift factor of 1.090. Last year's factor was 1.083. The recommended residential
shift factor of 1.090 would yield a residential tax rate of $14.82 per thousand, and a CIP rate of $16.29 per thousand.
Chairman MacKendrick said this approach seems to have been successful during the eight years it has been in use
Dr. James Quinn of Wymon Way said other communities, such as Danvers, Saugus, Wakefield and Woburn, have adopted shift factors much larger
than those adopted by Lynnfield. He asked why Lynnfield has not adopted a larger shift factor, and said many commercial operations utilize Town
services to a much greater degree than residents. He asked Mr. Simmons to comment on the matter.
Mr. Simmons said that the decision on whether to split the rate is for the Board of Selectmen. Historically, The Board of Assessors has been against
splitting the rate due to the relatively small commercial tax base in Lynnfield, where it has typically made up six to eight percent of all values in the
Town. If a large residential shift factor is adopted, it places a heavy burden on commercial properties without giving significant relief to residential
taxpayers. Mr. Simmons said that since the Board of Selectmen has adopted a consistent policy on adopting a residential shift factor according to
the system explained by Mr. Gustus, the Board of Assessors no longer gives recommendations on the matter.
Chairman MacKendrick said that Lynnfield has relatively few businesses, many of which are small businesses. For years, the Town had a single
tax rate. He also said that commercial properties do not place as much of a burden on services as do residences, as the largest Town expense is
education of students. Commercial properties provide their own trash removal and snow removal services. The Town wishes to encourage
commercial development in Town, and the Meadow Walk development will significantly add to the Town's commercial tax base. Selectman
Nelson said that Market Street will be opening within the next two years.
Mr. Gustus said that in 2004, when the Board first implemented the split tax rate, the concept was not to favor the residential taxpayer over the
commercial taxpayer, but to make sure each class of property received the same percentage tax increase. If the residential shift factor is not
adjusted based on the relative change in value of the classes or property, there would be a variation each year in the percentage of increase for each
class. Mr. Gustus said that Dr. Quinn's comment has been heard, and that his is a point a view. But prior boards have not wanted to favor one class
over another.
Dr. Quinn asked if other communities were doing something wrong, since their approach is so different.
Mr. Simmons said that other communities have a much larger commercial tax base. Asked by Dr. Quinn what communities he saw as comparable
to Lynnfield, Mr. Simmons said North Reading is most comparable, and North Reading has a single tax rate.
Mr. Gustus said that if Lynnfield adopted a 1.39 percent shift Danvers had, it would double the tax rate for the commercial taxpayers, as only nine
percent of Lynnfield's tax base is in the CIP categories. The average commercial property assessment in Town is $1.3 million.
Dr. Quinn suggested the commercial rate could also be increased over a period of years. Mr. Gustus said this is a policy decision on which the
Board must decide.
Chairman MacKendrick asked how high the residential shift could be under law. Mr. Simmons said that the shift could be as high as 1.50 without
seeking special approval from the Department of Revenue, and up to 1.75 with permission from the Department of Revenue.
Board of Assessors member Ronald Patton said very few communities with small commercial sectors have a split rate. He said Lynnfield is similar
2 6
to Topsfield, Boxford and Wenham, none of which have a split rate.
Selectman Nelson asked Mr. Simmons to address the residential exemption and small commercial exemption
Mr. Simmons explained that the residential exemption shifts the tax burden within the residential class by exempting 10 to 20 percent of the value
of an average - valued home for every owner- occupied residential property, with the residential tax rate increased to maintain the same total amount
of residential taxes to be raised. The effect in a community such as Lynnfield is that higher- valued residential properties pay more than they would
otherwise, and lower- valued residential properties pay less. This exemption has never been adopted in Lynnfield, and is popular among
communities with a large segment on non -owner occupied housing, such as vacation communities with summer rental housing on Cape Cod or
larger cities with many apartment building and non -owner occupied multi - family housing such as in cities such as Somerville and Cambridge
Mr. Simmons said the small commercial exemption if adopted would apply to owners of commercial property valued under $1 million and in
which the businesses housed within employ 10 or fewer people. Mr. Simmons noted that the tax relief goes to the property owner, who may or may
not pass it on to tenants. This exemption has never been adopted by the Town of Lynnfield.
Chairman MacKendrick asked if any Board member wished to make a motion on either the residential exemption or the small commercial
exemption. There were no motions.
As no other member of the public wished to speak, Chairman MacKendrick declared the public hearing closed.
On the motion of Selectman Nelson, duly seconded by Selectman Merritt, the Board unanimously voted to adopt a split tax rate with a residential
shift factor of 1.090.
On the motion of Selectman Nelson, duly seconded by Selectman Merritt, the Board unanimously voted to adjourn at 8:11 p.m.
In summary, a split tax rate should be adopted for the Town of Reading. I will not be able to attend the tax classification meeting.
Sincerely,
Anthony Bastiani
Town Meeting Member,
Precinct 2
OF J?
Town of Reading
6 �
Employee Performance Review
f 639 wcovk94��
NAME:
Bob LeLacheur
POSITION TITLE:
Town Manager
DEPARTMENT:
Administrative Services
DIVISION:
Town Manager
SUPERVISOR:
Board of Selectmen
DATE OF REVIEW:
November 15, 2016
INTRODUCTION
The annual performance review is a communication tool designed to help employees understand
their roles, continue to learn, and participate in the improvement of the organization. The substance of
the program is a focus on communication between employees and supervisors.
