The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-10-10 BOS Packetr c' b co Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2011 VT -� P 4: Ob 1 Board of Selectmen Date: 2017 -10 -10 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Agenda: Purpose: General Business Meeting Called By: Caitlin Saunders on behalf of Chairman John Arena Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will not be accepted. Topics of Discussion: 1) Reports and Comments a. Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments b. Public Comment C. Town Manager's /Assistant Town Manager's Report 2) Open Session for topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting 3) Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation 4) Personnel & Appointments 5) Discussion /Action Items a. Appoint MAPC Representative(s) 7:10 b. JAMS for Jake 7:15 C. Police Officer & Firefighter Badge Pinning 7:30 d. Public Safety Staffing Overview 7:45 e. Depot / Compost Sticker 8:30 f. Home Rule Petition April 2017 — Commercial Marijuana Ban update 8:55 g. Continued Hearing — Board of Health Associate Member 9:00 6) Approval of Minutes a. August 29, 2017 7) Licenses, Permits and Approvals 8) Executive Session 9) Correspondence a. Correspondence to MassHousing, re: Eaton Lakeview Development b. Correspondence from Department of Housing & Community Development, re: Downtown Smart Growth District C. Correspondence from Commonwealth of Massachusetts, re: Small Scale Initiatives Grant d. Correspondence from Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, re: Right of Way Maintenance Program e. Correspondence from Comcast, re: Miscellaneous Information This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page I 1 Town of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda 1 r c' b co Board - Committee - Commission - Council: 2011 VT -� P 4: Ob 1 Board of Selectmen Date: 2017 -10 -10 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Agenda: Purpose: General Business Meeting Called By: Caitlin Saunders on behalf of Chairman John Arena Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays. Please keep in mind the Town Clerk's hours of operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will not be accepted. Topics of Discussion: 1) Reports and Comments a. Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments b. Public Comment C. Town Manager's /Assistant Town Manager's Report 2) Open Session for topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting 3) Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation 4) Personnel & Appointments 5) Discussion /Action Items a. Appoint MAPC Representative(s) 7:10 b. JAMS for Jake 7:15 C. Police Officer & Firefighter Badge Pinning 7:30 d. Public Safety Staffing Overview 7:45 e. Depot / Compost Sticker 8:30 f. Home Rule Petition April 2017 — Commercial Marijuana Ban update 8:55 g. Continued Hearing — Board of Health Associate Member 9:00 6) Approval of Minutes a. August 29, 2017 7) Licenses, Permits and Approvals 8) Executive Session 9) Correspondence a. Correspondence to MassHousing, re: Eaton Lakeview Development b. Correspondence from Department of Housing & Community Development, re: Downtown Smart Growth District C. Correspondence from Commonwealth of Massachusetts, re: Small Scale Initiatives Grant d. Correspondence from Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, re: Right of Way Maintenance Program e. Correspondence from Comcast, re: Miscellaneous Information This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page I 1 9. h. i. Town of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda Correspondence from Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School District, re: Stabilization Fund Email from Lauren Bennett, re: Letter to School Committee Correspondence from Kevin Sexton, re: Letter for the Record Correspondence from Town Manager This Agenda has been prepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page 1 2 OF RE,y�ly Office of the Town Manager "0 16 Lowell Street 06'9 ° � Reading, MA 01867 To: Board of Selectmen From: Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Date: October 5, 2017 RE: BOS Agenda for October 101h 781 - 942 -9043 townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us www.readingma.gov /town - manager Next week the VASC is attempting to meet to interview candidates for a vacancy in CPDC, and they may be able to bring a recommendation to the full board. As you know the planning /construction area is very busy in town and a full membership on the board would be very helpful. Jake Czuczwa, a RMHS grad from several years ago, sadly passed away early this summer. Jake was well known to RCASA as he brave_ ly battled addiction, and he is greatly missed in the community. Some of Jake's friends presented an idea to the RCASA Board a month or so ago, to create an event in late October to honor his memory, and to help raise resources and awareness in the fight against the opiod epidemic. Right away I could see the odds that they would enjoy huge success, and planning was important. Subsequently they have worked with Town staff on the logistics of the event, including a full Design Review Team meeting at Town Hall. Jake was an acknowledged musician, and the all -day music festival 'Jams for Jake' will include many of his works. The societal pressures for our young people are well known, as are the pitfalls. While Jake's passing is a sad event, it is a remarkable thing to see this group of friends come together in such a positive and uplifting way. Following this presentation will be a badge - pinning ceremony for both the Police and Fire departments. In the Police department we welcome Andrew Kirwan, Zachary Fontes and Benjamin Woodward as new police officers. In the Fire department we welcome Jon Dyer as a new Firefighter /EMT and congratulate Bryan Ryan on his promotion to Lieutenant. Since both Chiefs will be there, I've asked them to give a quick preview of a staffing study they have worked on during the summer. More details will follow in December as part of your budget process. We have always been careful in public because an important part of public safety is the perception of the community, but as mentioned last winter we need to open up a bit so the community understands the situation. Please review the draft staffing studies, and we welcome your comments or questions in advance of the December meetings. The table below shows Police staffing levels over the past 40 years, a period of time where data is available. If 1975 was the right staffing level; we have fallen behind by 12 officers based on our population growth, which is the single biggest driver of staffing levels. Perhaps even more concerning is that we have fallen behind by an additional 5 officers since 2010, a time during which most residents are living in higher density housing, which statistically requires more public safety calls nationally. Police Staffing history Sworn Police Officers Population Residents /Officer 1975equiv. staffing shortfall in staffing 1975 2010 45 42 22,609 24,747 502 589 49 7 2017 41 26,500 646 53 12 Over time in many disciplines, technology and improved equipment has replaced labor. Certainly we need less Public Works employees to lay a water main than was needed in the 1890s when most of our infrastructure was first built with shovels. Indeed over the past several decades, DPW staffing is down from about 125 employees to 45 employees. However this substitution of capital for labor is generally not true in public safety. When one considers the enormous changes in required 'paperwork' for public safety (legal and medical), advances in technology has at best kept pace with those increased demands. The basic jobs of police and fire remain the need to be physically present for the community. We will then have a brief discussion of the depot /compost stickers. The decision needed is if the Board wishes to change from one sticker for both uses to something else. I would suggest two stickers — one for the compost center only and one for both uses. Please see an email from the Town Accountant suggesting an upper limit for the depot -only set of costs, as well as other backup material for each use. The Board does not specifically need to set fees at this meeting, although that will be needed by mid - November when they go on sale to the public. The last agenda item will be the Hearing for the Board of Health Associate member. As material she circulated to you recently has again suggested criminal behavior on my part (by mention of the District Attorney), I will refrain from any participation until such time as that new issue is resolved. Thanks for your attendance at the Reading Embraces Diversity and Economic Development meetings earlier this week, and a reminder that in addition to your regular Tuesday meeting we have a Financial Forum next Wednesday, at 7:30pm in the conference room of the Public Library. 101312017 Responsibility Start time October 3, 2017 RED Community Meeting @RMHS Tuesday 7:00 October 4, 2017 Economic Development Summit @RPL Wednesday 6:00 Office Hour Appoint MAPC representative(s) LeLacheur 7:10 November 16, 2017 JAMS for Jake LeLacheur 7:15 HEARING Police Officer & Firefighter Badge Pinning Segalla & Burns 7:30 November 27, 2017 Public Safety Staffing Overview Segalla & Burns 7:45 HEARING Depot /Compost Sticker LeLacheur 8:30 HEARING Board of Health Associate member Miyares 9:00 Town Manager Review Arena 9:30 October 11, 2017 1 Financial Forum II @RPL lWednesday 7:30 Office Hour Dan Ensminger Monday 6:30 November 16, 2017 Town Accountant Quarterly Report Angstrom 7:20 HEARING Review Senior Tax Relief Santaniello & Bd Assessors 7:30 November 27, 2017 Preview Tax Classification (Hearing is November 7th) Santaniello & Bd Assessors 7:45 HEARING Approve BOS Policies Article 3 - Licenses LeLacheur 8:30 November 28, 2017 Selectmen Goals - update LeLacheur 9:00 Town Manager Review Arena 9:30 Office Hour Barry Berman Monday 6:30 November 16, 2017 Post Mark Square Condos update Corona 7:20 HEARING Tax Classification Santaniello & Bd Assessors 8:00 November 27, 2017 Review Road Improvements Zager 8:45 Public Works Dept Fees Zager 9:15 November 28, 2017 Public Works dent Policies Zager 9:30 November 13, 2017 Subsequent Town Meeting I Monday November 16, 2017 Subsequent Town Meeting II Thursday November 20, 2017 Subsequent Town Meeting III Monday November 27, 2017 Subsequent Town Meeting IV Monday November 28, 2017 ITuesday Eaton Lakeview Housing project update ILeLacheur 7:20 Close Warrant for April Town Meeting ILeLacheur Office Hour IDan Ensminger Office Hour Barry Berman I 6:30 April 23, 2018 Annual Town Meeting I Monday April 26, 2018 Annual Town Meeting II Thursday April 30, 2018 Annual Town Meeting III Monday Office Hour jAndrew Friedmann I 6:30 Mav 3 9111 R I Annual Tawn Meeting IV IThursday Future Agendas Discuss Cell Tower project Percival Discuss Oakland Road land public process LeLacheur Finance dept Policies Angstrom Board of Selectmen Policies: Article 2 Volunteers, Boards and Committees Halsey Percy Avenue: improvements on a private way LeLacheur Downtown Parking Segalla Recurring Items Close Warrant: Nov'17 TM by 9/26 Close Warrant: Apr'18 TM by 2/27 Review BOS /TM Goals Dec & June Semi -ann Appointments of Boards & Committees June Annual Hearing Approve Classification & Compensation June Annual Hearing Tax Classification October Annual Approve licenses December Annual Reports to BOS Town Accountant Report Qtrly Economic Development Director Mar - July -Dec Tri -ann 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 Fi L MAPC I-IETROPOLIIAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL August 11, 2017 John Arena, Chair Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Arena: The position of Steve Sadwick, Reading's Representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) expired on June 30, 2017. It is my hope that the Town will continue its participation on the Council by appointing a representative for a three -year term, and I have outlined this process below. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40B, Section 24, when the term of an appointed member expires, his /her successor shall be appointed for a term of three years. This term should commence on the date of appointment and must comply with the statute in order to be considered valid. We recommend that the Town select an elected or appointed official or resident who can effectively represent Reading's interests in the region, and who will appropriately report back to the Town on MAPC's projects and policy priorities. In keeping with MAPC's ongoing efforts to diversify our staff and members of the Council, we always appreciate it if an appointing authority can give due consideration to candidates who might help MAPC to more accurately reflect the population of our region. Please be aware that in the capacity of Council representative, individuals hold a statutory office and are considered to be special state employees within the meaning of various statues, including the Conflict of Interest Law. This is an exciting time for smart growth and regional collaboration and MAPC is rising to the challenge: • We are working with municipalities, state agencies, and allied organizations across the region to implement our regional plan for sustainable development, Metro Future: Making a Greater Boston Region. Various programs from HUD, the EPA, and the Commonwealth have provided us with resources to bolster our work to achieve the bold goals of the MetroFuture plan. • MAPC provides top -notch technical assistance to its member communities - drafting zoning bylaws, preparing applications to state government, helping communities to prepare for natural or man -made disasters, protecting water supplies, establishing 40R or 43D districts, etc. Often, MAPC can cover all or part of the costs of these efforts. Metropolitan Area Planning Council 160 Temple Place ( Boston, Massachusetts 021111617-933 -0700 1 617 - -182- -7185 fax I mape.org tc� ,2, ® The Council has an active legislative agenda, overseen by its Legislative Committee. Currently, for instance, we are actively engaged in efforts to expand funding for the Community Preservation Act (CPA), to reform the state's antiquated zoning and subdivision laws, and to enhance the ability of municipalities to regionalize service delivery. As vice chair of the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), we play an active role in making sure that the voice of our member communities is heard in state deliberations on transportation policies and capital projects. We continue to assist communities in the bulk purchase of goods and services - everything from fire trucks to office supplies. Buying as a group keeps the price low and helps to ensure quality products and services. You can learn more about MAPC's ongoing activities by consulting our website, www.mapc.org, or you can follow us on Facebook or Twitter. MAPC takes pride in playing a critical role to promote sustainable growth and inter -local cooperation across the region. We value Reading's involvement in deliberations about the region's physical, social and economic condition, and we need your participation. We look forward to the involvement of your new appointee. I would also like to point out that the Town has the option of appointing an Alternate member to serve coterminously with the term of the Representative. Details on this process are enclosed with this letter. The Alternate member can vote at all Council meetings on behalf of the Town in the absence of the Representative. Please address any questions regarding the appointment process to Heidi Anderson, Operations Manager, at (617) 933.0764 or lhanderson @mapc.org. Or, if you have broader questions about the role of MAPC and its Council members, feel free to call me directly at (617) 933 -0701, or contact me by email at mdraisen @mapc.ore. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully, D Marc D. Draisen Executive Director 5a�- Town of Reading Post Office Development Review Team Meeting September 20, 2017 "Jams for Jake" Event September 20, 2017 Staff Present (see attached sign in sheet for contact info): Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Police Lieutenant Christine Amendola, Fire Chief Greg Burns, Assistant DPW Director Jane Kinsella, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Conservation Administrator Chuck Tirone, Public Safety Officer Michael Scouten and Health Agent Laura Vlasuk. Applicant / Development Team: Calum Waddington, John Oliver and Ryan McKee were present on behalf of the event. Project Summary: The Applicants are holding an event on Sunday, October 29th on Symonds Field called "Jams for Jake" in memory of Jake Sousa. The planned rain date is Sunday, November 5th. The Applicants will be bringing locally talented bands of varying sizes together to help create community and raise awareness about addiction in order to destigmatize it. The Applicants will have tables for RCASA, Right Turn, and other organizations in order to spread information about the resources available. They expect 250 -350 people to attend the event throughout the course of the day. The event will be free, but donations will be accepted. The Applicants have raised over $3000 on social media and have local sponsors. They are building a list of volunteers for trash management, stage management, etc. They are hoping to offer food at the event through one vendor. Bottled water will be available all day. Absolutely no drugs or alcohol will be permitted on the premises, and they will be conducting bag checks to ensure this. The event time is 12:00 -7:00 with set up from 9:00- 12:00 and breakdown from 7:00 -8:00. They are currently working on acquiring all necessary permits. General Comment 1. Parking Front and back lots available if needed. St. Athanasius lot available also. Bike parking is available in front of Burbank. 2. Gates /Tickets Need signage to alert people that bags will be checked. Will have tent for bag check and donations. People will be counted as they enter & exit, and once capacity is reached, entry will be limited. 3. Money Somebody will monitor money in the lockbox. Square Safe will also be used. 4. Prohibitions Drugs, alcohol, dogs. 5. Chairs / Booths No chairs will be provided; attendees can bring their own if desired. They will use 5 -6 booths with pop -up tents, which will have to be secured in case it's windy. 6. Field Use Requesting use before noon from BOS. Page 1 of 2 �� Town of Reading Post Office September 20, 2017 7. Lighting Provided by the stage rental company. 8. Food Vendors Permits needed. Panera/Hamra Enterprises may be the food vendor. 9. Port-a- Potties Required to have 1 per 100 people; are planning to have 4, but will see if rental companies will donate more. Rink will be open, but use of indoor toilets won't be encouraged. 10. Trash DPW can provide barrels, and the trash can be put in the Town -owned dumpster for pick- up. Volunteers will help clean up. The Applicants should go back the next day to ensure the site is clean. 11. Energy and Permits needed. RMLD can help with temporary service. Will need licensed electrician to Electrical apply for permit. Cords have to be where people won't trip over them. Less than 60 amps in total are anticipated. 12. Noise & There is no decibel limit or censorship, but they should be respectful of the neighbors, and Neighbors notify them in advance of the event. 13. Burbank & Burbank has an open skate that night. Manager of Burbank (Ed) is ok with event and just Rifle Club requests confirmation of insurance and a letter from the Town Manager. The Rifle Club needs to be notified; they are busy on Sunday afternoons. People need to know not to drive down that way. 14. Baseball Will be barricaded to prevent it from being damaged by event. Diamond Police & Fire Comment 1. Parking & Need to figure out traffic flow, and develop a vehicle and pedestrian plan. The Police can Traffic help with this. There is a sidewalk along Haverhill St, but no parking is allowed. 2. Police Presence 3 officers on site to control traffic, monitor safety, assist with parking set up, and patrol. 3. Training Police will train volunteers on bag checking. 4. EMS Ambulance, EMT, etc. not required; the 3 officers on -duty will be CPR certified. Need "No Parking" signs for Symonds Way to keep it open. 5. Illness / Evac A plan for handling illness and /or evacuation will be needed. 6. Propane Two 201b propane tanks allowed — need a permit for more. Page 2 of 2 SON OF RFgO'� /639:,NCORQ��P FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 Email: townmanager@ei.reading.ma.us 1 V W1V 1V1A1VAUE+ K Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942 -9043 TO: Reading Finance Committee RE: Public Safety Wage Budgeting DATE: August 21, 2017 CC: Fire Chief Greg Burns, Police Chief Mark Segalla & Town Accountant Sharon Angstrom At your meeting on June 28, 2017 there was a request to transfer $125,000 from the FINCOM Reserve Fund and an additional $25,000 from a surplus in the Benefits budget line, for a total of $150,000 directed at the Public Safety wage budget. While I was unable to attend your June FINCOM meeting, I was able to watch it on cable and heard the ensuing discussion and questions. The purpose of this memo is to respond to those inquiries in a similar fashion to a discussion we had a couple of years ago, now that Town Accountant Sharon Angstrom has recorded the final FY 17 figures. First of all, of that $150,000 that was requested for the Public Safety wage budgets in June, a total of $115,921 has been returned to Free Cash at year end. There were two reasons for the higher request — (1) the fact there was incomplete communication between Finance and Public Safety staff and some grant funding had not yet been applied to the FY17 year -to -date total, making a projected deficit seem $50,000 higher than it should have; and (2) as I have stated before, we approach year end with an abundance of caution and request funds that should end up as surplus, but are there in case of some significant year -end need. To step back, let's look at the last four years of budgeting and results. The time period is picked for convenience in our accounting system, and is probably as reasonable a sample as any period. Again, we did something similar either two or three years ago with similar results. There are three types of wages paid out during most years: regular wages (WAGES); overtime (OT); and sick/vacation buyback (BUYBACK) upon retirement (or other departure from employment). There are two types of budgeted wage funds: annual funds approved by Town Meeting (ORIG); and subsequent additions approved either by Town Meeting or FINCOM (REVISED). First, let's look at how the initial wages budgets as approved by Annual Town Meeting fared against those three types of spending, over the past four years. There were some comments at the June FINCOM meeting that Public Safety, especially Fire /EMS, always overspent in the OT line item, and that is absolutely true. However as was mentioned in this type of review a couple of years ago, the shortfall in the OT lines are nearly always absorbed by surpluses in the other wage lines, and in fact this makes sense because position vacancies are the likely source of going over the OT budgets. In three of the last four years this has been true, as the table on the next page shows. However last year it was not true, as there was a $25,000 shortfall in WAGES + OT versus initial budgeting. One employee of the PS department was absent most of the year and is now unlikely to be able to return to duty. This 56� absence caused OT and alone explains more than that $25,000 difference. The retirement buybacks certainly would have required additional funding though, whereas in other years these have been absorbed within the initial wage budgets. WAGES vs ORIG OT vs 0 ri g BUYBACK vs. ORIG FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 $ 219,603 $ $ (163,314) $ $ 56,288 $ 258,140 $ 315,072 $ 344,447 (196,294) $ (180,845) $ ( 369,477) (25,190) $ (78,504) $ (139,193) 36,657 $ 55,723 $ (164,223) Again, note that in three of the last four years the initial wage budgets have been ample. I continue to believe that the annual method of budgeting Public Safety wages is appropriate, especially given the scarcity of funding. Sure, with excess funds we could add a bigger cushion — certainly those ending balances around $50,000 are pretty low when compared to a nearly $10 million line item. However I don't see a comparison that was made by FINCOM to the budgeting philosophy of snow & ice, where we purposefully budget at about 80% of expected costs, so as to not waste funds in a light snow year? Let's now look at the impact of requesting mid -year additional funds, both from FINCOM and Town Meeting. Note that in the analysis below, these mid -year funds have had three purposes: relatively small amounts for non -union pay & class adjustments transferred in from another town budget line; a one -time $75k addition of two overnight Dispatcher positions in FY15 (needed more to build the baseline budget going forward); and the somewhat traditional year -end request to ensure a funding cushion (especially in FY14 & FY17): NET MIDYEAR BUDGET TRF $ 116,718 $ 75,100 $ 19,675 $ 280,144 Over the four year period, of the $491,637 in additional funds requested (shown in the last line as midyear budget transfers), $476,082 (or 97 %) was returned to Free Cash at year end. To integrate these two tables, for last year there was a total of $280,144 added to the wages budgets; $164,223 was needed for funding, and the remaining $115,921 was returned to Free Cash. Over these four years, we had budgeted both wages ( +2.9 %) and Overtime ( +3.0 %) at about the same rate. Last year we did not take full credit for the eliminated positions by setting aside additional Overtime, so now over the five year period these figures look like: wages +2.4 %; OT +3.3 %. Certainly if FINCOM has any suggestions or other approaches to this method, I would be very interested to listen. In a separate memo, we will evaluate how Reading budgets and performs relative to our Peer Communities. As you might anticipate, there is a wide approach to budgeting and operating the Public Safety function in other communities. 5�a FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 WAGES vs REVISED $ 236,321 $ 261,740 $ 304,672 $ 295,147 OT vs REVISED $ (63,314) $ (124,794) $ (150,770) $ (180,627) BUYBACK vs. REVISED $ - $ (25,190) $ (78,504) $ 1,401 RETURNED TO FREE CASH -> $ 173,006 $ 111,757 $ 75,398 $ 115,921 NET MIDYEAR BUDGET TRF $ 116,718 $ 75,100 $ 19,675 $ 280,144 Over the four year period, of the $491,637 in additional funds requested (shown in the last line as midyear budget transfers), $476,082 (or 97 %) was returned to Free Cash at year end. To integrate these two tables, for last year there was a total of $280,144 added to the wages budgets; $164,223 was needed for funding, and the remaining $115,921 was returned to Free Cash. Over these four years, we had budgeted both wages ( +2.9 %) and Overtime ( +3.0 %) at about the same rate. Last year we did not take full credit for the eliminated positions by setting aside additional Overtime, so now over the five year period these figures look like: wages +2.4 %; OT +3.3 %. Certainly if FINCOM has any suggestions or other approaches to this method, I would be very interested to listen. In a separate memo, we will evaluate how Reading budgets and performs relative to our Peer Communities. As you might anticipate, there is a wide approach to budgeting and operating the Public Safety function in other communities. 5�a A Staffing Review of the Reading Police Department Reading, Massachusetts Chief Mark D. Segalla Report Prepared By: Sergeant Patrick Silva August 28, 2017 Table of Contents Part 1- Introduction P. 3 Part 2- Current Staffing Levels P. 3 Part 3- Economic Development P. 5 Part 4- Comparable Communities P. 7 Part 5- Recommendations P. 15 Part 6- Works Cited P. 17 0a Lna Part I- Introduction Chief Segalla requested an evaluation of the department to determine how Reading's staffing compares to other similar communities. Chief Segalla conducted an evaluation of twenty -two comparable towns in Massachusetts. Several areas of interest were queried and the relevant data was compiled. The areas of focus were: population, sworn officers, civilian employees, school resource officers, detectives, task force officers, dispatchers, calls for service, population density, housing unit density, command staff levels and police department budgets. The goal of this study is to compare Reading to other similar communities and determine whether Reading has an adequate number of officers. Also, if the study shows that Reading does not have an adequate number of officers, in comparison to other communities, the study would aim to further illustrate where the Reading Police Department should improve its staffing so that the department can run at its optimum level. This may include hiring more patrol officers, detectives, specialists, supervisors, command staff members, civilians or public safety dispatchers. Part 2- Current Staffing Levels The Reading Police Department currently employs forty -one (41) sworn officers, eleven (11) public safety dispatchers and five (5) civilians. The 41 police officers are broken down by rank as follows: 1 Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 4 Lieutenants, 7 Sergeants and 28 patrol officers. Also included in these staffing levels are 6 detectives (including one Lieutenant Detective), 1 community service officer, 1 licensing /fleet manager, 1 traffic and safety officer and I school resource officer. Of the 1 1 dispatchers, there is 1 head dispatcher. The 5 civilians include. 2 3 Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse (RCASA) coordinators, 2 clerks and 1 parking enforcement /animal control officer. The day to day operations of the Reading Police Department require the appointment of officers to specialist positions. These specialist positions fall under the support services and detective's division. Without these officers, the department would not be able to function at its highest level. These support positions are essential to the success of the patrol division, which are the officers that are out in the community answering calls for service. Each of these specialty positions comes with an extensive amount of training and unique job responsibilities. Because of this, many of these specialty positions require an officer be dedicated to each position and not assigned to patrol duties unless an emergency arises. The support services division is run by a Lieutenant. The detective's division is also run by a Lieutenant and contains a Federal task force officer who is assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. The patrol division is run by two division commanders, a Lieutenant in charge of the night shift and a Lieutenant in charge of the dayshift. Falling under the Lieutenant on the dayshift are two sergeants who act as patrol supervisors. Each day shift patrol supervisor is in charge of four (4) patrol officers. Falling under the Lieutenant on the night shift are 5 sergeants who act as patrol supervisors. 3 night shift sergeants each supervise 4 patrol officers. 2 night shift sergeants work a "cover" shift which overlaps with the day, evening and overnight shift to provide coverage and allow for smooth transitions from shift to shift. The Reading Police Department maintains a minimum staffing level for patrol duties at 1 supervisor and 3 patrol officers on the overnight and day shift and 1 supervisor and 4 patrol officers on the evening shift. Because of the current staffing, it is very likely that a normal day shift may only have 2 patrol officers, 1 sergeant and I lieutenant. Although the department has M M, met the minimum number of required officers, this causes a major issue with the actual logistical running of the shift due to the fact that now a supervisor is acting as a patrol officer, answering regular calls for service. Many police calls require more than one officer to respond. There are also serious calls that require several officers to be on scene for. With the current staffing levels, even one serious call cripples the entire shift, forcing the department to rely on mutual aid from surrounding departments in order to resolve these calls. Although this is not the case regularly on every shift, these incidents happen often enough that it causes a strain on the patrol officers and their supervisors. The detective's division operates with 1 Lieutenant Detective, 1 court prosecutor, 1 general detective, 1 evidence control officer, 1 drug detective and 1 detective assigned to a Federal. Task Force. Right now, the court prosecutor is forced to carry a case load. Also, the current evidence control officer also works as the sexual assault investigator as well as carries a normal case load as well. Ideally, all of these positions would be dedicated to only I detective. Part 3- Economic Development In the Town of Reading Economic Development Action Plan 2016 -2022 (2015), it highlights four priority development areas (PDA). These four areas are: Downtown 40R Potential Expansion, South Main Street, New Crossing Road Development District and General Way. These areas are highlighted and show significant potential growth both in the commercial and residential totals for the town. PDA 1 (Downtown OR Potential Expansion) allows for retail space, specifically the former Walgreen's building, restaurants, office space, multi - family dwellings and mixed use 5 5�� structures. With an already bustling downtown area, Reading would now be further developed with more businesses and residents in this area. PDA 2 (South Main Street) allows for mixed use and multi- family structures which would increase the amount of residents and businesses in this area as well. This is the largest area of potential development, stretching almost the entire length of the south end of route 28, an already very busy stretch of businesses and multi -unit dwellings that require a high amount of police services. PDA 3 (New Crossing Road Redevelopment District) includes the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) facilities as well as several privately owned businesses directly adjacent to RMLD. Here the town would look for mixed use, multi - family and single family structures. The current businesses in this area do not require a large amount of police resources, other than routine business checks and the occasional burglar alarm. An introduction of a large amount of residential and mixed use will cause an influx of police related service calls in that area, increasing the overall calls for service on the police department. PDA 4 (General Way) primarily includes the Danis Properties which at the current moment is primarily occupied by Market Basket. There are a handful of other businesses in this space; however, the majority of this facility is unoccupied at this time. This area is also available for commercial, multi - family and single family opportunities for the town. The town is also exploring other options for development, primarily in the area surrounding the DPW and the Lakeview Eaton property (formerly Zanni Trucking). The DPW property, as well as the surrounding businesses, has the potential of relocation which would open up a very large space for a development opportunity that could combine commercial and residential units. This, in conjunction with residential units being added to the Lakeview Eaton 0 1 property, would increase the population density and thus create more calls for service that would fall upon the police department to handle. Part 4- Comparable Communities Figure 1 illustrates the total amount of sworn officers for each department and the population of the town. The amount of officers per thousand citizens is displayed along with the averages for each of the above categories. Figure 1: TOWN POPULATION (2015) SWORN OFFICERS OFFICERS PER 1,000 CITIZENS ANDOVER 35562 53 1.49 BEDFORD 14435 30 2.08 BELMONT 25692 48 1.87 BURLINGTON 25980 66 2.54 CONCORD 20023 35 1.75 DANVERS 27708 46 1.66 DEDHAM 25650 57 2.22 LEXINGTON 33502 50 1.49 LYNNFIELD 12950 22 1.70 MARSHFIELD 25751 46 1.79 MILTON 27449 56 2.04 NATICK 36184 57 1.58 NORTH ANDOVER 29756 45 1.51 NORTH READING 15664 31 1.98 READING 24747 41 1.66 STONEHAM 22041 40 1.81 TEWKSBURY 30577 61 1.99 WAKEFIELD 27206 47 1.73 WALPOLE 25145 42 1.67 WESTBOROUGH 18884 29 1.54 WESTFORD 24121 45 1.87 WILMINGTON 23634 48 2.03 WINCHESTER 22497 38 1.69 AVERAGE 25007 45 1.80 7 5a°� This chart shows that the average numbers of officers per thousand citizens is 1.8. Reading currently sits at 1.66. In order to bring Reading up to the average of all of the other communities, Reading would need to increase the number of officers from 41 to 45. Again, this would bring Reading to the average based on all of the other communities. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of ranking members of the department under the Chief, from Sergeant to Deputy Chief. Figure 2: TOWN DEPUTY CHIEFS CAPTAINS LIEUTENANTS SERGEANTS ANDOVER 0 0 6 6 BEDFORD 0 0 2 7 BELMONT 1 1 5 11 BURLINGTON 1 0 5 9 CONCORD 0 1 1 6 DANVERS 0 2 2 6 DEDHAM 0 0 3 9 LEXINGTON 0 2 5 7 LYNNFIELD 0 1 0 5 MARSHFIELD 0 1 4 5 MILTON 1 0 7 6 NATICK 0 0 4 10 NORTH ANDOVER 0 0 3 8 NORTH READING 0 0 3 6 READING 1 0 4 7 STONEHAM 0 0 2 7 TEWKSBURY 1 0 6 11 WAKEFIELD 1 0 2 11 WALPOLE 1 0 2 7 WESTBOROUGH 0 0 2 3 WESTFORD 1 2 4 7 WILMINGTON 1 0 5 5 WINCHESTER 0 0 4 8 AVERAGE 0.39 0.43 3.52 7.26 8 t&D Reading is one of the few communities included in this study that utilizes the position of Deputy Chief, however, it should be noted that most other department identify some type of an executive officer, usually at the rank of Lieutenant or Captain, who assumes the same role the Deputy Chief in Reading does. Reading does not employ any officers at the rank of Captain and has basically the average number of Lieutenants at 4 and Sergeants at 7. 