This document is built on the following assumptions:
o Employees need to know what is expected of them and how their supervisor views their
performance.
o Employees want to work, do a good job, and take responsibility.
o Motivation to contribute and achieve requires a sense of purpose.
o Employees and supervisors are partners in this discussion.
Each annual review of the Town Manager is public, once it is circulated to a quorum of the Board of
Selectmen or released to the public at a Selectmen's meeting.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW PROGRAM
Enhance communication between an employee and a supervisor.
Dialogue should be continuous during the year and may include coaching, guiding, and
clarification of job responsibilities within the context of larger organizational goals. This
Review form is a summary of the year's efforts in this regard, and is a formal written
record of that summary.
• Develop employees.
Identify interests in professional development and opportunities for development. This
may be related to either current or future positions within the organization.
• Support continuous quality improvement throughout the organization.
Emphasis should be on guiding and empowering employees
11 -15 -16 i�
Employee Performance Review
Part I: List Objectives /Projects from the previous review period. Use this section to briefly explain positive
results, delays in success.
TMgr - Please see attached Reading 2020 FY16 Working Group & Goals. Following a brief
discussion of incomplete goals only:
Master plan for human /elder services (75 %) — much discussion at Board and staff level, with a
revised approach to hire an outside consultant (UMass), subject to FY17 grant funding.
Improve Board communication (75 %) — considerable effort at the staff level to improve
communication, simplified by the change to full -time positions in Community Services. The next
step involves guidance from the Board of Selectmen as the appointing authority.
SeeClickFix rollout (90 %) — evaluation of this tool took longer than expected. The software is
pretty good, but as always the quality of data input is crucial — some staff training done here
and more is needed. Changes such as this go slower because of relatively thin staffing levels
(scarcer training time available).
Hazard mitigation plan (80 %) — planned as an inside project but with staff turnover an outside
consultant was required, after grant funding secured.
Downtown parking (50 %) — waiting to see tenant makeup of MF Charles, as a residential
component had been planned at various points.
DPW Facilities (75 %) the Permanent Building Committee was formed and took over the
Cemetery building project mid -year as requested by Town Meeting. Efforts to move DPW will
be restarted in the fall 2016. While important, that portion has suffered by lack of bandwidth —
see the next item.
Library building project (90 %) — significant delays and issues required a lot of management
effort to resolve and try to keep the project afloat. OPM and Facilities Director have done an
outstanding job. Overseeing a significant building project is not something the town can handle
easily, although in the future under the Permanent Building Committee this should be
streamlined as control is removed from building staff and volunteer proponents.
Oakland Road property (75 %) — what was thought to be a simple and final step by Town
Counsel revealed that many past steps were inadequate. November 2016 Town Meeting will be
asked to fix those missteps, and then authorize the Selectmen to sell the property.
Zoning bylaws (75 %) — November 2016 will finish up all but the final Sign Bylaw, now set for
November 2017 Town Meeting.
General Bylaws (75 %) — Bylaw Committee unable to meet so Town Manager asked Town
Counsel to step in to assess impact of Charter and make needed GB suggested changes.
Some new GB also will result from federal stormwater regulations.
BOS policies (60 %) — we have prioritized some items to be examined and changed, this item
fell low on the BOS priority list during the year.
I review of union contracts (75 %) — completed at staff level, next step is Labor Counsel
11 -15 -16
and possibly the former HR Administrator to assist.
TMgr (Cont.) - Financial Review (90 %) — much work needed during the summer 2016 in
advance of a FALL Override vote.
TOTAL 90% - a fair accomplishment for the year, given that the incomplete goals above are
either lower priority of a multi -year task. The Library building project was an impediment to
better results, but seemed the higher priority to complete the right way, as close to the budget
as was possible. Too often in the past, projects such as this one cut corners, which in the
longer run were not ideal.
Part II: Employee Core Competencies: The following items represent important skills and competencies
related to this employee's primary job functions and the supervisor's perspective on the employee's level of
attainment. The number in each column denotes the number of Selectmen whoagree with the rating.
Note: Add to this list 3 -4 additional core competencies from the attached list which are directly related to this
position. For supervisors there are 4 additional competencies listed as '4 Managerial Competencies" on the
attached list.
Competency Comments: Use this area to elaborate on any `below standard' areas listed above. Any areas of
`below standards' must list some specific actions required to address improvement in that area.
Part III: Development Plan: Use this space to identify continuing education, professional development, or new
skills that an employee and supervisor agree upon that will lead to improvement in the current job, future
advancement, or career growth.
1. TMgr - Continue and expand regular meetings with area Managers and Mayors.
2. TMgr - Improve attendance at MMA and MMMA meetings.
3. KS - Invite PBC into executive sessions when warranted. Will help them make better long term
decisions about new projects and town needs.
4. BB - Continued development of working groups.
11 -15 -16
ln
Competency Area
Below
Standard
Meets
Standard
Exceeds
Standard
1.
Customer Service
2
3
2.
Communication
2
3
3.
Quality of Work
2
3
4.
1 Dependability /Reliability
2
3
5.
Skills /Knowledge
3
2
6.
Productivity
2
3
7.
Judgment
2
3
8.
Flexibility/Willingness to Adapt
3
2
9.
Teamwork
2
3
10.
Ethics and Standards
1
4
11.
Safety
3
2
12.
Change Management
4
1
13.
Leadership
2
3
14.
Managing Others
3
2
15.
Strategic Thinking
2
3
Note: Add to this list 3 -4 additional core competencies from the attached list which are directly related to this
position. For supervisors there are 4 additional competencies listed as '4 Managerial Competencies" on the
attached list.
Competency Comments: Use this area to elaborate on any `below standard' areas listed above. Any areas of
`below standards' must list some specific actions required to address improvement in that area.
Part III: Development Plan: Use this space to identify continuing education, professional development, or new
skills that an employee and supervisor agree upon that will lead to improvement in the current job, future
advancement, or career growth.
1. TMgr - Continue and expand regular meetings with area Managers and Mayors.
2. TMgr - Improve attendance at MMA and MMMA meetings.
3. KS - Invite PBC into executive sessions when warranted. Will help them make better long term
decisions about new projects and town needs.
4. BB - Continued development of working groups.
11 -15 -16
ln
5. JA - Improve contacts and information flow with State /Federal officials as a resource (example:
Camp Curtis Guild use; rotary restriping, MWRA project with N. Reading, Senior tax relief as relates
to larger State initiatives).
Part IV: Future objectives: The following Objectives /Projects have been determined to support town,
department and individual needs. These objectives /projects become the subject matter of Part 1 of the review
process for the next review. Include for each objective /project the resources /support required and estimated
timeframe.
TMgr - Please see attached Reading 2020 FY17 Working Group & 25 Goals. Good progress in
general as we are about 45% complete through the first three months.
DE — Continue to drive pursuit of opportunities for public / private partnerships (e.g., Elder Services,
provision of downtown parking).
DE — Focus our new marketing hire on redevelopment of the entire Industrial area, including all
currently developed properties on the east side of the tracks north of Newcrossing Road.
DE — To the extent possible, champion an FY'l8 zero -based budgeting approach for both town and
school expenditures. All budget possibilities need to be considered, including adjustment of the
traditional Town / School split up or down.
Part V:
Supervisor comments: Supervisors may wish to summarize the review or elaborate on an area not addressed
U n vuyi i u us Ni ucGSS.
DE — Bob continues to perform in his job at a high level of competence. He was especially effective
in his communication of override information to Reading voters. He has continued to adjust staffing
to provide superior public service, as he did in the Public Services Department. He has built a
culture of trust with all Town employees through his candor and personal integrity. This trust will be
a key factor in FY'l8 budgeting, which will be challenging due to the override vote.
JH - The Town Manager's competency ratings are exceptional in my opinion as noted.........
Regarding the goals; naturally given the intense focus on "Financial Sustainability" over the past
year has led to near completion in all categories of this goal.
Given the outcome of the recent override vote a re- visitation of the details is obviously necessary
with an acknowledgement of available revenues.
This also leads to the importance of examining and adjusting goals in all other areas. It is logical
that these areas are slower to completion given the uncertain financial implications. It is now
however in my opinion important to aggressively tackle the remaining goals.
KS - Town Manager LeLacheur has done an exemplary job in running the town over the past year.
He continues to give more value than his pay scale, something that happens in Reading far too
much for the employee's standpoint, but the residents are very lucky for it.
What he excels in: not rushing to judgment, looking at solutions from all angles, being able to
strategize future needs of the town against budgetary restrictions, great organizational skills and a
strong ethical approach to managing staff, as well as himself.
BB - Over the past year, two projects consumed much of the available band width of the TM and
the Board. Those were successful completion of the library project and the overall financial
condition of the Town, leading to the prop 2 Y2 override vote . It is important to note that without the
11 -15 -16
supervision of the TM, this project had the potential to go way over budget, not get done on time
and /or result in litigation. The fact that this project has a small budget gap but no corners cut is an
example of his good stewardship.
The process leading to the calling of a Prop 2 1/z override vote was a model of good governance. No
fewer than 20 public meetings were held, including a number of listening sessions with the public.
The quality of the financial analysis provided to the Board and the public was sophisticated and
thorough, and did not pre- suppose a result. The continued information provided to residents is
easy to follow. Compared to past override efforts, residents have thorough information to make
their decision.
Going forward, the biggest priority in my mind is relocating the DPW garage, as well as creating the
other development opportunities sited in the MAPC report. The utmost hiring priority is the
Economic Development Planner.
The TM has put forth the Working Group model as the vehicle for moving forward the goals and
objectives of thre Town. Other than the group I participate in, I'm not sure if the other groups are
meeting. I like the fact that each group has a Selectman, so not all of the work falls upon an
already overworked staff.
My fear is that if the override does not pass, much of the attention going forward will be managing
the fallout of a shrinking FY18 budget. This has ability to push other priority projects to the side.
Leaning on the skills and commitment of all the Selectmen is something the TM will need to utilize
more in the coming year, as the challenges will surely be many.
JA - It is hard to find gaps that are significant enough to warrant remedial mention.
Not captured in the prior areas is the cheerful evenhanded disposition and can -do attitude that you
demonstrate in most discussions.
Part VI:
Employee comments: Employees may wish to elaborate on an area not addressed through this process or
comment on any part of this process.
I have read and discussed this review with my supervisor and objective /projects for the coming year have been
established which along with daily job responsibilities, applicable policies and town by -laws and contracts will
be the basis for my next performance review.