9 C': � �\\ Figure 3 shows the average number of calls for service for each department and how many calls for service per officer each department has. Figure 3: TOWN SWORN OFFICERS CALLS FOR SERVICE (AVG /MONTH) CALLS PER OFFICER ANDOVER 53 3000 56.60 BEDFORD 30 1150 38.33 BELMONT 48 1690 35.21 BURLINGTON 66 3578 54.21 CONCORD 35 2836 81.03 DANVERS 46 1700 36.96 DEDHAM 57 1700 29.82 LEXINGTON 50 1040 20.80 LYNNFIELD 22 794 36.09 MARSHFIELD 46 1200 26.09 MILTON 56 1037 18.52 NATICK 57 1500 26.32 NORTH ANDOVER 45 1985 44.11 NORTH READING 31 1200 38.71 READING 41 1728 42.15 STONEHAM 40 1391 34.78 TEWKSBURY 61 1600 26.23 WAKEFIELD 47 1400 29.79 WALPOLE 42 800 19.05 WESTBOROUGH 29 1000 34.48 WESTFORD 45 730 16.22 WILMINGTON 48 2559 53.31 WINCHESTER 38 2500 65.79 AVERAGE 45 1657 36.90 Reading averages about 70 more calls for service per month than the other departments in this study. This number is better represented in the calls per officer, where Reading officers answer over 42 calls per service a month as opposed to the average 36.9 calls for each officer. IEll 56\a Figure 4 shows the number of civilian employees, school resource officers, detectives and task for officers for each department and how that compares to the total numbers for the Reading Police Department. Figure 4: TOWN CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES SRO'S DETECTIVES TASK FORCE OFFICERS ANDOVER 22 2 7 1 BEDFORD 12 2 4 1 BELMONT 14 1 5 1 BURLINGTON 11 2 10 1 CONCORD 10 1 6 4 DANVERS 12 2 3 1 DEDHAM 3 2 5 1 LEXINGTON 15 1 6 1 LYNNFIELD 7 1 1 3 MARSHFIELD 3 1 6 10 MILTON 15 2 6 0 NATICK 14 3 9 6 NORTH ANDOVER 12 2 3 2 NORTH READING 7 1 3 0 READING 5 1 6 1 STONEHAM 11 1 7 1 TEWKSBURY 15 2 12 0 WAKEFIELD 1 3 4 2 WALPOLE 12 2 6 10 WESTBOROUGH 6 1 3 0 WESTFORD 16 2 7 1 WILMINGTON 14 2 7 4 WINCHESTER 9 1 4 4 AVERAGE 11 2 6 2 This chart illustrates that Reading has less than half of the average amount of civilian employees. The average number of SRO's is 2, whereas Reading has 1. Reading is directly on 0 par with the average number of detectives at 6, but only assigns 1 to a task force, whereas the average in this category is 2. Figure 5 displays the dispatch situation for each town's department. This chart specifically illustrates whether or not the department utilizes sworn officers or civilian dispatchers and how many employees staff the dispatch center, on average, during each shift. Figure 5: TOWN DISPATCH: CIVILIAN OR POLICE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN DISPATCH ANDOVER CIVILIAN 4 BEDFORD CIVILIAN 2 BELMONT CIVILIAN 2 BURLINGTON BOTH 1 CONCORD CIVILIAN 2 DANVERS CIVILIAN 9 DEDHAM CIVILIAN 2 LEXINGTON CIVILIAN 2 LYNNFIELD CIVILIAN 1 MARSHFIELD POLICE 1 MILTON CIVILIAN 2 NATICK CIVILIAN 2 NORTH ANDOVER BOTH 2 NORTH READING POLICE 1 READING CIVILIAN 2 STONEHAM BOTH 2 TEWKSBURY CIVILIAN 2 WAKEFIELD POLICE 3 WALPOLE CIVILIAN 2 WESTBOROUGH CIVILIAN 2 WESTFORD CIVILIAN 2 WILMINGTON CIVILIAN 3 WINCHESTER CIVILIAN 2 AVERAGE TOTAL CIVILIAN: 17 2 TOTAL POLICE: 3 TOTAL COMBINATION: 3 W) 5h�� This chart highlights that Reading is in the majority by using civilians as emergency dispatchers. Reading's average amount of dispatchers on duty is on par with the average at 2. Figure 6 illustrates each town's density per square mile in terms of population and density per square mile in terms of housing units. Because population and calls for service don't tell the whole story in terms of the town's public safety needs, these two statistics work to show how concentrated the population of the town is, which often will be directly correlated with the overall numbers required to provide an adequate level of public safety. Figure 6: TOWN DENSITY /SQ MILE (POPULATION) DENSITY /SQ MILE (HOUSING UNITS) ANDOVER 1076.3 402.7 BEDFORD 975.2 393.0 BELMONT 5317 2189.7 BURLINGTON 2087.8 823.9 CONCORD 720.7 283.4 DANVERS 1995.6 838.8 DEDHAM 2413.3 994.5 LEXINGTON 1910.3 731.4 LYNNFIELD 1173.4 440.6 MARSHFIELD 878.1 382.2 MILTON 2076.3 745.8 NATICK 2207.3 944.4 NORTH ANDOVER 1077.8 416.8 NORTH READING 1133.3 428.7 READING 2486.2 966.2 STONEHAM 3561.5 1571.3 TEWKSBURY 1399.1 524.1 WAKEFIELD 3389.5 1427.5 WALPOLE 1177.8 442.4 WESTBOROUGH 888 357.2 WESTFORD 725.2 260.2 WILMINGTON 1315 459.9 WINCHESTER 3545.6 1324.7 AVERAGE 1892.6 754.3 13 Reading well exceeds the average 1892.6 in population density per square mile at 2486.2. Reading also exceeds that average 754.3 in housing unit density per square mile at 966.2. Figure 7 illustrates how Reading compares to the other communities in terms of their police department budgets. The chart is broken down by population, budgets for FY17 and FYI 8 and how the budget breaks down per resident Figure 7: TOWN POPULATION (2015) FY 17 FY 17 /RESIDENT FY 18 FY 18 /RESIDENT ANDOVER 35562 8,111,828 228.10 8,103,724 227.88 BEDFORD 14435 3,596,890 249.18 3,743,444 259.33 BELMONT 25692 7,652,769 297.87 7,727,528 300.78 BURLINGTON 25980 7,909,836 304.46 8,118,500 312.49 CONCORD 20023 4,323,848 215.94 4,468,879 223.19 DANVERS 27708 6,469,360 233.48 6,556,913 236.64 DEDHAM 25650 6,831,425 266.33 6,895,505 268.83 LEXINGTON 33502 6,774,543 202.21 6,874,035 205.18 LYNNFIELD 12950 2,955,218 228.20 2,995,175 231.29 MARSHFIELD 25751 5,206,822 202.20 5,352,142 207.84 MILTON 27449 6,891,247 251.06 7,085,180 258.12 NATICK 36184 6,671,996 184.39 6,638,637 183.47 NORTH ANDOVER 29756 4,937,793 165.94 5,137,463 172.65 NORTH READING 15664 3,479,463 222.13 3,950,965 252.23 READING 24747 5,456,100 220.48 5,468,625 220.98 STONEHAM 22041 4,405,226 199.87 4,520,398 205.09 TEWKSBURY 30577 7,014,914 229.42 7,237,796 236.71 WAKEFIELD 27206 5,225,000 192.05 5,290,562 194.46 WALPOLE 25145 4,980,588 198.07 5,224,508 207.78 WESTBOROUGH 18884 2,979,887 157.80 2,966,972 157.12 WESTFORD 24121 4,926,590 204.24 4,928,632 204.33 WILMINGTON 23634 5,384,663 227.84 5,367,016 227.09 WINCHESTER 22497 4,394,592 195.34 4,565,625 202.94 AVERAGE 25007 5,503,504 220.72 5,618,184 225.93 14 5b�� Reading's police budget, although at first glance appears to be on par with many of the comparable towns, actually falls short when you look at the budget in terms of dollars per resident. Reading's police budget allocated $220.48 per resident in FY17. The average for all of the other towns was $220.72 per resident. In FYI 8, Reading allocated $220.98, whereas the average of other towns rose to $225.93 per resident. It should be noted that these figures include public safety dispatch budgets as well. Some departments include these as line items in their police budget while others separate them. The total numbers reflected above are the total of both of those departments. Part 5- Recommendations The last time a formal evaluation of the Reading Police Department's staffing levels was conducted was in 1998, by EMS Consultants out of Belmont, NH. During that review, EMS Consultants concluded that the current condition of the town, in 1998, required a police department of 43 -44 sworn officers. It is important to note that not only was this study conducted almost twenty years ago, but also at that time Reading had a population of 23,708 (2000). In addition, major infrastructure developments have increased the commercial property, specifically the Walkers Brook Drive area with Jordan's Furniture, Home Depot, several restaurants and retail stores. Also, the addition of several licensed bars and nightclubs on Walkers Brook Drive and the downtown Reading area raise the level of calls for service, as well as the need to have adequate staffing on patrol in case of serious incidents. Based on the results of this study, including the comprehensive analysis of the Town of Reading, Chief Segalla is respectfully requesting the addition of 5 sworn police officers, bringing the total number of officers to 46. This conclusion is based on the town's population, budget, 15 5a�� population and housing unit density. It also took into consideration the status of the police department, primarily its specific current staffing levels and how that compares to the 22 comparable communities included in this study. With these 5 new officers, Chief Segalla would aim to provide additional patrol officers on each of the 3 night shifts, fill the currently vacant patrol officer position on the day shift and add a second School Resource Officer position. Chief Segalla believes that with the addition of these new police officer positions, the department will be set up to provide the optimal level of service and public safety to the citizens of the town of Reading. 16 �3: 6A Works Cited EMS Consultants. "A Staffing Review of the Reading Police Department." 1998. "Reading Police Staffing Survey." Survey Monkey- www.surveyi-nonkey.com/summary/4Z5pjep7fwp. 18 July 2017. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. "Town of Reading Economic Development Action Plan 2016 - 2022." 2015. U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Retrieved from www.census.gov. 17 5a�� A Staffing Review of the Reading Fire Department September 22, 2017 Sao Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 September 22, 2017 Table of Contents Introduction: .................................................................................................................................... 3 Current Staffing Levels: ..... * .................................................................................. ........................... Recent Development Trends and Future Development Anticipated: ............................................. 5 ComparableCommunities: ............................................................................................................. 6 Use of EMS Revenue to Offset Costs: .......................................................................................... 14 Review of the 1987 Study of the Reading Fire Department: ......................................................... 14 Recommendation: ................................................................................................... I ..................... 16 Bibliography.................................................................................................. ............................... 17 Page 12 t6a\ Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Introduction: In August of 2017 an internal study was conducted to determine how the Reading Fire Department compares with the fire departments in the 25 Peer Communities identified by the Finance Committee. We sought data from each of these communities in a wide range of areas such as: population, staffing, number of supervisors, Emergency Medical Services, EMS revenues, salary budget, overtime spending and other relevant data. As a result of this request we received data from 24 communities. The goal of the study was to compare the Reading Fire Department to the comparable communities using a number of measurements to determine if additional staffing is warranted. A secondary goal was to look at development trends in Reading and potential development areas to predict future increases in call volume. In addition to our comparable community data, the Town of Reading Economic Development Action Plan 2016 -2022 developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council was reviewed to offer insights in future development. We also reviewed a study of the Reading Fire Department that was conducted in 1987. This report is titled a Survey of the Reading Fire Department and was prepared by George Paul Fire Safety Consultants Inc. This study was conducted to assist in locating the current Fire Department Headquarters building. Although a great deal of this study is outdated, there were recommendations to staffing levels and this data has been included. Current Staffing Levels: The Reading Fire Department's staffing consists of a Chief, Assistant Chief, five Captains, four Lieutenants, thirty six Firefighters, one Secretary and two part time Fire Alarm Technicians. The Department's 47 employees are organized around four Groups of eleven personnel (2 Officers and 9 Firefighters). Their primary focus is on delivery of emergency services. Administrative functions are performed by the Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Fire Prevention Officer and Department Secretary. The Fire Chief has overall responsibility for emergency management, personnel, fire prevention, financial management, major purchases, overall maintenance of equipment, facilities and training. The Assistant Fire Chief is responsible for fire prevention, data collection, and maintenance of equipment, facilities and training. The Fire Prevention Officer is responsible for reviewing new development and ensuring code compliance, conducting fire prevention inspections, scheduling fire equipment and station maintenance. All senior level personnel respond to major emergencies. The Department secretary handles payroll, ambulance billing and other administrative functions. The emergency medical system is supervised by a Firefighter who is designated as the EMS Coordinator. The EMS Coordinator is responsible for quality assurance and quality control, ambulance supplies and licensing. The EMS Coordinator is assigned to a shift and performs full firefighting duties. The EMS Coordinator is assisted by a Firefighter who is designated as the EMS Liaison. The EMS Liaison is responsible to perform EMS training ordering and stocking Page 13 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 medications. The EMS Liaison is assigned to a shift and performs full firefighting duties. Below in figure 1 is the Reading Fire Department's organizational chart: Reading Fire Department Organizational Chart Chief of Department Assistant Chief Administrative I ( I EMS Coordinator Assistant EMS Liaison Captain Day Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Officer Captain Captain Captain Captain Fire Prevention Fire Alarm Lieutenant Lieutenant Lieutenant lieutenant Division 9 Firefighters 9 Firefighters 9 Firefighters 9 Firefighters Figure I Of the 47 uniformed employees, 44 are assigned to a Firefighting group. Each day the on duty shift staffs two engines, a ladder truck and an ambulance. Each group is supervised by a Captain who is the shift commander. Captains are responsible to respond to emergencies, deliver services, training, scheduling, equipment maintenance and routine fire prevention duties. The Lieutenants are responsible for supervision of the West Side Fire Station and the Firefighters who are assigned there. The Lieutenants are responsible to respond to emergencies, deliver services, training, equipment maintenance and routine fire prevention duties. To ensure each piece of fire apparatus has the personnel to operate it appropriately, the Fire Department has minimum staff level of 10 personnel per shift. It is important to note that the Fire Prevention Officer is considered part of the minimum staffing level. Many calls require the response of more than one piece of fire apparatus. These calls include emergency medical responses, fires, motor vehicle accidents, construction accidents, hazardous materials incidents and flammable liquid spills. An example would be a motor vehicle accident on Routes 128 or 93, it not unusual for the call to require the response of an engine, ladder truck and the ambulance. If there are significant injuries on scene, the call will require the entire shift to respond. Page 14 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study Sentember 2017 Recent Development Trends and Future Development Anticipated: Since the development of the Walkers Brook Drive area, we have seen several large residential projects including: the Reading Woods development located off South Street. This complex includes 9 large wood framed buildings and town homes, Reading commons located off West Street that includes 6 large wood framed buildings and town homes, Johnson Woods located off West Street that includes 5 large wood framed buildings and town homes. We have also seen mixed use development that combines residential and commercial space such as 24 -54 Haven Street. Below is figure 2 is a breakdown of our emergency responses to these recent developments for calendar year 2016. Added together these developments represented 10% of our emergency medical responses in 2016. Address Occupancy EMS Fire Total Walkers Brook Drive Residential 52 43 95 New Crossing Road Commercial 48 2 50 Reading Commons Residential 31 19 50 Reading Woods Residential 39 76 115 Johnson Woods Residential 9 22 31 24 -54 Haven Street Mixed Residential - Commercial 11 6 17 General Way Commercial 20 L 6 26 Total Figure 2 210 174 384 There are plans for an additional mixed use development at the former Post Office site on Haven Street, and on Gould Street. There are plans for a large wood framed residential building located at the intersection of Prescott and Lincoln Streets. Plans are also underway for two large wood framed residential buildings located at the intersection of Lakeview Avenue and Eaton Street. A review of the Town of Reading Economic Development Action Plan 2016 -2022 developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council indicates Reading's population is increasing and growing older. This plan uses population data from the 2010 U.S. Census where Reading's population was listed as 24,747 and predicts a population increase of 10% by 2030. (MAPC, December 2015) Current population data from the Town Clerk's Office places our population at 26,356. This is a 6.5% increase in population over the 2010 census population. This plan also predicts 75% increase to our senior population defined as over 66 years of age. (MAPC, December 2015) The plan indicates that demand for housing is strong in Reading and predicts we will need an additional 950 housing units by 2020. The plan identified four Priority Development Areas in Reading. (MAPC, December 2015) They are as follows: Page 15 C� 6�A Reading Fire Department Staffing Study Sebtember 2017 • PDA #1 Downtown 40R Proposed Expansion Area. This area offers potential growth in retail, restaurants and smaller office space on second and third floors of mixed use buildings and multifamily buildings. • PDA #2 South Main Street. This area was identified as multifamily as being the most appropriate use for the PDA. The area could also have mixed use. • PDA #3 New Crossing Road Development. This area was identified as multifamily as being the most appropriate use. The area could have potential for mixed use of residential and office space. • PDA #4 One General Way. This site was most appropriate for office development in the area of 15,000 to 30,000 square feet. The remainder of the parcel could be used for other uses such as residential and retail. This site could also have a mix of retail and office space. Although we do not know what the actual mix of development will be. It is clear as a community we are growing in population and will continue to grow into the near future. It is likely we will see more multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed buildings and multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed mixed use buildings. The factors of an increasing population, an increased senior population and an increase number of large residential buildings will combine to cause an increase in emergency medical and fire responses. Comparable Communities: The population levels of the comparable communities and the level of Emergency Medical Services provided by the each of the Fire Departments is illustrated in Figure 3. The population figure for Reading was obtained from the Town Clerk's Office and population figures for the comparable communities were obtained from each of the communities as part of the data request. A review of the data indicates Reading is on the higher level of the comparison communities and ranks the 9th highest in population. Page 16 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Communities By Population Shrewsbury 7,000 Andover (BLS) 33,204 Natick (ALS) 33,006 Lexington (ALS) 32,000 North Andover (BLS) 31,052 Tewksbury ( BLS) 28,961 Milton �� s , 27,000 Danvers 26,493 Reading (ALS) 26,356 Marshfield (ALS) 25,324 Burlington (BLS) 25,307 Wakefield m. -:: 25,171 Belmont (ALS) 25,000 Walpole (ALS) 24,998 Dedham :... r .� 24,729 Wilmington (BLS) 23,782 Canton (ALS) �E 22,000 Westford (ALS) 21,951 Stoneham ��.,� 21,437 �� Winchester (ALS) � 21,374 Westborough (ALS) 18,990 Concord (ALS) 15,987 North Reading (ALS) � 15,522 Bedford (ALS) 14,230 Lynnfield (ALS) kPEMEN NEE M 12,571 Figure 3 Figure 4 illustrates the total number of Firefighters in each of the Fire Departments in the comparable communities. In this comparison, Reading ranks 15th. It is important to point out that not all these Fire Departments provide emergency medical services. When a department provides this service, two on duty Firefighters per shift (for each staffed ambulance) spend a significant amount of time performing patient care and transport duties. This in effect reduces staffing available for firefighting duties. In Figure 3 the level of EMS provided is added in parenthesis after the community name. Communities that do not provide EMS services do not have an EMS level indicated. Secondly, the data reveals some of the comparable communities with a larger staff serve a smaller population. Page 17 a Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Fire Department Staffing Natick (ALS)' Burlington (BLS) 68.00 Andover (BLS ) 68.00 Dedham 66.00 Lexington (ALS)' "� " , `: °,� 63.50 Milton 57.00 Tewksbury (BLS) ` . 55 North Andover (BLS) 55.00 Belmont (ALS) 54.00 Canton (ALS) 53.00 Marshfield (ALS) 51.00 Wakefield 50 Danvers ........... 49.00 Winchester (ALS) ow" 1 48 Reading (ALS) 47 Wilmington (BLS) 42 Concord (ALS) 42.00 Westford (ALS) 39 Stoneham a 39 Walpole (ALS) 38 Shrewsbury fi ;-, 38 Westborough (ALS) 37 Bedford (ALS) 32.00 North Reading (ALS) Lynnfield (ALS) w- MIM 22 10.00 Figure 4 85.00 The number of supervisors in each of the comparable communities was examined. Figure 5 illustrates the total number supervisors below the rank of Fire Chief in each of the Fire Departments. In this comparison, thirteen of the comparable communities have significantly more supervisors than the Reading Fire Department and eight communities have fewer total supervisors. The comparison shows the Reading Fire Department has a lower number of Lieutenants. In many of the comparable communities each engine and ladder company is staffed with a supervisor at the rank of Lieutenant and the shift commander responds in a utility vehicle. Communities with this staffing configuration have more Lieutenants. Page 18 ��a'� Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Community Assistant/Deputy Chiefs Captains Lieutenants Total Lynnfield (ALS)* 1 1 3 5 North Reading (ALS) 1 4 0 5 Shrewsbury 1 4 0 5 Bedford (ALS) 0 2 4 6 Wilmington (BLS) 1 0 6 7 Concord (ALS) 1 4 4 9 Walpole (ALS) 1 4 4 9 Westborough (ALS) 1 4 4 9 North Andover (BLS) 1 0 9 10 Reading (ALS) I S 4 10 Stoneham 0 5 5 10 Westford (ALS) 1 4 5 10 Marshfield (ALS) 1 4 8 13 Winchester (ALS) 0 5 8 13 Danvers 1 5 8 14 Milton 1 0 13 14 Canton (ALS) 1 5 9 15 Andover (BLS) 4 0 13 17 Burlington (BLS) 1 6 10 17 Dedham 4 0 13 17 Wakefield 0 5 12 17 Lexington (ALS) 2 4 12 18 Tewksbury (BLS) 1 5 12 18 Belmont (ALS) 1 5 13 19 Natick (ALS) 5 7 15 27 Note: Lynnfield has a Call Deputy Chief Figure 5 The ratio of total staff per 1,000 citizens was examined and illustrated in Figure 6. The average fire department staffing for the comparable communities is 1.97 Firefighters per thousand citizens. Reading ranks at the 8t" lowest staffing average at 1.78 per thousand citizens and this is below the comparable community average. To bring the Reading Fire Department up to the average level of these communities would require the addition of 4 Firefighters. It should be noted that the Lynnfield Fire Department's low staffing numbers skew this average in a downward direction. Page 19 6a% Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Community Population Staff Firefighters Per 1,000 Citizens L nnfield (ALS) 12,571 10.00 0.80 Shrewsbury 37,000 38 1.03 North Reading (ALS) 15,522 22 1.42 Walpole (ALS) 24,998 38 1.52 Wilmington (BLS) 23,782 42 1.77 North Andover (BLS) 31,052 55.00 1.77 Westford (ALS) 21,951 39 1.78 Reading ALS 26,356 47 1.78 Stoneham 21,437 39 1.82 Danvers 26,493 49.00 1.85 Tewksbury (BLS) 28,961 55 1.90 Westborough (ALS) 18,990 37 1.95 Lexington (ALS) 325000 63.50 1 1.98 Wakefield 25,171 50 1.99 Marshfield (ALS) 25,324 51.00 2.01 Andover (BLS) 33,204 68.00 2.05 Milton 27,000 57.00 2.11 Belmont (ALS) 25,000 54.00 2.16 Winchester (ALS) 21,374 48 2.25 Bedford (ALS) 14,230 32.00 2.25 Canton (ALS) 22,000 53.00 2.41 Natick (ALS) 33,006 85.00 2.58 Concord (ALS) 15,987 42.00 2.63 Dedham 24,729 66.00 2.67 Burlington (BLS) 25,307 68.00 2.69 Average 24,538 48 1.97 Figure 6 The FY 18 budget was examined for all the fire departments in the comparable communities. In this examination only the salary portion of the budget was examined. This salary data includes the fiscal year overtime budget for each department. The expense portion of the budget was not examined since there are significant variations in how the different communities allocate the cost of utilities, heating, building maintenance and vehicle maintenance. Since Reading has centralized these costs into the budgets of other departments this comparison would not have yielded any useful data. Below in Figure 7, Reading can be seen as ranking 14th out of the 25 communities. It is important to highlight that Reading provides emergency medical care at the ALS level. Departments that provide this level of service incur more overtime training costs to recertify their paramedics. Page 110 6� Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 FY 18 Personnel Budget Natick (ALS) ��°� °� 7,929,392 �� Andover (BLS) 7,127,440 Burlington (BLS) 6,880,136 Lexington (ALS) 1458 Dedham 5,672,890 Marshfield (ALS) _ 5,241,202 Milton �� - -� 5,209,727 Belmont (ALS) 5,125,895 Tewksbury (BLS) 08,062 Canton (ALS) 862,931 North Andover (BLS) 760,446 Danvers 4,660,956 Wakefield 4,564,543 Reading (ALS) 4,521,100 Winchester (ALS) 4,515,793 Wilmington (BLS) ��" 4,301, Concord (ALS) 4,197,583 Westborough (ALS) 4,054,768 Walpole (ALS) 3,778,943 Westford (ALS) 3,721,088 Shrewsbury ,_ 3,016,419 Stoneham 2,869,310 Bedford (ALS) �� 2,824,555 North Reading (ALS) 2,713,103 Lynnfield (ALS) 2,018,615 Figure 7 Page 11 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Overtime expenditures spent by each of the comparable communities for the last four years was examined and illustrated in figure 8. Reading ranks below the average community expenditure in each of the last four years. Community Population FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Andover (BLS) 33,204 1,073,598 1,142,631 933,940 1,108,032 Bedford (ALS) 14,230 326,099 353,258 314,029 409,495 Belmont (ALS) 25,000 520,391 639,332 496,811 685,576 Burlington (BLS) 25,307 637,668 739,496 637,361 804,255 Canton (ALS) 22,000 688,000 672000 720,000 720,550 Concord (ALS) 15,987 547,896 601,305 668,643 600,448 Danvers 26,493 549,290 605,641 524,051 724,670 Dedham 24,729 695,650 523,824 494,461 545,223 Lexington (ALS) 32,000 688,459 885,259 990,419 986,000 Lynnfield (ALS) 12,571 273,368 308,836 279,015 321,677 Marshfield (ALS) 25,324 623,388 780,088 770,111 806,167 Milton 27,000 390,996 421,137 439,364 458,904 Natick (ALS) 33,006 766,424 763,850 728,094 823,807 North Andover (BLS) 31,052 647,685 650,046 621,121 631,830 North Reading (ALS) 15,522 747,491 844,198 813,685 923,168 Reading (ALS) 26,356 503,381 574,041 530,518 617,708 Shrewsbur 37,000 424,873 467,019 477,234 539,961 Stoneham 21,437 271,948 299,000 326,000 332,500 Tewksbury (BLS) 28,961 711,678 672,910 466,074 630,070 Wakefield 25,171 402,268 319,866 411,926 510,290 Walpole (ALS) 24,998 459,758 529,175 557,729 540,216 Westborough (ALS) 18,990 410,742 406,850 332,792 311,298 Westford (ALS) 21,951 455,503 421,122 452,635 498,230 Wilmington (BLS) 23,782 961,226 938,099 714,333 715,000 Winchester (ALS) 21,374 454,783 536,460 395,633 555,426 Averse 24,538 569,303 1 603,818 563,839 632,020 Figure 8 Page 112 \ Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 The data average overtime expenditures for the last four years for departments that provide emergency medical care at the ALS level is illustrated below in Figure 9. Paramedics require additional training hours to recertify their license and this results in additional costs for ALS departments. Departments that provide Basic Life Support service or that do not provide EMS services at all would incur less cost. Of the 14 communities that provide ALS level of care Reading ranks 8th in overtime expenditures. This is below the 14 community average of $582,702. Some communities do use the overtime funds to staff a second ambulance and some communities use an enterprise account for ambulance associated overtime expenditures. ALS Departments Four Year Overtime Average Lexington (ALS) 87,534 North Reading (ALS) 32,136 Natick (ALS) 770,544 Marshfield (ALS) - t z m— T, N 744,939 Canton (ALS) 700,138 Concord (ALS) 604,573 Belmont (ALS) 585,528 Reading (ALS) 556,412 Walpole (ALS) " "' 521,720 Winchester (ALS) 485,576 Westford (ALS) 456,873 Westborough (ALS) 365,421 Bedford (ALS) 350,720 Lynnfield (ALS) 295,724 Figure 9 Page 113 Reading Fire Department .Staffing Study September 2017 Use of EMS Revenue to Offset Costs:. Some communities use ambulance revenues in the form of an enterprise account to offset some of the costs of providing the service. Below in Figure 10 of the 19 communities that provide emergency medical services, 10 communities use some form of an enterprise account and 8 communities deposit all ambulance revenues back into the general fund. Community Enterprise Account Andover (BLS) Enterprise Account Bedford (ALS) Enterprise Account Canton (ALS) Enterprise Account L nnfield (ALS) Enterprise Account North Reading (ALS) Enterprise Account Westborough (ALS) Enterprise Account Westford (ALS) Enterprise Account Wilmington (BLS) Enterprise Account Walpole (ALS) Enterprise Account Belmont (ALS) Enterprise Account (Partial) Burlington (BLS) General Fund Concord (ALS) General Fund Lexington (ALS) General Fund Natick (ALS) General Fund North Andover (BLS) General Fund Reading (ALS) General Fund Tewksbury (BLS) General Fund Winchester (ALS) General Fund Marshfield (ALS) No Data Figure 10 Review of the 1987 Study of the Reading Fire Department: A review of the 1987 report titled a Survey of the Reading Fire Department, prepared by George Paul Fire Safety Consultants Inc. was conducted. This report addressed the siting of the Main Street Fire Station, staffing, training fire apparatus and equipment. This report was completed 30 years ago and a significant portion is outdated and no longer relevant. The staffing comments however are relevant. When this study was completed our staffing consisted of: 1 Chief, 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Captains, 4 Lieutenants, 37 Firefighters, 1 full time Mechanic, 1 Secretary and Page 114 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 four Dispatchers. (Paul, 1987) Since this report was issued the Dispatch function has been centralized at the Police Department and the maintenance of apparatus has been centralized at the Department of Public works. The report made a recommendation to add an executive level assistant to the Fire Chief and to increase the Department by four additional Firefighters. (Paul, 1987) The Department no longer has a Deputy Chief, but the creation of the Assistant Fire Chief's position has filled the executive level assistant need. The report included data on call volume and Illustrated in figure 11 is the data on emergency responses provided in the report for the years 1986 and 1987 compared to our data for 2016. The population for Reading listed in the report was approximately 24,000. (Paul, 1987) Since 1987 we have seen our population grow to 26,356 and our emergency responses have increased significantly. 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Total Emergency Responses 1986 1987 2016 Figure 11 Below in figure 12 is a graph that illustrates the trend of lower staffing and increasing emergency responses. The Reading Fire Department has had much higher staffing levels in previous years. For example in the years of 1972 through 1981 the Department staffing was in the 50's. The Department was at peak staffing at 56 personnel in the years 1973 through 1975. Page 115 �)6�A Reading Fire Department Staffing Study September 2017 Firefighter Staffing and EMS Responses Figure 12 Recommendation: Although we do not know precisely how Reading will grow in the future or what the actual mix of future development will be, it is clear as a community we are growing and will continue to grow into the near future. The data also predicts the percentage of our population that are seniors will also increase. It is likely we will see more multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed buildings and multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed mixed use buildings. These factors will result in an increase of emergency medical and fire responses for the Reading Fire Department. As emergency medical responses continue to increase, the two Firefighters assigned to the ambulance will spend more time performing patient care and transport duties and they will be available less for fires or other emergencies. Based upon the factors outlined above it is clear by the data there is a need for additional staffing. Therefore we recommend total of four additional Firefighters be added to the Department. This will increase each group by one Firefighter and will also have the added benefit of a reduction in overtime expenditures. Page 116 5ab5 2,500 -- ------ _------- _- ______.-- . ........ _. 60 - 50 2,000 s ao 40 ;? N v 1,500 ____. LL c - 30 3 n�Ambulance Calls a 1,000 _..._ -_. ..__ .......... -_ _.w... —Firefighters 20 500 ' _..__ _ _..._ __._ .... 10 - ... - -..... _ -. - - -- . __._.._. _.I_ 0 ° rI W W° M o 0 0° � rn rn rn m M 0 0 0 0 Year Figure 12 Recommendation: Although we do not know precisely how Reading will grow in the future or what the actual mix of future development will be, it is clear as a community we are growing and will continue to grow into the near future. The data also predicts the percentage of our population that are seniors will also increase. It is likely we will see more multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed buildings and multi -floor, multi -unit wood framed mixed use buildings. These factors will result in an increase of emergency medical and fire responses for the Reading Fire Department. As emergency medical responses continue to increase, the two Firefighters assigned to the ambulance will spend more time performing patient care and transport duties and they will be available less for fires or other emergencies. Based upon the factors outlined above it is clear by the data there is a need for additional staffing. Therefore we recommend total of four additional Firefighters be added to the Department. This will increase each group by one Firefighter and will also have the added benefit of a reduction in overtime expenditures. Page 116 5ab5 Reading Fire Department Staffing Study Sebtember 2017 Bibliography MAPC. (December 2015). Reading Economic Development Action Plan, 2016 -2012. Council, Metropolitan Area Planning. Paul, G. (1987). Survey of Reading Fire Department. Page 117 ` � v, OF TR? 0,639 /NCO4Q0�� Robert W. LeLacheur, JR. CFA Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA October 5, 2017 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 phone: (781) 942 -9043 fax: 781- 942 -9071 w: www.readingma.gov e: townmanagerAci.reading.ma.us In summary, the Town sells about 4,000 stickers each year to residents for the combined use of the train depot and the compost center. We sell them at the Police station to allow residents 24/7 access but also because the Police department verifies that the application meets the residency requirement. Past efforts have at best yielded an estimate that because of the seasonal pattern of sales at least 25% of these stickers are bought by commuters — although they may range from daily to less frequent riders of the train. Stickers are available for a calendar year. The cost for a first vehicle is $25, and then $10 for each vehicle but they must be processed all at the same time. A return trip for additional vehicles does not yield this discount. Seniors over age 65 pay a discounted rate of $15. The resident and their ID must be present to purchase a sticker. The combination of discounts leads to an average revenue per sticker of about $20 to the Town. Cost estimates for this service are very difficult to calculate. Elements of that calculation are broken down into three parts. First is a generic cost associated with the stickers and their acquisition. This includes the cost of the stickers, time spent by dispatchers; time spend by police /dispatcher supervisors verifying residency requirements are met through contact with the RMV or other sources; and occasional follow up questions at either Town Hall or the Police Station. We have no specific estimate of these costs. Second is a set of costs associated with the Compost Center. These include DPW staffing; tax worker staffing; DPW time spent working in the compost center on materials in addition to hours open to the public; and expenses. As you can see from an attached memo I wrote to CPDC, the amount of trips to the compost center have fallen quite a bit since we re- instituted fall and spring curb -side leaf pickup. From a purely financial angle the town lost money on this choice — a cost of about $25,000 annually as part of the Rubbish contract — but it seems clear that the benefit to the residents and reduction of traffic volume are worth that cost. Also note that the cost of the compost center is unrelated to the amount of trips as opposed to hours of service. Another factor in costs is the volume of material, which is generally inversely related to the strength of the local economy as some residents hire contractors to remove yard waste when times are good. Our best estimate of the costs of running the compost center is $80,000 each year. This could be viewed as $2.20 per vehicle trip, or about $27 per sticker if we guess that 3,000 stickers are sold for this purpose. For the train depot, the DOR has not yet opined on the direct loss of State Aid as a legitimate cost for a fee. We do have a set of other costs including DPW snow removal and general depot property maintenance, and then public safety parking enforcement efforts (including both the parking enforcement officer but also police officers). An estimate for these costs is $110,000 — or about $110 per sticker if we assume 1,000 stickers are sold for this purpose. Please see a memo from the Town Accountant suggesting 56 you limit the maximum price for a depot -only sticker to be no more than $200. This includes the $110 plus the initial acquisition costs, and presumes the loss of state aid will not be allowed as a cost element. On balance, therefore, we have a cost estimate floor of $27 for the compost center and $110 for the depot parking, plus some unknown amount to acquire the sticker in the first place. I suggest two different stickers — one for the compost center only, and one as a combined depot/compost sticker. If a resident buys compost only and then wants to upgrade, we can accommodate that with a payment of the difference in fees at any time. I also suggest eliminating the discount for additional vehicles. At the current price it is a no- brainer to add extra cars — all your cars - and eliminating this discount may lead to a slight reduction in sticker volume. I don't think the town needs to incentivize the sale of additional stickers. I strongly suggest leaving a senior discount in place, at least for the compost center. Based on all the above, I suggest the Board leave the compost only fee at $25 but change it to every vehicle, with a discount of either $15 or $10 for seniors over age 65. I suggest the Board price a combined depot /compost center no less than $100 nor more than $200. That price increase could be phased in as the Board may wish. Remember, parking in the MBTA lot for regular out of town commuters costs about $900 annually. If the Board wishes to study alternatives, such as a daily rate with smart -phone technology, staff would need several months to determine that course of action, and it would be appropriate to consider that as a broader downtown parking study. So the Board is aware, my draft capital plan will request funding from the general fund and