Employee Signature Supervisor Signature
Department Head
Date
11 -15 -16
Core Competencies Listed in Part II of the Employee Performance Review Form
1. Customer Service: Willingness to provide consistent high - quality service using tact, courtesy, patience
and discretion during interactions with all customers (staff, public, outside agencies).
2. Communication: Exchanges information well, both verbally and in writing, listens and processes
information appropriately.
3. Quality of Work: Accurate, thorough, neat.
4. Dependability /Reliability: Completes assigned work in a timely manner, keeps commitments,
punctual.
5. Skills /Knowledge: Possesses or acquires necessary skills, knows procedures, meets the requirement
of the job description.
6. Productivity: Handles multiple priorities, works well despite frequent interruptions, works effectively
under pressure, completes a reasonably expected amount of work in the time allotted.
7. Judgment: Make effective decisions, uses logical thought processes, maintains confidentiality.
8. Willingness to Adapt: Willing to maintain and update skills to meet the changing requirements of the
position including utilizing new procedures and adapting to new technology.
9. Teamwork: Ability to establish working relationships with others and promote productive cooperation.
10. Ethics and Standards: Exhibits a high moral standard of conduct that sets an example for others to
follow.
11. Safety: Follows safety policies and procedures, uses safe work habits, reports and corrects unsafe
conditions or practices.
Core Competencies In Addition to Those Listed in Part II
1. Creativity: Seeks new ideas and approaches, excels in developing new perspectives and
demonstrates a high degree of originality.
2. Flexibility: Receptive to new ideas and approaches, adapts to changing priorities.
3. Goal- Oriented: Sets realistic and effective goals and priorities and steps to reach them.
4. Initiative: Self- starter, makes suggestions for improvements, seeks new challenges, takes on new
tasks without direction.
5. Interpersonal Skills: Interacts well with own department and other agencies, team member,
cooperates with colleagues.
6. Negotiating: Ability to influence others in a positive manner to effectively achieve results.
7. Organizational awareness: Consistently works towards department and Town goals, makes
suggestions for improvement.
8. Planning and Organization: Manages time well, plans ahead, structures work logically, identifies
potential problems and resolves.
9. Professionalism: Presents self in an appropriate manner, good work attitude and conduct.
10. Self- Development: Enhances personal knowledge, skills and abilities, seeks opportunities for
continuous learning.
11. Work Habits: Consistently demonstrates a commitment to his /her work by giving the best effort at all
times.
Four Managerial Competencies
1. Change Management: Define and implement procedures and /or technologies to deal with changes in
the work environment to ensure that the Town and employees profit from changing opportunities.
2. Leadership: Influence a diverse group of individuals, each with their own goals, needs and
perspectives, to work together effectively for the benefit of the Town.
3. Managing Others: Has the ability to direct employees, the public towards its goals, using its resources
in an effective and efficient manner.
4. Strategic Thinking: Process by which an individual envisions the future and develops strategies,
goals, objectives and action plans to achieve that future.
6 11 -15 -16 ��
2016 NOV t4 PM 1: 25 xfiinity
November 8, 2016
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board:
In our effort to keep you informed, we are writing to share with you the following:
On Decemberlst:
• NECNHD will move from channel 810to channel 840
• WBTS -TV HD will be added to channel 810
• WBTS- TVCoziTVwillbeaddedto channel 935
• Bloomberg HD will move from channel 916to channel 844
On December 30th:
• WWDP -TV will move from channel 10 to channel 81
• WBTS -TV will be added to channel 10
Starting January 1, 2017, NBC Television Network programming will be broadcast on WBTS- TVandWBTS-
TV H D.
On January 12, 2017, Impact Network will be replacing The Word Network on channel 236 on the Digital
Preferred tier. Impact Network is a family oriented African - American Christian network.
Customers are receiving this information in advance of the changes. Should you have questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at 978 - 993 -7472.
Very truly yours,
Jar2�i�1 LyMa V
Jane M. Lyman, Sr. Manager
Government Affairs
MO`.o
(9
o'er OFR
� d
f 63g� 1NC044����
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Board of Selectmen
Date: 2016 -10 -13
Building: School - Memorial High
Address: 82 Oakland Road
Purpose: Joint Meeting School
Committee /Board of Selectmen
Attendees: Members - Present:
Time: 7:30 PM
Location: Superintendent Conference Room
Session: Open Session
Version:
Chairman John Halsey, Secretary Barry Berman, Vice Chairman Kevin
Sexton, pan Ensminger & John Arena,
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Jeanne Borawski, Chuck Robinson, Elaine Webb, Linda Snow Dockser, Gary
Nihan, Julie JoyceSuperintendent John Doherty, Director of Finance Gail
Dowd, Board of Selectmen - John Halsey, Barry Berman, Kevin Sexton, Dan
Ensminger & John Arena, Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Town Counsel Ray
Miyares, Fincom member Peter Lydecker, Attorney David Doneski
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary
Topics of Discussion:
Chair Halsey called the Board of Selectmen to order at 7:43 p.m.
Mr. Ensminger moved, seconded by Mr. Arena, to enter into executive session to discuss
strategy with respect to pending litigation and to return to open session at approximately
8:45 p.m. The roll call vote was 5 -0. Mr. Halsey, Mr: Ensminger, Mr. Arena, Mr. Berman
and Mr. Sexton.
The open session meeting went into recess at 7:45 p.m.
The Board of Selectmen were called back to order in open session at 9:33 p.m.