all three enterprise funds in FY 19 to evaluate our downtown infrastructure (above and below ground) in light of the 40R expansion and significant volume of activity already. Part of that could be a full traffic /parking study. =01 °£RFA %� Town of Reading y.. 16 Lowell Street a o _ w° Reading, MA 01867 -2685 ,639INCOP4�P FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942 -9043 To: Julie Mercier on behalf of CPDC You have asked about traffic generated in regards to the Compost Center, because of a recent discussion concerning Meadowbrook. Below please find our records of annual trips to the Compost Center since 2003 and through 2016. The clear downward trend has been influenced by the Town restoring curbside leaf pickup on a few dates in both the spring and the fall. These figures only includes trips going through the Compost Center when it is open, as counted by staff or senior tax workers assigned to oversee the area. Annual visits to the Compost Center 2003 43,279 2004 41,332 2005 45,591 2006 43,464 2007 43,428 2008 46,102 2009; 40,554 2010' 42,847 2011 41,569 2012 38,353 2013 41,544 2014' 37,893 2015 36,394 2016 35,873 For the partial year 2017 we have seen 16,190 trips, which is about in line with the previous year. Please let me know if you have any further questions. �Q� LeLacheur, Bob From: Angstrom, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 3:05 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: Depot Stickers Hi Bob, I would advise the BOS to not exceed $200 per parking sticker until I am able to fully study the related costs. S (4aron .angstrom, CpA, CGA, Q� MA Finance Director /Town Accountant Phone - 781 - 942 -6604 FAX - 781- 942 -9037 Please note new Town Hall Hours Effective June 7, 2010 Monday Wednesday Thursday - 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Tuesday - 7:30 am to 7 pm Friday - CLOSED When writing or responding, please remember that the secretary of State's Office has determined that email is a public record. This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. ,. Town of Reading Meeting Minutes �o 0,639.1NCORpO�� Board - Committee - Commission - Council: Board of Selectmen Date: 2017 -08 -29 Time: 7:00 PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Selectmen Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell Street Session: Purpose: General Business Version: Draft Attendees: Members - Present: Chair John Arena, Dan Ensminger, John Halsey, Barry Berman, Andy Friedmann Members - Not Present: Others Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean'Delios, Administrative Services Director Matt Kraunelis, Town Treasurer Endri Kume, Business Administrator Jayne Miller, taora.Ylesuk, Town Counsel Ray Miyares, Executive Assistant Caitlin Saunders, Bill Brown, Jack Devir, Dan Dewar, Stephen Crook, Graham Steele Perkins, Tom Bergendahl Minutes Respectfully Submitted By Topics of Discussion: Chair John Arena ca Mr. Halsey attended the CPI have addressed-all the prey Mr. Berman noted It is an er will turnout to be a really g It's not invasive and they hi Mr. LeLachuer explainedA Mr. Ensminger has been att noted he has also been wor the town issue thev are Io6 to order _at "7:00 PM. fleeting last night regarding the Post Office project. They ly raised issues and it really looks great. ng project that is well designed, nice to look at and thinks it :.project. There are 50 units total with 20% being affordable. adequate parking that is mostly underground. veloper is from Reading and wanted to do this project right. ing the Board of Health meetings the past three months. He i the RMLD board to get them to work out the payment to on. Mr. Berman noted him and couple of the other members attended the executive session last week regarding the building security study and the next steps. It was a really in -depth report and they will be putting some options together. Mr. Ensminger wanted express that Reading is a very safe town in general. Mr. Friedmann agreed with Mr. Ensminger and noted we are just trying to make the town even better. Mr. Friedmann attended the Climate Advisory Committee meeting and they are working on taking comments from the Bylaw Committee and Town Counsel for Town Meeting. He also pointed out there was another swastika found last week on a fence and this is very upsetting and not welcome in town. Page 1 1 Public Comment Bill Brown noted he did get the original deed for Memorial Park and he gave it to Town Counsel. He also asked if the Board would kindly consider and appoint new Board of Cemetery Trustees. Town Manager Report Mr. LeLacheur noted he attended a recent MWRA meeting and North Reading has hit the pause button to look at options Andover has given them to remain with them. Town Counsel Ray Miyares noted the Historic District Commission gave Criterion a certificate with restrictions about keeping the historic preservation. It was sent to Mass Historic and they want the Selectmen to vote to accept the deed. Technically the Selectmen have no power to do that so Town Counsel gave them a little pushback and Mass Historical agreed to have the Selectmen just 'approve' the agreement. It would be a,smart idea to have the Historical District Commission and the Historical Commission come 'to a meeting and you all can vote on it at the same time. Hearing - Driveway Waivers at 90 -92 Green Street PTTTF met about this and provided a memo in the pa plan is ok from a safety standpoint. Tom Bergendahl, the developer, explained they area Street with three driveways and one on Elliott Street. allowed two driveways and asking for four because t They plan to put in a sidewalk from property line on Elliott Street. Mr. Ensminger moved that the Board of Green Street, second by Mr. Friedmann Mr. Ensminger second the driveway applicat with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Mr. Friedmann mer residents of Oak St about the proiect. Costigan, Mr. Friedmann wanted to this meeting via letter fror before it was sent out and Berma 10 -92 that notes the,current suggested sking for two curb cuts on Green They are asking for a waiver from the here willbe' four units in the `building. Green Street all the way to the tree on the hearing on 90 -92 th a 5 -0 -0 vote. t thie-Board of Selectmen approve as proposed. The motion passed to Mr. LeLacheur that he has been receiving emails from the 3hinq to!det their, issues resolved and talk with Mr. LeLacheur Shurland and Associate Member Nancy Docktor were t out before this started that the Board of Health was called to e Board of Selectmen but noted he never saw the letter ks the board should have seen it beforehand if their names are on it. Mr. Miyares asked the members when they were appointed. Mr. Costigan noted he was appointed a year ago and became chair in February. Ms. Shurland answered '2 years ago. Ms. Docker answered 2 years ago as well and her associate position is expiring next year. Mr. Miyares asked Mr. Costigan the role of the Chair of the Board of Health. Mr. Costigan explained the Chair runs the meetings. Mr. Miyares asked if Mr. Costigan was involved in the screening process for the health agent. He noted, yes he was and it went well he thought. Ms. Shurland pointed out she asked to be involved but was not allowed even though many members were allowed to last time. Mr. Halsey noted that is not accurate. Only one member attended at a time last time, however it was different members on some occasions. Mr. Miyares asked if the Board of Health voted on a candidate and Mr. Costigan noted no, there was no need to vote they are only there to observe. Page 1 2 mo Mr. Miyares asked if there were any leaks on privacy information of the candidates and it was noted, no there wasn't. Mr. Miyares noted, according to Board of Health minutes, Ms. Docktor was made a voting member' two times. He then asked if Mr. Costigan expected her to act as a full member outside of meetings for an indefinite amount of time and he answered yes. Mr. Miyares explained he watched the video of the meetings and read the minutes and noted the vote to go into executive session does not match. Ms. Docktor noted they did not intend to go into executive session but they needed to discuss their schedules and when to meet. Mr. Miyares explained that Ms. Docktor talked to the Attorney General and the Mass Association of Public Health, he then asked her what she asked them. Ms. Docktor said she can't answer that unless we go into executive session. It was about an email she received and she asked what to do about it. Mr. Ensminger noted he received a copy of that email which has :been seen by all members and is therefore public record now if Town Counsel would like to see it. It is an email from Donna Peirce, the former Public Health Nurse and it was sent around to a bunch of people making it a public record. Ms. Docktor explained they have talked about their concerns with the Health Director and her attorney in executive session so she can't talk about, it. Mr. Miyares noted the August 8th meeting was called'1by Ms. Docktor and then proceeded to ask Ms. Docktor why she would call a meeting while the Chair was away on vacation. Ms. Shurland explained Mr. Costigan was not comfortable going into executive session for what they wanted to go into executive session for. Mr. Miyares noted they went into executive session °regar =Ming,' criminal misconduct and asked what that is about. Ms. Docktor again said she can't talk about it unless in, executive session. Mr. Miyares asked if Ms. Docktor has talked tothe Police 'o, Tgwn Officials about this criminal misconduct and she noted no, she has riot. Mr. Miyares explained Ms. Docktor asked fqr a records requestfoit all emails between Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Demos, Health Agent Laura Vlasuk and Bob Bracey and then asked if it can be assumed thoseare the four people you are investigating for criminal misconduct. Ms. Shurland said they cannot answer that. Mr. Miyares noted on August 15th Ms`. Shurland called a meeting and asked Mr. Costigan if he was still on vacation at that time. Mr. Costigan noted he was tack but unaware of the meeting because they had a regularly scheduled meeting planned for the next night'. Mr. Miyares noted they went into" session again that night for reason number one, but which part of number one. Ms. . Docktor answered, character and reputation and Ms. Vlasuk attended with her attorney. Mr. Miyares, asked if he could see a copy of the letter they sent Ms. Vlasuk telling her they would be going into executive; session to talk about her. He also asked if Ms. Vlasuk knew what they would be talking about regarding herself. Ms. Shurland asked Mr. Miyares how would they know that and stated they have limited contact with Ms. Vlasuk., , Mr. Miyares responded asking if they're saying they have limited contact with staff. Ms. Docktor claimed the Town Manager sent an email telling staff not to attend Board of Health meetings. Mr. LeLachuer noted he absolutely did not. He sent an email saying he was not attending but in no way told other staff not to attend. Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios explained they provided June and July reports to them because the interim Health Agent was on vacation. Mr. Costigan noted Ms. Vlasuk would not give them the reports because they did not appoint her. Mr. Miyares asked Mr. Costigan how does he wish to communicate better with staff. Mr. Costigan noted he thinks the chair should have frequent conversations on the day - to - day stuff and then the chair can report back to the full board during their monthly meeting. Mr. Miyares asked why have they not appointed Ms. Vlasuk as Health Agent. Ms. Docktor said they can't talk about it. Page 1 3 `V Mr. Miyares asked for the nature of their concern not specific personal information. Ms. Shurland noted they are not comfortable talking about this in open session. Mr. Ensminger explained to Mr. Miyares if he read the letter Donna Peirce sent, he thinks it will clear some things up. Mr. Halsey noted it is time for all of us to see this letter, it's public record, let's put it up on the screen for everyone to see. Mr. Friedmann asked what our goal here is by doing this and Mr. Berman responded saying the goal is to get to the bottom of this and their problem with Ms. Vlasuk. If our public health in this town is not being served, we as Board of Selectmen need to know. Ms. Docktor explained there is something in the letter from Donna Peirce that concerns us. Mr. Miyares noted and read a part of the letter where Donna Peirce claims a mileage reimbursement of hers was changed. Mr. Halsey noted this is a staff management issue not a Board of Health issue. Mr. Arena asked for clarification, if this whole thing is about a $5; reimbursement and Ms. Shurland noted yes it is. Mr. Miyares asked if the source of their investigation is this argument between Donna Pierce and Ms. Vlasuk and Ms. Docktor said yes, a public record waI's "changed. Mr. Miyares asked if the Board of Health has a plan for emergencies while you don't have Ms. Vlasuk appointed to do so. He then proceeded to ask about the downtown establishments that had recent sewer backups that were closed. Ms. Shurland exclaimed their only job is public health. Mr. Ensminger responded they should do their job and appoint Ms. Vlasuk as the Health Agent. Ms. Shurland said they don't think that is a good idea, Mr. Berman asked.who hires the Health Agents. Mr. Miyares explained the Town Manager signs the offer letter, the Board of Health then appoints her. Mr. Berman then asked if we are at risk not having an appointed Health Agent. Ms. Docktor said they can appoint whoever they want and they need to be able to trust the person they appoint. The letter from Donna Pierce clearly states'Ms. Vlasuk altered records. Mr. Arena asked if they have any proof of merit of 'Donna Peirce's accusations. Mr. Ensminger asked Ms. Delios, the department head, if the document in question, was for conferences that were;actually attended? Ms. Delios noted they have found discrepancies- �, Mr. Arena stated the employee accepted the changes of the expense report, end of story. The board of Health has no purView to management issues. It is unbelievable you refuse to appoint Ms.-Vlasuk because,,, an expense report that has nothing to do with health. Ms. Docktor noted they don't see it that way. Mr. Friedmann asked Mr. Miyares if the Selectmen have any power to appoint the Health Agent or.any power with the Board of., Health. Mr. Miyares noted the Selectmen have power over the Board of Health because they are their appointing authority. The Selectmen can remove any member of the board. Mr. Friedmann asked if the Board of Health feels the public health is protected right now. Mr. Arena noted if we're missing an important member, such as a health agent, then yes we have a problem.' Mr. Halsey asked if the Selectmen are allowed to appoint Ms. Vlasuk as Health Agent and Mr.Miyares noted they are not. They only have oversight over the Board of health; they can remove members if they decide to with a process. Mr. Berman explained this is all about a disgruntled employee who is mad at her boss. This is clearly a management issue and not the Board of Health's. Ms. Docktor said Ms. Vlasuk altered a document and that's the problem. She will never believe any reports that are submitted to the Board of Health are correct now because of that. Mr. Arena stated Ms. Vlasuk is a manager and it is her job to review expense reports and make sure they are correct. Mr. Miyares moved on to ask about the pesticide issue and asked what authority the Board of Health has to do that. There are state pesticide laws. How did some companies get a notice that you put regulations in place already? Ms. Docktor stated she doesn't know. Page 1 4 W Mr. Ensminger asked if anyone on the Board of Health contacted any companies and Ms. Docktor explained they sent a draft of their regulations to one company. Mr. Miyares noted as far as he knows, there are no regulations for residents on their own properties. Mr. Arena asked the Board of Health how they thought it was appropriate to present a draft of regulations that are not outs to a private company in town. Ms. Docktor noted they discussed it in a meeting. Mr. Miyares put the topic to rest by stating the Board of Health has no purview over any regulations regarding pesticides. Mr. Berman asked if their sole concern is about a document that was signed off on by the employee after it. was changed; the employee did not dispute the manager, can you appoint Ms. Vlasuk now? Ms. Delios wanted to comment for management noting she has an ,open door policy and she never even knew there was a problem until Donna Peirce walked out on the job with no notice and simply giving a handwritten note to Human Resources:on her way out. Mr. Arena noted that was enough for right now, we will discuss haw to proceed later on. Preview Warrant for November Town Meeting Mr. LeLacheur then went thru the warrant for Towr Article 3 is to amend capital. Article 4 is to amend the moment but it is there as a placeholder. Article There are a couple articles talking about fees; reds license late fees. There are a few bylaw articles. At is mostly grammatical but it could be broken down presented. Mr. LeLacheur noted we did receive a request tt 2 /3rd vote at Town Meeting. Essentially it will re Mr. Ensminger asked Mr. Brown W' hat the reaso believes it's mostly because of your,prior discus the Selectmen shouldn't have sole; power. Meeting. he budget. There are no surplus items at 7 is to rescind some debt authorization. ing demand fees and changing dog isle 13 s general bylaw recodification. It nto 48 sections depending on how it e the charter. That will require a selectmen as appointing authority. ng for this is' and Mr. Brown noted he on this evening. There are thoughts that Mr. Arena asked the group if there is an appetite for a meeting next week. Mr. Halsey noted'it is absolutely needed if we have our public health at risk. Mr. Friedrann disagreed noting,he does not think our public health is at risk. Mr. Berman commented the Board of Health was in here for two hours and we finally figured out their issue is an HR /managemIen't issue. Mr. Halsey noted he wants to, see the letter they sent Ms. Vlasuk requesting her to be in executive session. Mr. Arena asked Mr. Miyares)f they ever asked him for advice and Mr. Miyares noted they did not. Mr. Arena asked° if everyone was available to meet next Tuesday to finish this conversation. Mr. Miyares noted 6d tiuill attend as well. Mr. Ensminger commented he would like to know if the reasons stated for the Board of Health going into executive session are valid. Mr. Friedmann noted he does not think that's fair to assume they are not being honest. Mr. Miyares stated he thinks it is bad practice they went asking other lawyers, at the state level, questions when that is the reason I'm here. I don't know what she told them, asked them or what they said to her in response. Mr. LeLacheur commented as and FYI that we are barely hanging on to our interim Health Agent Bob Bracey. He is only still here out of kindness. He has another full time job he is still doing as well. Page 1 5 �� Senior Tax Relief Update Town Assessor Victor Santaniello wrote the board a memo updating them they have received 143 applications to date. Seems a little low to what they estimated they may receive. They are still taking applications but the deadline is approaching. They have had to deny some applications due to the ownership criteria for the property not being met. Library Building Project Update Mr. LeLacheur noted we are done to a minimal amount of invoices left. It seems