Chair Halsey reminded the Board that their next meeting is on October 25tH
Mr. LeLacheur provided information of some agenda items including that the Board will need to
call for a Special Town Meeting within the Subsequent Town Meeting in November, close the
warrant and discuss details on a change in the liquor license process.
Mr. Halsey said information will be included in their packets.
Al Sylvia, Reading Chronicle, asked about the lights at the Library.
Page 1 1
Board of Selectmen Minutes — October 13, 2016 ^page 2
Mr. LeLacheur said a lighting consultant has been contacted and as of yet there has been no
resolution.. The maintenance staff has been shutting the lights off.
RMHS Liti ag tion
Chair Borawski called the School Committee back to order at 9:40 p.m.
Mrs. Borawski called for Public Comment. There was none.
Mr. Robinson moved, seconded by Mrs. Webb, to request that the Board of Selectmen call
for a Special Town Meeting to address the High School Construction litigation.
Mrs. Borawski announced that the School Committee and TLT had come to a tentative
agreement to settle and proceeded to read a press release regarding the High School Construction
Litigation tentative settlement.
For Immediate Release
Selectmen vote for Special Town Meeting to address High School Construction
Litigation
Tentative settlement agreement to be reviewed between Town of Reading and TLT
Construction
At a joint meeting of the Reading Board of Selectmen and School Committee, the
Board of Selectmen voted to hold a Special Town Meeting on November 14 to
address the High School construction litigation with TLT Construction
Corporation that began in 2007. At the Special Town Meeting, the timeline of
events over the last decade will be reviewed, a funding vote will be requested, and
the settlement process will be outlined in order to ensure that no funds from
operating budgets will be impacted.
The Reading Memorial High School construction project began in 2004, and TLT
Construction Corporation was the general contractor for the project. In the fall
of 2007, TLT filed a lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court against the Town of
Reading, claiming that the Town owed additional money for work performed
under the contract. In response, the Town filed a counterclaim, alleging that TLT
did not complete the contract work on time and that the Town had to correct
various parts of the project work TLT did perform.
In 2013, after several years of the litigation discovery process and attempts at
reaching a settlement with TLT, the court referred the case to a Special Master, a
retired judge, who conducted a hearing process in lieu of a trial in the Superior
Court. The hearings began in December of 2013 and concluded in March of
2015. Closing arguments were presented in July of 2015. Since that time, the
Master has been preparing, and issuing to the parties, draft decisions on the
various issues that make up the matters in dispute. These issues included payment
to TLT for asbestos abatement work, the Town's replacement of the outdoor ack,
Page 2 ° �a
Board of Selectmen Minutes – October 13, 2016 –image 3
compensation to TLT for additional work outside the scope of the contract,
correction of site work, and liquidated damages for failure to complete the work
on time. The first draft ruling was issued in January of 2016, and the most recent
ruling, which left only a small portion of the claims still to be decided, was issued
in September of 2016 The net result of the rulings to date is approximately 3
million dollars, in TLT's favor.
If the process continued, each party would have the opportunity to respond to the
draft rulings with proposed revisions, and the Special Master would then prepare
a final report to the Superior Court. Under the applicable legal procedure, the
court would review the Master's final report and may adopt it, reject it in whole
or in part. or send it back to the Master with instructions for additional action.
Ultimately, the Superior Court would enter a judgement in the case, whether on
its first receipt of the Special Master's report or after such additional action by
the Master as it may order. On account of the volume of material to be reviewed,
a Superior Court judgment would not be .expected until sometime well into 2017.
By Massachusetts statute, a court judgment is subject to 12% annual interest, and
interest would apply from the date the complaint was filed in November, 2007. As
a result, the amount of the judgment would now more than double. If the final
court judgment were issued in late 2017, it is expected that the total amount could
be close to $7, 000, 000 in TLTs favor.
Given these circumstances, the Town and TLT have reached a tentative settlement
agreement in the amount of $6 million, subject to Town Meeting approval. If
approved by Town Meeting, the settlement would be paid through three sources of
funding: remaining funds from the RMHS building project (approximately
$800, 000), certified free cash, and borrowing —with the debt being paid off over a
period of several years. No operating budget funds would be utilized, and the
result of the override election will not have an impact on the funding sources for
the settlement. It should also be noted that the override vote scheduled for
October 18th is to support the operating budgets for the town and schools, and
has no real impact on the capital plan. The override was not required because of
this legal settlement.
As a result of the settlement, it is expected that capital projects currently on the
10 year capital plan (i. e. roof replacements, field replacements, and capital
equipment) would be pushed out additional years into the future in order to
disperse the impact. Town officials are also exploring the possibility of additional
MSBA reimbursement funding for the High School project. As several people have
understandably inquired, town and school officials want to also clarify and
emphasize again that this issue is not related in any way to the need for an
override ballot question. Even if the litigation had been resolved years ago, an
operational override would be necessary at this time to sustain current services of
the town and schools —and to address the structural deficit in the operating
budgets that has been developing over the last several years. Revenue from an
override would successfully address these identified deficits. Although litigation
has taken years, it was a process that legal counsel at the time believed was the
best course of action. After almost a decade -long process, however, the School
Committee supports moving forward on a settlement in order to bring the
Page 1 3 7
Board of Selectmen Minutes — October 13, 2016 — pa ee44
litigation process to a necessary close and to best position our Town and schools
for the future.