as if we will have a surplus of about $70,000 to the budget in the end. Mr. Arena gave a special thanks to Bob LeLacheur, Joe Huggins and Bob Lebreque for all their hard work on this project. The Board decided to defer the topic of demand fees and depot %compost sticker until next week because of the time. Survey Update Mr. LeLacheur gave a quick update on the survey results. So far we have between 1,800 and 1,900 responses. They should cut it off soon so we have time to tabulate the results before the first financial forum. The comments will probably be the most helpful",, and there are a' lot of them. The results from this survey may lead us into doing another one to get further answers. Mr. Berman asked why we keep extending their Mr. Halsey noted because they keep expressing else. Mr. Friedmann asked if we could extend them a they are, we could disband them, The board ultimately decided to extend them fo situation again at the end of December. for only three months at a time. :here's a chance they could be something want to change what three more months and assess the Mr. Arena made a motion that Ahe'BOard of Selectmen extend the sunset for the Human Relations Advisory Committee to December 1St, 2017. The motion was seconded by Mr.; Ensminger and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Sewer Debt Mr. Ensminger move that We the, Selectmen and the Treasurer of the Town Of Reading, "Massachusetts, certify that we have signed the $211,000 Sewer Bond (the "Bond ") of the Town`tlated September 11, 2017, and payable, without interest, in installments 'on !August 15 of each year as set forth below: Mr. Halsey m< and approved nd the reading of the motion, second by Mr. Friedmann vote. Mr. Arena seconded the motion made by Mr. Ensminger and it was approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Minutes Mr. Ensminger made a motion to approve the minutes of July 11th, 2017 as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Friedmann and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Mr. Ensminger made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 PM, second by Mr. Berman and approved with a 5 -0 -0 vote. Page 1 6 1 ° Town of Reading y w 16 Lowell Street p ,a3 a Reading, MA 01867 -2685 87NC0'A4� FAX: (781) 942 -9071 Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us TOWN MANAGER Website: www. readingma.gov (781) 942 -9043 September 30, 2017 Greg Watson Manager of Comprehensive Permit Programs MassHousing 1 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Dear Mr. Watson: The following constitutes the Town of Reading's comments on the revised Eaton Lakeview Development, LLC's submittal to MHP dated July 12, 2017 for a Project Eligibility Letter (PEL) for the above named property. If MHP issues a PEL, we anticipate that the applicant will apply to the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chapter 40B. Please note that on September 27, 2017 the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) certified that the Town of Reading is in compliance with its Housing Production Plan. The certification is now effective for an additional year, or for a two -year period beginning on February 23, 2017 through February 22, 2019. Town of Readint - Affordable Housine As I indicated in my June 8'h comment letter, the Town of Reading has been successful in its efforts to create and sustain affordable housing, by: • Securing a DHCD approved two -year certification (safe harbor) based on meeting the housing production goal of 1 % of the Town's total 10% in one year, which expires in February of 2019. • Adopting a Housing Production Plan (HPP) which was also approved by the State. The HPP link is: httpL /l www.reatiinizma.gov /node /2427. The Town is currently working with a consultant to renew the Housing Production Plan through 2023. • Reading has amended its zoning bylaw to allow for both dense development and intergenerational living, both of which support affordable housing. • DHCD showcases Reading on its website as a model 40R community - Reading has adopted two MGL Chapter 40R Smart Growth Overlay Zoning Districts that permit 571 new units "by right ". The Gateway Smart Growth District (GSGD), includes a portion of Reading Woods; a 'As 424 -unit housing development. The GSGD contains 200 units with 20% (43 units) designated as affordable housing. The Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) was adopted in 2009 and was the foundation for "by right" residential or mixed -use in a walkable, vibrant downtown with a commuter rail station as its hub. The 2009- approved 26 -acre DSGD allows an estimated 258 new residential units. Downtown Smart Growth District Expansion - Furthermore, in April 2017, Town Meeting adopted, and the AG's office approved, an expansion of the DSGD to include approximately 21 additional acres, with a projected potential for 113 new residential units. To date, 53 residential units have been built in the DSGD. Recently, the Reading Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) approved the application for 40R Plan Review of the adaptive re -use of the historic Reading Post Office which will be a mixed -use project with 50 residential units, 10 of which will be affordable. In addition, the CPDC opened a public hearing earlier this month on another DSGD 40R mixed -use project, which is expected to create 58 additional housing units, 25 % -40% of which will be affordable. Economic Development Action Plan (EDAP) — In 2015, Reading created an EDAP. The EDAP identifies economic development strategies including expanding the DSGD. The EDAP link is: lit t11: /hwNvw,readiris its.i ;qr/ tin.in elivi5ic) cv�anc�n�ie -clevr 10 _ment aetic�n- flan- �� =it1�. idices Metro North Regional Housing Office ( MNRHSO) — In 2015, Reading established the MNRHSO comprised of the towns of Reading, North Reading, Wilmington, and Saugus. The MNRHSO shares the expenses of a full -time housing coordinator who monitors existing affordable housing and provides expertise related to affordable housing. An Advisory Committee oversees the MNRHSO. Massachusetts has only a handful of RHSO's and Reading is proud to have developed this for the Metro North region. • Comprehensive Update of the Reading Zoning Bylaw (ZBL) — In 2014, the ZBL was updated to clarify, simplify, and modernize zoning for ease of use by developers. Accessory Apartments are now allowed "by- right" (instead of through a ZBA administered special permit process) if performance standards are met and if the unit is located in an existing structure. Permitting checklists have been developed to simplify zoning further. Reading 2020 Board of Selectmen Strategic Plan — A planning effort that will establish long term goals and strategic plans for the future was developed in 2014. Planning for future housing needs is an element of this plan so that our policies and regulations support the needs of the community. The Eaton/Lakeview Development is one of the five 40B projects in Reading. The Town of Reading recently approved two 40B projects and two older 4013's are still pending: • On July 24, 2017, the Town of Reading issued a Comprehensive Permit for Schoolhouse Commons, a 20 -unit multi- family project that is designed as an adaptive reuse of a former school affiliated with St. Agnes Church. • On February 23, 2017, the Town of Reading issued a Comprehensive Permit for Reading Village, a 68 -unit 4 -story multi - family development on a site of approximately 42,000 square feet. This project is on a corner across from the commuter rail station. M.-I In the spring of 2015, Lyle Estates applied to MassHousing for a PEL for 16 new units of townhouse style duplex housing on 2.75 acres. This PEL is still pending; however, a 4 -lot subdivision was recently approved by the CPDC with the condition that the application to MassHousing be withdrawn. Several years ago, a comprehensive permit was issued for 45 Beacon Court. This project, approved for 10 units, has not been constructed. Site and Proiect The Applicant is proposing to redevelop 6 parcels of residentially -zoned land totaling approximately 4.5 acres at the corner of Eaton Street and Lakeview Avenue. The earlier plan included a 160 -unit rental 40B project with 40 affordable units available to households earning at or below 80% of the Area Median Income. The revised plan has reduced the total units to 120 total units and the affordable units to 30. The loss of units is disappointing, especially as regards the number of actual affordable units. A Development Review Team Meeting was held on July 19, 2017, and the comments generated at that meeting are included in the attached. The site is accessed via Lakeview Avenue, which is a narrow private way that does not conform to Town roadway or pedestrian standards. The attached DRT notes highlight the need for roadway. improvements and the need for new sidewalks. One comment is that Lakeview Ave. should become a public road to better serve the whole neighborhood. • Proximity to Downtown & Amenities — the site is located in a residential neighborhood that is a short walk to downtown and the Commuter Rail Station, and a short walk to nearby grocery stores and shopping opportunities on Walkers Brook Drive. Though this site is within walking distance to downtown and various amenities, it should be noted that the site itself is not really within a walkable neighborhood. Additional information should be furnished including: • Indicate on plans unit distribution by size, bedrooms, and affordability; • More elevations depicting project in relation to Jordan's Furniture retaining wall and as both sites relate to Walkers Brook. • Property Management - No documentation was provided regarding property management including how will trash and recycling be handled for the site; • Lighting — This was requested at the DRT; nothing has been provided; • Parking — Additional details are needed to make sure that this development has been "right- sized" for parking. The DRT notes request consideration of less parking or perhaps phasing the parking as proposed based on actual demand. This would reduce the amount of pavement in favor of adding more landscaping. Consideration of one -way access could further mitigate the need for excess pavement. • Landscaping - Existing Trees — As expressed in the DRT, the landscaping should be enhanced especially to provide more of a vegetative buffer for the abutting multi- family use and existing trees should be preserved. These trees should be clearly marked on the site and landscape plans. #1 Sustainable Development • The development is in close proximity to an MBTA bus stop located on Walkers Brook Drive, but is not a true transit- oriented development as it is not located in an area in which residents can access all of their needs without a vehicle. A pedestrian bridge to the adjacent Walkers Brook Crossing commercial area would greatly benefit the project. Bike racks should be provided to reduce dependence on automobile use and support alternative forms of transportation. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this project. I am happy to answer any further questions. Robert W. LtL Town Manager Attachment (DRT Notes) cc: Board of Selectmen Zoning Board of Appeals Community Planning and Development Commission Assistant Town Manager Community Development Director its, Town of Reading Eaton Lakeview Apartments 40B Development Review Team Meeting July 19, 2017 Eaton Lakeview Apartments 40B July 19, 2017 Staff Present: Town Manager Bob LeLacheur, Assistant Town Manager Jean Delios, Community Development Director Julie Mercier, Economic Development Director Andrew Corona, Police Lieutenant Christine Amendola, Public Safety Officer Michael Scouten, DPW Director Jeff Zager, Assistant DPW Director Jane Kinsella, Town Engineer Ryan Percival, Conservation Administrator Chuck Tirone, and Health Agent Laura Vlasuk Applicant / Development Team: Developers Guy Fodera and Joe Guy Fodera, Francis Curtis and David DiBenedetto of CDA Architects, Attorneys Ted Regnante and Matthew Hadge, Traffic Engineer Kim Hazarvardan, Engineer Chris Sparages of William & Sparages, and 40B Advisor Ed Marchant were present on behalf of the application. Project Summary: The Applicant is proposing to redevelop 6 parcels of industrial and residentially -zoned land totaling approximately 4.5 acres at the corner of Eaton Street and Lakeview Avenue with a 120 -unit rental 40B project which will include 30 affordable units available to households earning at or below 80% of the Area Median Income. The units will be distributed among 3 buildings: each building will contain 40 residential units across 4 floors with 1 floor of underground parking. The project will provide a total of 181 parking spaces: 94 garage spaces, and 87 surface spaces. A two -way access drive aisle and a system of paths / sidewalks will enable vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the site. In addition, there will be a community hall with event spaces and a mail room, and a park in the open space behind Building 1. New fire, water, sewer, electric and gas connections are proposed; stormwater will be managed via underground infiltration chambers. Portions of the site contain wetlands, wetland buffers, 100 -year floodplain and riverfront area. The proposed project encroaches into the 100 -foot wetland buffer and as well as the floodplain and riverfront area. The rear of the site along Walkers Brook will be graded to achieve separation from groundwater requirements. DPW/Engineering Comment 1. Lakeview Ave Whole length of Lakeview Ave will be upgraded so Town can take it by Eminent Domain. Sidewalks and other practical improvements will be needed. 2. Eaton Street Proposal only includes patching for utilities and adding a sidewalk along property frontage. The Applicant shall consider re-doing whole street as benefit to neighbors. 3. Sewer Existing sewer main ends part way up Lakeview; will need to be extended. 4. Sewer Calcs Calculations shall be provided showing that system can handle additional flow. 5. MS4 Permit Project shall adhere to new MS4 permit coming out in July 2017. Page 1 of 3 Town of Reading Eaton Lakeview Apartments 40B July 19, 2017 6. I/I Fee Fee will be required and is twice the flow x$4.00. 7. Stormwater Calculations will be needed along with more detailed drainage design plans. System will include a series of BMP's with deep sumps, pre- treatment oil -water separators, and subsurface infiltration. Will need to meet new MS4 permit; no phosphorous fertilizers allowed. The Applicant shall consider LID features and rain gardens. 8. Natural Gas Will need to be extended for projject. Fire Comment 1. Drawings Full size drawings required for comprehensive plan review. 2. Turning Radius Will need to be provided and verified by Fire Department. 3. Hydrants Hydrant locations TBD. Flow tests to be done and apparatus plan submitted. 4. Water Main Determine whether water main is sufficient size to handle Fire flow. 5. Assembly Wood frame over podium = mixed -use building --> sprinklers required. 6. Sprinklers Buildings will be fully s rinklered with standpipes in stairwells. 7. Hookups Locations for Fire /water hookups require review and approval. 8. Amplifier Directional amplifier for communicating out will be required - Fire & Police frequencies. 9. CO Monitors Carbon monoxides stem AND nitrous oxide sensor required for underground parking. 10. Gas Meters Shall be in designated place on exterior of building (not inside parking garage). 11. Dumpsters 3 proposed at the ends of drive aisles, will be covered and meet BOH regulations — minimum 10' from buildings. 12. Snow Removal Fire access must be maintained at all times. 13. Gas Grills I Gas grills not allowed on balconies; association documents shall prohibit them. 14. Garages Will have communications stems. Police Comment 1. Traffic Volume Traffic volume high in this area due to Market Basket. 2. Loading Designated loading area shall be provided on -site; not allowed on- street unless approved b Board of Selectmen. 3. Const. Hours I General Bylaw Section 8.9.8 outlines construction hours allowed in Town. Planning / Housing Comment 1. Pedestrian Access & Lakeview Ave. Consider providing sidewalks and street improvements along the length of Lakeview Ave for better pedestrian / vehicular access to Walkers Brook Drive and New Crossing Road. Pedestrian bridge across Walkers Brook from project site to Walkers Brook Crossing is strongly encouraged. Improving Lakeview Ave so that it can become a public road will make the whole neighborhood better. 2. Elevations Provide elevations depicting project in relation to Jordan's Furniture retaining wall, and as both sites relate to Walkers Brook. 3. Paper Street Provide more information regarding extent of paper street. 4. Pavement Explore ways to reduce paving on -site, such as one -way access, removal of surface parking (potential to build it later if needed). 5. Snow Storage Not encouraged in parking areas, will be provided on -site. 6. Trash/Recycling Trash/Recycling Details TBD, will be huge component of development program. 7. Parking Assigned based on need; garage access restricted to residents. The Applicant shall consider phasing the additional surface parking and only building it if needed. Page 2 of 3 �a1D Town of Reading Eaton Lakeview Apartments 40B July 19, 2017 8. Traffic Study To include Village St /Lakeview Ave intersection and Hunt Park on Eaton St. Should also include actual routes people will use to get to /from the site. The ZBA is likely to want a complete traffic impact and access (TIA) study that makes recommendations for the Town. 9. Setbacks Applicant encouraged to increase setback between 1 -way drive aisle and abutter and /or to move Building 1 further south. 10. Abutters Applicant encouraged to meet with abutters prior to submitting to the ZBA. 11. Landscaping & Trees Consider enhancing landscape buffers to abutters; maintain as many trees as possible, especially those that screen Jordan's retaining wall from site. 12. Lighting Lighting secs and photometrics shall be provided with ZBA filing. 13. Accessibility Elevator access in all buildings; ADA compliant units to be provided. 14. Affordable Units 30 affordable units proposed at 80% AMI; rents will include utility allowance. 15. Local Preference State allows up to 70% of affordable units to be local preference but must be justified. Conservation Comment 1. Path Consider adding path at rear of site connected to Lakeview Apartments path (a la "fitness ath" at Johnson Woods). 2. Easement Dumpster, stockade and chain link fences on abutting property appear to be within a Town drainage easement. 3. Habitat Value Wetland Protection Act requires that habitat value be maintained; removing trees will adversel impact habitat value on the site. 4. Tree Removal Trees will be removed from the BVW buffer area; Planting Plan will be needed. RMLD Comment 1. Pole Line Pole line between two properties will need to be maintained. 