Town Manager LeLacheur reviewed the funding sources to address the proposed $6M settlement
saying $800,000 will be used from the remaining money in the high school project line, $1.2M
will come from free cash and the remaining $4M will be borrowed. Town Meeting will need to
authorize the use of free cash and also authorize separately to borrow. This funding will have no
bearing on the tax levy but there may be a delay in capital purchases.
The motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Halsey said the Selectmen will address the Special Town Meeting when they have warrant in
hand.
Mr. Ensminger moved, seconded by Mr. Berman, to adiourn. The motion carried 5 -0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Page 14
OF
c
b
�� s3g 1NCpR4����
Town of Reading
Meeting Minutes
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Board of Selectmen
Date: 2016 -10 -25
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:
Chairman John Halsey, Vice Chairman Kevin Sexton, Secretary Barry
Berman, John Arena and Daniel Ensminger
Members - Not Present:
Others Present:
Town Manager Bob LeLacheur' Town Engineer Ryan Percival, DPW Director
Jeff Zager, Executive Assistant Paula Schena, Bill Brown, Jonathan McNeal,
Jeanne Borawski, Kate Grant, Nancy Docktor, Sherri Vandenakker, Ashley
Quinn, Jen Hillery, Amy Cole, Samantha and Lisa Gibbs
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Secretary
Topics of Discussion:
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Daniel Ensminger referred to a letter to the
editor from DL Bulic who indicates that the assessment increase will increase taxes. Daniel
Ensminger noted that is incorrect. Taxes are not going up; the assessment has no affect
because the rate will come down to match the 2.50 %. He also noted that if a resident feels
their assessment is not fair they should see the assessment staff. The Town Manager noted
that there is an abatement period in January if they don't get in before November 1.
Barry Berman noted that he and John Halsey have been involved with interviewing
candidates for the Economic Development position.
Kevin Sexton noted that he attended the last ZBA meeting regarding Reading Village.
Parking is an ongoing issue. They are looking for specific spaces on the street for loading
and unloading and the developers are coming to the next Selectmen's meeting. John
Halsey noted that we should extend an invite to the ZBA. Kevin Sexton noted that they are
not asking for exclusive use but want it to count. The Town Manager noted it is exclusive
use if you look at the map. Kevin Sexton noted they will use a trash compactor to limit
trash pickup and they have removed the balcony in back. He feels they are more willing to
work with the Town now. The Town Manager noted that the Selectmen and Planning staff
have done a significant amount of work on this and it has made a difference.
John Arena noted that only one person in DPW keeps the calendar for the Town Forest and
the Boy Scouts want to know if the calendar can be put online to make it easier for the
Scouts to see when it is available.
cPb 1
Page I 1
Board of Selectmen Minutes - October 25, 2016 - page 2
John Halsey noted that he participated in interviewing for the Economic Development
Coordinator and a lot of energy has gone into filling this spot. This position will create more
revenue for the Town and the position is being funded by permit fees. The applicants are
also aware that the position is temporary. The job requires sales and marketing and this
position has been building for over three years now. John Arena noted it will be important
to record the beneficial impact and John Halsey noted that one of the applicants noted that
we need to quantify the results. The Town Manager noted that it is also important to track
the costs of the position.
Town Manager's Report - The Town Manager noted that this is the second day of early
voting and 1006 people have voted. Town Clerk Laura Gemme was present and noted that
people commented on how much easier it is.
Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation
Girl Scout Silver Award - Samantha Gibbs - Samantha Gibbs and her mother Lisa Gibbs
were present.
Samantha Gibbs noted that last year she worked on her Girl Scout Silver Award. She had
to find a problem in the community and find a way to solve it. She decided on friendship
and inclusion. She created the Buddy Bench. Dr. Doherty helped her much and gave her
permission to talk to the Principals and many supported her on her project. Channel 5
interviewed her at her school. She received more donations and she was able to order all of
the benches. The principal have the video that she made to show at assemblies to teach
people how to use the bench.
The Selectmen congratulated Samantha on a job well done.
A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminger to approve the Certificated of
Recognition for Samantha Gibbs achieving the Girl Scout Silver Award was
approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Discussion /Action Items
Hearing - Approve Amendments to the FY17 Classification Plan - The Secretary read the
hearing notice.
The Town Manager noted that the cost to the amendments is a very modest amount. There
are two changes being proposed - remove the Recreation Program Coordinator and add a
Permit Coordinator to Grade F. He noted that someone is already doing the Permit
Coordinator job so this is just a change in title.- All of the inspectors are part time and she
holds them all together. This is a crucial piece of economic development.
Barry Berman asked if this is the person he would go to for multiple permits and the Town
Manager noted yes, she can't speak for them but she can direct them.
Daniel Ensminger asked if the time spent can be billed out of the permit fund and the Town
Manager noted it could, he would have to look at that.
A motion by Ensminger seconded by Arena to close the hearing was approved by a
vote of 5 -0 -0.
A motion by Berman seconded by Arena that the Board of Selectmen approve the
amendments to the FY17 Classification Plan by eliminating the Recreation
Program Coordinator position and adding the Permits coordinator position was
approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
r
Page 1 2
Board of Selectmen Minutes - October 25, 2016 - naae 3
Change in Manager for American Legion - Treasurer Brendon Hoyt and Manager James
Fucci Jr. were present.
John Halsey asked Mr. Fucci if he is TIPS trained and Mr. Fucci noted yes that he has been
bartending for a few years.
The Town Manager noted that the Police have reviewed the application and have no
problems with it.
A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminger that the Board of Selectmen approve
the change in Manager for the Reading Veteran's Association Inc from Dennis F
Lane to James J. Fuccil Jr was approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0
Wine and Spirits Change of d /b /a to Baystate Liquors - The Town Manager noted this is just
a change of d /b /a.
A motion by
Berman
seconded by
Area that the Board of Selectmen approve the
change in d
/b /a for
HT Reading
Liquors LLC 345 Main Street from Wine and
Spirits to Baystate
Liquors
was approved
by a vote of 5 -0 -0
Approve Internal Borrowing - Library Building Project because the Last State Payment of
$1,021,022 is Expected in early 2017 - The Town Manager noted that the State turns over
$1 million per year for five years. This will be the final payment for the State. The Town
Treasurer will use free cash to pay.
Barry Berman asked if the State pays automatically and the Town Manager noted they do
and he doesn't expect any problems.
A motion by Berman seconded by Ensminger that the Board of Selectmen approve
the internal borrowing for the Library building project in the amount of $1,021,022
was approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Auburn Street Water Tank Repairs /Cell Company Equipment - The Town Manager noted
that the painting and repair of the water tank is in the Capital Plan. The cell phone
equipment needs to be moved and hopefully permanently.
Town Engineer Ryan Percival noted that is a 750;000 gallon tank and is 110 feet tall. There
are three phone companies and DPW and Public Safety antennas on it. The last time the
tank was painted was in 1996. The roof shell ladder is supposed to rotate but cannot
because the cell phone equipment is attached to it. The overcrowded catwalk creates a
work safety hazard. The cell phone equipment must be removed. Corrosion is also a
problem.
John Arena asked how wide the catwalk is and also asked about the Public Safety
equipment. Ryan Percival noted the catwalk is two feet wide and the Public Safety
equipment is antennas and they impede painting. John Arena noted that OSHA requires
two attached points for a safety harness and Ryan Percival noted that was correct but they
don't have two points to attach to. All they have is a slide rail going up. He also noted that
there is a hole in the catwalk.
The Town Manager noted that Federal law says we cannot say no to cell carriers. He also
noted that we have a fourth carrier who wants to go up now.
Page 1 3
Board of Selectmen Minutes - October 25 2016 - page 4
Ryan Percival reviewed the options. He noted that Option 1 is to modify the tank by
welding support brackets. Option 2 (the preferred) is to construct a new cell tower and get
the equipment off permanently. The cell tower would be 165 feet tall; the tank would not
need structural modification; it will increase safety, increase cell coverage and increase
revenue.
Barry Berman asked if the carriers would pay more. for being on a cell tower and the Town
Manager noted that there are a lot of moving parts regarding that issue.
John Arena asked if any of the cell tower models require guidewires and Ryan Percival noted
they do not. He also noted that the antennas need to be 10 feet above the tank and 10 feet
between rays. He noted that mutual aid would benefit greatly. The Town Manager noted
that Metro Fire would be interested.
Barry Berman asked if there are any additional health and safety concerns and the Town
Manager noted there is not because they will be moving further away and they are already
there.
Ryan Percival noted that option 1 will cost $1.75 million with tank rehab for $1.35 million
and carrier relocation at $400,000. Option 2 will also cost $1.75 million for tank rehab at
$1.35 million and a new cell tower at $400,000.
The Town Manager noted that the carriers would prefer not to own the tower - they rather
pay rent.
John Arena asked about the build time and the Town Manager noted option 2 is the faster
option. He recommends talking with the neighbors to help make it look better.
Jeff Zager noted that Burlington is doing theirs now so we can see how they do.
John Halsey asked if carriers will be interested in tearing up leases and starting new. The
Town Manager noted that the carriers don't want to spend money on capital.
John. Arena recommended bringing back a number of options for cell towers because people
will have problems with certain things. Ryan Percival noted he would seek a design
consultant. John Halsey requested that he also show the differential costs between options.
He also asked what the shelve life of a tank is and Ryan Percival noted that removing
everything will extend the life of the tank. The cost to replace a tank is three times the cost
of painting.
The Town Manager noted that our security consultant has recommended these things be
added to the security list.
Barry Berman noted that he wants there to be an inclusive abutters list.
Special Election Wrap Up - Daniel Ensminger noted that he received data from the Town
Clerk since 1993 to 2003. He noted that the number of registered voters has grown by
20 %. The NO vote in 2016 was the largest in history of the Town. Many people in the
community have the same needs we do with health insurance, utility bills, etc. and most
people he spoke to feels the Town spends money non - prudently.
Barry Berman noted if he could go back and do it again he would ask for a lower number,
Daniel Ensminger noted that we fixed the problem so long so well that we are a victim of
our own work.
Page 1 4
��hK
Board of Selectmen Minutes - October 25 2016 - page 5
John Arena noted that he heard comments that there wasn't enough information and people
want more transparency in the School Department. He also noted that people are angry
and not in the mood to entertain this. He feels the need to talk with the School Committee
and Finance Committee about how to move forward.
Kevin Sexton noted that he heard comments that the timing was not good. He doesn't
think a lower number would have made a difference. We need to look at revenue up -
perhaps billboards.
Daniel Ensminger noted that in 1991 and.1992 the employees received 0% increase in pay.
John Halsey noted that in 1993 an override was passed. Ten years later a school was built
and another override was passed. Now, 13 years later an override failed. He believes
people are feeling fatigued. We will need to be very creative and work closely with the
School Committee not to create Schools versus Town. We will have to redouble our efforts
and we will not shut down the Schools and close our doors. We need to say no to certain
things and work with less.
Barry Berman noted that people are happy with the level of services they are getting now.
School Committee Chairman Jeanne Borawski noted that she supported the one question
that was on the ballot. She is glad the split stayed the same. She also noted that the
conversations over the next six months will be hard. They have to cut $1.7 million from
services over the years. The Superintendent will be presenting his budget to the School
Committee in December.
John Arena noted that we need to be proactive and the Schools need do the same. He
recommends doing a bottom up budget. It is easy to grow but hard to shrink.
The Town Manager noted that depth and function will be cut and there will be less public
safety. There appears to be a deep anger in all of the communities and nobody knows why.
Jen Hillary noted that she reviewed the percentage of yes votes and she doesn't feel that
46% was bad. She feels the litigation and timing of the settlement; the Library project and
the vote No on #2 signs regarding the charter schools complicated things.
Peter Brown, Precinct 8 noted that he has lived in Town since 1985. He spoke to a lot of
Town Meeting members and there was a level of misinformation. He feels we need to think
about how to educate the residents. He also feels the issue of trust is significant. People
don't believe the layoffs will happen and until they feel the pain they will say no. He feels
there will be a problem if the School Committee doesn't do what they said they would cut.
He also noted that a lot of people said if the amount was smaller they would have voted for
it. He suggests asking more frequently for smaller amounts.
Barry Berman noted it is the Board's job to squeeze more growth in and maybe they can cut
15 School positions instead of 30 because they are cutting services.
The Town Manager noted that there was a lot of misinformation on social media and he will
not argue with people online but someone needs to do that.
Jeanne Borawski noted that projecting out past FY18 is something people need to look at.
Bill Brown noted that a lot of people are hurting financially. He does canning and there are
less now than there used to be.
Page 1 5
Board of Selectmen Minutes - October 25, 2016 - page 6
Amy Cole suggested the Board look at the difference in the gap between back then and
what we have now.
Close Warrant for Special Town meeting (requested by School Committee) - RMHS
Construction - Jeanne Borawski noted that the School Committee informed the public that
we have a tentative agreement for approximately $6 million settlement. This will require
Town Meeting approval so they are requesting a Special Town Meeting within the
Subsequent Town Meeting where a presentation will be made.
A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to close the Warrant for the Special Town
Meeting on November 14 2016'regarding the RMHS construction was approved by
a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Close Warrant for Special Town Meeting - Special Act Request for Liquor Licenses - The
Town Manager noted that there is a discrepancy between what the Town believes and what
the State believes. Starting next year the ABCC will be online and they will tell applicants
we have licenses available when we don't. The State says we have five beer and wine
package store licenses available and we don't. This action will set the state clear on what we
have.
A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to close the Warrant for the Special Town
Meeting on November 21, 2016 regarding liquor licenses was approved by a vote
of 5 -0 -0.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to approve the minutes of October 4 2016
was approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
A motion by Berman seconded by Arena to adjourn the meeting at 10.35 p.m. was
approved by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
2
l�
Page 1 6
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:38 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Schena, Paula
Subject: Fwd: Motion to reconsider
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "J. Raymond Miyares" <raygmiyares- harrington.com>
Date: November 15, 2016 at 12:29:20 PM EST
To: Bob LeLacheur <blelacheurgci.reading ma.us>
Cc: Rebekah Lacey < rlaceykmiyares- harrington.com >, Blake Mensing <bmensingkmiyares-
harrington.com>
Subject: Motion to reconsider
I :s
The "rule" that a motion to reconsider may be made only by one who was on the prevailing side
in the original vote appears to be more a tradition than an absolute requirement. Reading's
Bylaw does not appear to require it, and Town Meeting Time merely acknowledges that some
Towns have this rule or tradition.
Nevertheless, a Town Meeting Member who wishes to propose reconsideration will face less
resistance if s /he was on the prevailing side last night.
Step 1: Notice must be filed with the Town Clerk within 24 hours of the adjournment of last
night's session of the Subsequent Town Meeting:
Pursuant to Section 2.2.4.1 of the Reading General Bylaw, I hereby provide notice that I
intend to make a motion to reconsider the vote and action taken by the Subsequent Town
Meeting on November 14, 2016 under Warrant Article 16, which is related to the
"Oakland Road Parcel."
Step 2: The Clerk must post the notice in one or more public places in each precinct of the Town
as soon as possible.
Step 3: The Town Meeting Member moves to reconsider at the beginning of the next session of
the Subsequent Town Meeting:
Move that the Town vote, pursuant to Section 2.2.4 of the Reading General Bylaws,
to reconsider its prior vote and action on Article 16 taken at the Subsequent Town
Meeting on November 14, 2016.
Step 4: The Board of Selectmen (or any Town Meeting Member) may move to amend the
original motion:
Move that the Town vote to amend the pending motion for Warrant Article 16 by
striking the following words: "...and move that the Town vote, pursuant to Chapter
40, Section 3 of the Massachusetts General Laws to authorize the Board of
Selectmen, on behalf of the Town, to sell or otherwise dispose of said Oakland Road
Parcel, under such terms as it may determine."
Step 5: The Town Meeting will need to conduct a new vote under Article 16, on either the
original main motion or that motion as amended.
Ray