2. Electric Plan Loads will need to be determined and electric plan reviewed & approved by RMLD. 3. Transformer Location TBD in coordination with RMLD; may need one for each building. Page 3 of 3 q�� OF RE /n 639' INCOK ?OAP Robert W. LeLacheur, JR. CFA Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA September 12, 2017 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 phone: (781) 942 -9043 fax: 781- 942 -9071 w: www.readingma.gov e: townmanager(&ci.readin2.ma.us Chrystal Kornegay, Undersecretary Department of Housing & Community Development Office of Sustainable Communities (OSC) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 Attn: Phil DeMartino, Chapter 40B & William Reyelt, Chapter 40R RE: Town of Reading — Requesting New Units & Certification In accordance with 760 CMR 56.03(2) and per the attached "Requesting New Units Form (RNUF)," for the Postmark Square 40R (10 ownership units), as well as the recently submitted RNUF for the Schoolhouse Commons 40B (20 rental units), the Town of Reading is requesting that its approved 1 -year certification be extended to 2 -years in accordance with the Town's approved Housing Production Plan. It is the Town's understanding that 96 units are to be created in the same calendar year for the Town to receive a 2 -year certification. Pursuant to this, the Town has created the following units in calendar year 2017: • Reading Village 40B — 68 units rental, created February 23, 2017 • Schoolhouse Commons 40B — 20 rental units, created July 24, 2017 • Postmark Square 40R — 10 ownership units, created Se, ptember 12, 2017 Please contact me if I may be of any further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Robert LeLacheur, Jr. Commonwealth of Massachusetts w DEPARTMENT OF MOUSING & Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Charles D. Baker, Governor ♦ Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor ♦ Chrystal Komegay, Undersecretary C� ^+tiJ September 25, 2017 t s -� Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. e, v Town Manager a n 16 Lowell Street "" Reading, Massachusetts 01867 RE: Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD) — Amended Letter of Approval Dear Mr. LeLacheur: Pursuant to MGL, Chapter 40R and 760 CMR 59.05(4), the Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) is pleased to issue this non - expiring Amended Letter of Approval to the Town of Reading (Town) for its adoption of the amendment to its Downtown Smart Growth District (DSGD /District) on April 27, 2017. With the adoption of this amendment and DHCD's final approval herein, the amendment to the District is now in effect, and the Town may begin to additionally issue corresponding Plan Approval decisions within the expanded area of its DSGD. As outlined in the Department's corresponding Letter of Eligibility of April 24, 2017, the Town is not eligible for an additional Zoning Incentive Payment as a result of this amendment. The amendment pertains to the enlargement of an existing District and no plausible assessment of land that might qualify as Developable /Underutilized, in combination with the allowable residential density, yielded enough additional Incentive Units to make the Town eligible for a higher payment amount. In the event the Town pursues further expansion of the District in the future, it is important to note that this approval is not an acceptance of the proposed Developable /Underutilized Land classifications submitted as part of the amendment application. Additional documentation would be necessary to determine that the current uses associated with one or more of identified parcels qualified as "a marginal or declining use" relative the uses and improvements permitted by the underlying zoning in effect as of the applicable date. Nonetheless, as with the original DSGD, any units permitted within the amended area pursuant to the Smart Growth Zoning, 760 CMR 59 and MGL c. 40R, in accordance with the associated requirements, will be considered Bonus Units and qualify the Town for a corresponding Density Bonus Payment. Pursuant to 760 CMR 59.05(5), this Amended Letter of Approval updates, supplements and hereby incorporates the original Letter of Approval issued on April 1, 2010 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Town continues to maintain a designated smart growth reporting officer required by MGL, Chapter 40S. Such officer is responsible for preparing a smart growth address list, based on occupancy permits issued in the District, and transmitting such list and supporting documentation to DHCD. 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300 www.mass.gov /dhcd �`�`_ Boston, Massachusetts 02114 617.573.1100 0 J 2. The Town continues to maintain a designated municipal official responsible for filing an Annual Update with DHCD on or before July 31 of each year. The Annual Update shall contain the information specified in 760 CMR 59.07. 3. For units associated with a 40R Project to qualify as Bonus Units and count toward a corresponding Density Bonus Payment under 760 CMR 59.06(2), such units must be locally approved, permitted and developable as of right, as defined under 760 CMR 59.02, and pursuant to and in accordance with the Smart Growth Zoning, without recourse to a special permit, variance, zoning amendment, or other form of zoning relief. 4. To the extent it has not done so already or there have been changes to any of the following, the Town submits to DHCD for approval all associated Plan Approval application forms, fee schedules, Plan Approval Authority rules & regulations, Design Standards and other requirements to which Plan Approval applicants or Projects are subject under the Smart Growth Zoning. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and marketing of a unit for a Project within the District, the affordable units shall be made subject to an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing and Resident Selection Plan approved by DHCD as compliant with the associated 40R requirements under 760 CMR 59.00. Such Plan must describe the resident selection process for the affordable units and must set forth a plan for affirmative marketing that provides maximum opportunity to low or moderate income households, including minority households. DHCD's Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing and Resident Selection Plan Guidelines are available on DHCD's website. 6. Prior to execution and recording, the Affordable Housing Restriction that is required for any Project to be considered eligible must be approved by DHCD as compliant with the associated 40R requirements. On behalf of DHCD and the Baker - Polito administration, thank you for advancing this initiative to expand the housing opportunities and Smart Growth in the Town of Reading. As the Town continues to encourage development in its 40R District, should you have any questions, please contact Bill Reyelt at (617) 573- 1355 or william.reyelt(A) state.ma.us. cc: John Arena, Chair, Board of Selectmen Wor, C r' CHARLES D. BAKER GOVERNOR Dear Mr. Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr., OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE HousF • BOSTON, MA 02136 (617) 725 -4000 KARYN E. POLITO LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR September 20, 2017 Congratulations! I am pleased to notify you that the Town of Reading has been awarded a Small Scale Initiatives grant of $1,250 through the Sustainable Materials Recovery Program. I want to thank you for your commitment to reducing waste and increasing recycling for the benefit of our communities and the environment. Enclosed you will find further instructions from the Department of Environmental Protection on next steps. Please feel free to contact Dawn Quirk at 617 - 292 -5557 if you have any questions. Governor Charles D. Baker Lt. Governor Karyn E. Polito ff' `N C.5 qC), a 4ia � n i t1 l,. o n 1 l cz� I l .- ,a t� B' c �� !i� . :,_� . _ September 20, 2017 Mr. Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. LeLacheur, Jr., Congratulations! It is my pleasure to inform you that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has awarded the Town of Reading Small Scale Initiative funds under the Sustainable Materials Recovery Program. The Town of Reading will receive up to S 1,250. Please note, awards for the following grant categories are being evaluated (Mattress Recycling Initiative, SMART /PAYT, Curbside Recycling /Food Waste Carts, Drop -off Equipment, School Recycling Assistance, Waste Reduction Enforcement Coordinator, Waste Reduction Projects, Organics Capacity Projects) and will be announced separately. The Sustainable Materials Recovery Program (SMRP) was created under 3 10 CMR 19.300 -303 and the Green Communities Act, which directs a portion of the proceeds from the sale of Waste Energy Certificates to recycling programs approved by MassDEP. The Recycling Dividends Program (RDP) provides payments to municipalities that have implemented specific programs and policies proven to maximize reuse, recycling and waste reduction. Municipalities receive payments according to the number of criteria points their program earns. Eligibility criteria will ramp up over time, leveraging increasingly greater diversion results and lower solid waste disposal. The key dates and deadlines specific to your award are summarized in the enclosed Checklist. The detailed terms and conditions are specified in the RDP Contract which has been mailed to the Recycling Contact of record for your municipality, copied below. The Recycling Contact will facilitate getting this document signed by an Authorized Signatory and will return it to MassDEP. Once received, the RDP Payment will be remitted to your municipality. Should you have any questions, please call Tina Klein at 617- 292 -5704. Thank you for your commitment to advancing recycling and waste reduction in Massachusetts. Together our efforts will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve natural resources and save energy, while also supporting jobs and reducing disposal costs for waste generators and municipalities. Sincerely, Martin Suuberg Commissioner cc: Michael O'Halloran, Admin. Asst. iiki . _� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention Sustainable Materials Recovery Program Checklist for Small -Scale Initiatives Grant Award Instructions: :) Note the following deadlines and requirements for this grant. Z Return an original signed copy of the Grant Agreement (sent to the municipal Recycling Contact) to Dawn Quirk, MassDEP no later than January 31 , 2018 :) Do not expend funds for which you intend to seek grant reimbursement until AFTER the Grant Agreement has been executed. All funds must be spent and invoices received by MassDEP by June 30, 2018. STEP ONE: Use of Grant Funds A copy of the Grant Agreement has been sent to the municipal Recycling Contact copied on the enclosed award letter. Section 6 of the Grant Agreement lists pre- approved uses of Small Scale Initiative grant funds. If your municipality intends to spend its grant funds on an item or service not listed in Section 6, you must contact Dawn Quirk (contact info below) to obtain approval for the proposed use of funds, prior to returning the Grant Agreement. STEP TWO: Grant Agreement The Grant Agreement must be signed by one of the individuals listed on page 1 of the Authorized Signatory Listing form, which your municipality filed with MassDEP. For reference, a copy of your Authorized Signatory Listing has been sent to the municipal Recycling Contact. If the person(s) listed on the form has changed (for example, a new Mayor has been elected), the municipal official with the same title may sign the Grant Agreement. A new Authorized Signatory Listing form IS NOT REQUIRED. The signed original Grant Agreement must be returned to the address listed below no later than January 31, 2018, Contact Dawn Quirk with any questions: 617 - 292 -5557 or Dawn.Quirk @state.ma.us Return completed documents to: Dawn Quirk MassDEP, Municipal Waste Reduction One Winter Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Checklist for Small -Scale Initiatives Grant Award Page 1 of 1 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. a k4inde Nlcfgan c itY'ipti =n j 2017SFP27 A -M 11.21 August 28, 2017 TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL STREET READING, MA 01867 RE: 2017 Right of Way Maintenance Program Parcel: 045.0- 0000 - 0050.0 Dear Landowner: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) operates and maintains a natural gas transmission pipeline within a permanent right of way and easement over and across your property. Tennessee has an on -going program to maintain and improve the safety and reliability of our pipeline system. During the original construction of our pipeline in 1950's, all trees within the right of way and easement were removed. The presence of trees within the right of way is an obstruction that interferes with the proper maintenance and operation of the pipeline. Pipeline companies, like Tennessee, patrol their pipelines by aerial surveillance (e.g. helicopter, small aircraft). This patrol program is designed to observe surface conditions along and adjacent to the pipeline right of way for indications of leaks, third party construction activity and other factors affecting safety and operation. A recent patrol identified trees and /or shrubs within. or near the pipeline right of way. These trees preclude a view of the ground within the immediate vicinity of the pipeline and to a large extent, limit the effectiveness of the surveillance of our facilities. Additionally, the presence of the trees over the pipeline or within the right of way can cause physical damage to the pipeline. Roots can actually damage the coating on the pipeline which could jeopardize the integrity of the protective coating surrounding the pipeline. Access to the right of way is also limited by the presence of trees and shrubs. We must have unrestricted access to the easement area to facilitate repairs or respond to an emergency. In order to maintain a safe and efficient pipeline and provide continuous service to our end users (hospitals, schools, homes, businesses and factories), we have initiated a program to remove any and all obstructions (trees, shrubs, etc.) that encroach upon our right of way. The maintenance work will be done by Tennessee or its contractor, under the terms of the original Right of Way Agreement. This Agreement provides for the right from time to time to remove all trees and other obstructions from the pipeline right of way to protect the pipeline. The purpose of the program is to render our rights of way as accessible and observable as they were at the time of the construction of the pipeline. We plan to side trim, where necessary, the trees along the sides of the right of way and we also plan to remove all trees within the confines of our easement. This will also include shrubs that have the potential to grow 3 feet or greater in height or any vegetation obscuring the pipeline markers. This letter is formal notification to you of our intention to remove these trees and/or shrubs. Our clearing work will begin on or about September 6, 2017, and should conclude by the end of December 2017. All work will be done in a suitable workmanlike manner, and when weather permits, any disturbed lawn areas will be repaired by this company to as close to its original condition as is practicable. We will be happy to meet with you and discuss the program in detail as it applies to your property. Kindly contact: John Proulx (603) 294 -6073 during normal business hours, Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Very truly yours, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company Carey Diehl Agent — Right of Way Sr. II Certified Mail R/R Zo Tennessee Gas Pipeline E Company, L.L.C. 2017 SEA' 2✓ Its, f!: 2I August 28, 2017 TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL STREET READING, MA 01867 RE: 2017 Right of Way Maintenance Program Parcel: 045.0- 0000 - 0067.0 Dear Landowner: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) operates and maintains a natural gas transmission pipeline within a permanent right of way and easement over and across your property. Tennessee has an on -going program. to maintain and improve the safety and reliability of our pipeline system. During the original construction of our pipeline in 1950's, all trees within the right of way and easement were removed. The presence of trees within the right of way is an obstruction that interferes with the proper maintenance and operation of the pipeline. Pipeline companies, like Tennessee, patrol their pipelines by aerial surveillance (e.g. helicopter, small aircraft). This patrol program is designed to observe surface conditions along and adjacent to the pipeline right of way for indications of leaks, third party construction activity and other factors affecting safety and operation. A recent patrol identified trees and/or shrubs within or near the pipeline right of way. These trees preclude a view of the ground within the immediate vicinity of the pipeline and to a large extent, limit the effectiveness of the surveillance of our facilities. Additionally, the presence of the trees over the pipeline or within the right of way can cause physical damage to the pipeline. Roots can actually damage the coating on the pipeline which could jeopardize the integrity of the protective coating surrounding the pipeline. Access to the right of way is also limited by the presence of trees and shrubs. We must have unrestricted access to the easement area to facilitate repairs or respond to an emergency. In order to maintain a safe and efficient pipeline and provide continuous service to our end users (hospitals, schools, homes, businesses and factories), we have initiated a program to remove any and all obstructions (trees, shrubs, etc.) that encroach upon our right of way. The maintenance work will be done by Tennessee or its contractor, under the terms of the original Right of Way Agreement. This Agreement provides for the right from time to time to remove all trees and other obstructions from the pipeline right of way to protect the pipeline. The purpose of the program is to render our rights of way as accessible and observable as they were at the time of the construction of the pipeline. We plan to side trim, where necessary, the trees along the sides of the right of way and we also plan to remove all trees within the confines of our easement. This will also include shrubs that have the potential to grow 3 feet or greater in height or any vegetation obscuring the pipeline markers. This letter is formal notification to you of our intention to remove these trees and /or shrubs. Our clearing work will begin on or about September 6, 2017, and should conclude by the end of December 2017. All work will be done in a suitable workmanlike manner, and when weather permits, any disturbed lawn areas will be repaired by this company to as close to its original. condition as is practicable. We will be happy to meet with you and discuss the program in detail as it applies to your property. Kindly contact: John Proulx (603) 294 -6073 during normal business hours, Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Very truly yours, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company Carey Diehl Agent — Right of Way Sr. II Certified Mail R/R =IF 1011 �FP ?U0 AM 9: ?6 September 22, 2017 Board of Selectmen Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Miscellaneous Information Dear Chairman and Members of the Board: COMCAST As part of our continuing effort to keep you informed, I wanted to share the following information which customers are receiving via bill message: • On or around November 7, 2017, ESPN Classic will no longer be available. • Effective November 20, 2017, the XF Triple Play Rewards Sports Entertainment service at $8.95/mo for our Preferred XF, Preferred Latino, HD Preferred XF, Preferred Extra Latino, HD Preferred Extra XF, and HD Premier XF Triple Play Packages will no longer be available for new subscriptions. Customers who currently subscribe to Triple Play Rewards service, will continue to receive the service until they make a change to their account or receive further notice. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 978 - 993 -7472. Very truly yours, , Tane vill. Lyman Jane M. Lyman, Sr. Manager Government Affairs 1 i NORTHEAST METROPOLITAN REGIONAL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 26, 2017 Mr. Robert LeLacheur, Jr. Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. LeLacheur, 100 HEMLOCK ROAD • WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 01880 -3597 781 - 246 -0810 - FAX 781 - 246 -4919 1017 OCT --2 PM 3, 57 NE'IX ENGLAND ASSOCIAIFION s OF' SCHOOI:.S ® AND COLLEGES All _'—m _ ".,:. The Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational Technical School District Committee at its August 10, 2017 meeting, in accordance to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 71 Section 16G 1/2, by a majority of all the members of the regional district school committee, voted unanimously to establish a Stabilization Fund. Chapter 71 Section 16G 1/2 of the Massachusetts General Laws also requires the approval of the establishment of a Regional School District Stabilization Fund by a majority of the local appropriating authorities (City Councils or Town Meetings) of the member municipalities. As a fiscally responsible regional school district, the primary purpose of a stabilization fund is to allow the Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational Technical School District a method to have money available for both expected and unexpected capital expenses, and to avoid the need for further borrowing by member municipalities. Attached hereto is an Advisory from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education detailing the rationale for establishment of said fund. Northeast seeks no funding at this time for the Stabilization Fund. Any funding will be requested through our normal annual budget process. Therefore we seek inclusion of the following for consideration by either the City Council /Town Meeting at its upcoming meeting: Warrant Article: To determine whether the Town of (City /Town) of (Name of Municipality) will vote to approve the Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational Technical School District Committee's vote on August 10, 2017 to establish a Stabilization Fund, pursuant to Section 16G'2 of Chapter 71 of the Massachusetts General Laws, said Stabilization Fund to be invested and to retain its own interest earnings as provided by law and further set up an operational line item to be created to transfer available monies into said Stabilization Fund or take any other action relative thereto. CHELSEA MALDEN MELROSE NORTH READING SAUGUS STONEHAM WAKEFIELD READING REVERE WINCHESTER WINTHROP WOBURN We look forward to providing additional information at any hearing you may establish prior to taking action. Please contact Northeast Superintendent David DiBarri at 781 - 246 -0810 or by emailing him at ddibarri @northeastmetrotech.com to coordinate any presentation your community may request. Thank you in advance for your continued and valued support of the Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational School District. Sincerely, G Deborah Davis School Committee Chair LeLacheur, Bob From: laurenbennett3 @verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:16 PM To: LeLacheur, Bob Subject: Re: [Reading MA] Request for SC (Sent by Lauren Bennett, laurenbennett3 @verizon.net) Attachments: In response to Mr.doc Sorry about that, here you go. Thank you Lauren - - - -- Original Message---- - From: LeLacheur, Bob <blelacheurQ-ci. reading. ma.us> To: laurenbennett3 <Iaurenbennett3Ca)verizon.net> Cc: Forwarding Account for John Arena < ForwardingAccountforJohnArena (a)-ci. read ing. ma. us-> Sent: Mon, Oct 2, 2017 5:27 pm Subject: RE: [Reading MA] Request for SC (Sent by Lauren Bennett, lauren ben nett30)verizon.net) Hi Lauren - we didn't get an attachment to this email? Thanks, Bob Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA Town Manager, Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 town manaaerCcD.ci. read inp. 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(o-)_vt -s. net [mai Ito: vtsdmailer(o)vt -s. net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 12:18 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: [Reading MA] Request for SC (Sent by Lauren Bennett, lauren ben nett3(a),verizon.net) Hello Board of Selectmen, Lauren Bennett (lauren ben nett3(o)-verizon.net) has sent you a message via your contact form (https: / /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 https: / /www.readingma.gov /user /475 /edit. Message: Hello, q 9\ I've attached a copy of a letter that I sent to the School Committee before the last meeting on the 25th. It did not make it into the packet for that meeting and I was told it was an error. The packet has not been updated as of yet, I'm just sending a copy of this to you to view. Thank you Lauren Bennett q9a In- response to Mr. Sprung's recent presentation to the School Committee before he left the district, I have several comments. Although I have mentioned this numerous times, I still don't have an answer why the LLD program was not included in the JE Improvement Plan. It seems Mr. Sprung tried to deceive the SC by saying the JE Improvement Plan included the LLD Program because of the following: 1. A meeting with LLD parents occurred in October/November 2016. 2. LLD students were offered additional tutoring for the Title 1 after school program. 3. Implied the entire school, including the LLD students, were provided the most recent and more accurate F &P screening to show their gap between the old F &P screening and the new screening. 4. Added readers /books to classrooms. 5. An Improved writer's workshop model used. 6. A special education teacher was added to reduce workload. 7. Writer's Workshop in the spring. 8. Additional math supports. However, unlike what you were lead to believe, neither Mr. Sprung nor Ms. Wilson included the LLD program in the improvement plan even though the LLD students are the students in most dire need of closing their huge learning gaps. In fact, it seems as if Mr. Sprung actively excluded the LLD students from participating in the JE Improvement plan. Here is how: 1. A meeting with LLD parents occurred in October/November 2016. - - - - -A meeting was held. Only two parents of current LLD students attended. It was held in the morning during a week that already had a day off for the kids. Making it very difficult for working parents to attend especially if they had to take a day already. The LLD parents were told via an email that we could NOT ask questions. We were not allowed to actively engage in a discussion on how to improve the LLD Program. We could only listen. I requested this open forum meeting for months starting at the end of the previous school year so it was only scheduled because of the pressure from me. 2. LLD students were offered additional tutoring for the Title 1 after school program. - - - -- - -LLD students were offered after school tutoring, but parents were told their students would not receive tutoring that followed their child's IEP. In other words, the tutoring offered was not specialized in order to allow the LLD students to access the tutoring. The LLD kids would not have tutoring provided in a way that worked with their learning disabilities and were expected to receive general ed instruction even though that went against the law. Mr. Sprung refused to follow the LLD student's IEPs for tutoring. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. I asked Mr. Sprung if there would be a special ed teacher via email and he told me that there would not be the case. 3. Mr. Sprung implied the entire school, including the LLD students, were provided the most recent and more accurate F &P screening to show their gap between the old F &P screening and the new screening. ---- - - -Mr. Sprung and the LLD teachers refused to screen the LLD students with the new F &P screening that the general education 0,,03 population received. They refused to include the LLD students for fear of documenting their learning gaps. However, the LLD teachers used the new F &P readers to have the LLD students practice reading, which voided any possibility of documenting how much further the LLD students were. You can't use a screening that is a warm read. You can only use screeners the student has never used. The LLD students were excluded from the screening. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. 4. Readers /books added to classrooms. - - -- -None of the classrooms were provided audio books or books at the reading levels of the LLD students. The LLD rooms did not receive any books as part of this portion of the plan. Therefore, the LLD students were also prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. 5. An Improved writer's workshop model used. - -- -The LLD students were removed from the general ed curriculum and never received a writer's workshop model or any structured writing program. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. 6. A special education teacher was added to reduce workload. - -- -The special education teacher was not certified in Wilson or trained in any reading, writing, and /or math program utilized by the LLD students. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. The LLD students' improved support was simply the teachers having their peers read and write for them in gen ed classes. 7. Authorfest in the spring. - - -- -The LLD students were forced to attend this program, which did not provide any accommodations for their learning disabilities and was overseen by parents who are not aware of student's IEPs. The LLD students were expected to read in front of peers when they were not able to do grade lever work. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. I attend the Authorfest every year so I can aid my son through this process, but sadly not all of the LLD parents are able to do this. Authorfest, much like the JE spelling bee, on paper is a nice idea but when the school hosts the LLD program it becomes or slap in the face to these children. 8. Additional math supports. - -- -The LLD students got zero additional math supports or games and continue to be removed from the general ed curriculum. Therefore, the LLD students were prevented from accessing this part of the improvement plan. I find it ludicrous that Mr. Sprung bragged about providing individual tutoring to general ed students /learning center students to help improve literacy while he allowed the LLD teachers to continually reject 1:1 instruction for LLD students who were already known to be significantly behind grade level. I would like to know why the lowest level readers were excluded from this program? Why did the district not allow the LLD students to access any of JE's improvement plan either by refusing to follow the LLD students' IEPs, not allowing parents to ask questions, and /or completely excluding them. It is absurd! q��l What you have to realize is that the LLD program is not a true LLD program to begin with. Outside professionals have observed the classrooms and have provided extensive notes, the district has these reports. I had the opportunity to observe my son's reg ed classroom and what I saw was the LLD kids left unprompted and paired up with a fellow classmate to copy from. It is not fair to expect a classmate to act as my son's para and slog him through the material in lieu of teacher using methods that would help him to learn. It is difficult enough to send your child to a program that you know is a failure but to have these kids completely left out of the improvement plan is disgusting. Lastly, I emailed the SC last month regarding why you gave Dr. Doherty "meeting" in regard to the learning gap part of his review. How can the SC overlook the extremely low PARCC scores at JE that continue to occur year after year and the fact Reading Public Schools is a Level 3? Here's a refresher. a�5 For the Record Watching a replay of the September 26,h Board of Selectmen's meeting, I heard discussion and saw behavior that was truly troubling for the well -being of our town and future volunteerism. During the meeting's public comment section, members of the public who were present spoke to the board, as is the case at all standard Selectmen's meetings. Many times these comments are made to be helpful, or to inform both the public and the board. Occasionally these comments are contentious but polite. In all instances, the board is interested in the public's collective opinion. However, in this case, the comments were neither helpful nor polite. They were disrespectful toward the Selectmen and called into question my competence and character because I sought to become a member of the Board of Health. I have never witnessed a volunteer be treated with such callous disrespect for his willingness to serve on any board, commission or committee. More importantly, this incident has set a dangerous precedent for all volunteers in this town. If well - qualified residents see this behavior continue, why would they want to serve on any board, give up their free time to do so, only to be criticized for it? We have always been lucky to have a wealth of quality volunteers in this town, which cannot function without them. When we have volunteers step up to offer their time to serve, it helps take the workload off of our already thin staffing levels. Levels that are currently below what they should be. Reading volunteers require no prerequisites in background or skill set to serve, by design of the volunteer office. That allows volunteers entering with the understanding of a member of the public, rather than that of the expert, which leads to solutions easily described and accepted by the citizenry. Simply because one lacks background in a subject matter is not disqualifying for office. Having a background is helpful but seldom a necessity in determining membership on our boards. In our town, it should never be acceptable to publicly demean any resident who has volunteered their time in an effort to serve on any board... period! Those who were so fast to lay blame on the Selectmen for my appointment, never bothered to ask why I chose to become a member of the Board of Health. Instead, they chose to create a false narrative around my appointment, rather than seek out the facts surrounding it. Allow me to make my case for serving on this important board. My desire to serve arose from witnessing the actions of two Board of Health members who acted to undermine the hiring and early service of the new health agent by not allowing for her appointment to represent the board in all health matters. Their stated reasons for this conduct are clearly outside of the purview of the Board of Health. Matters of employment, time sheets and expense reports are an employee /manager interaction. In this circumstance, the Health Agent requested a newly revised expense report replacing an earlier version, which was submitted with an ineligible expense claimed originally. The employee submitted a revised claim and signed it. This five - dollar adjustment was the justification offered as to why two Board of Health members refused to motion to appoint the Health Agent. This finding, combined with earlier actions exhibited by these Board of Health members prior to the night of September 5,h, convinced me they never had any intention to appoint our Health Agent. Because of this inappropriate action, I decided apply to the board to allow the Health Agent appointment to move forward, and to ensure proper staffing for the health and well being of all residents in town. That decision was mine and mine alone in service of the town and its residents. These are the facts concerning my volunteering and appointment. Anything else you may hear is strictly false or worse, uninformed opinion offered by those who are either intentionally or unintentionally trying to divide this town. Such a division will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the future of our town and therefore cannot be allowed to be acceptable. We all want to live in a safe town with good schools, and a responsive town government. However, in the last twelve months we decided it was okay to treat others with disdain for their views, without actually discussing them, and to assume the worst in people rather than the best. By acting in public and online as though we hate others for simply being or thinking differently, we send a terrible message to the community. So here is a challenge to all of us, myself included: let's start talking "to" one another, instead of "at" one another. Lets discover our commonalities rather than focusing on our differences. Let's seek to find out all relevant facts before forming an opinion. And most of all, let us be better role models of civic, and civil engagement in the town of Reading.. Respectfully submitted, Kevin M. Sexton Board of Health M Town Manager The positions of School Superintendent, Police Chief and Town Manager require some vastly different skills and are typically enhanced with quite different life experiences. However each has a significant responsibility towards the physical and emotional well -being of members of our community. In our peer communities you may well find individuals who take a different approach to these three positions, but Reading residents should be assured of two things: - First, we three care deeply and work hard to accomplish our responsibilities, and we do that as diligently as any other group of three peer community leaders; - Second, we work together better than any other group of leaders — and we each know this fact from constant feedback from our peers in other communities. We are One Reading. We welcome differences of opinion in our community. We each treasure and protect Free Speech. However all three of us equally do not condone nor welcome extremists that seek to spread discord and inspire violence. We abhor those that would divide us whether through acts of symbolism such as graffiti or acts of physical violence. In Reading, during the past few months, we have seen specific hurtful and hateful symbols and words aimed at the Jewish religion, at African Americans, and at sexual identity or orientation. To be clear, these symbols and words, plus all they stand for, are not the least bit welcome in our community. They are not OK. These acts have begun to divide the community between those that see the graffiti as a form of harmless attention - seeking pranks, typically done by kids, to those that see terror through these words and symbols of hate. Last March, as part of the annual budget process, I stepped clearly outside the bounds of my position as defined by the Charter when I wrote these words to our Town Meeting: " {quote }... However to set aside the near -term financial challenges for a moment, there is an issue of deep concern to me and some of my peer Mayors and Managers: the fragile and decaying civility in public discourse certainly influenced by national politics. We see divides in our communities forming — if one looks carefully they are actually not easy to label or describe, let alone find a way to bridge. Some of that came out in Reading during our Community Listening and Senior Tax Relief Sessions last summer, when different groups of residents selfishly opposed each other, and this behavior has continued in different local forums since. Some residents seem bent on winning a debate as if it is a contest, instead of sitting down as a community to find common ground and solutions {end quote}." Unfortunately we still seem to be on that downward path, as a community and broadly as a society. Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Devens sponsored by the Massachusetts Municipal Management Association. Foxboro Police Chief William Baker spoke to about twenty town managers about "Race, Justice and Use of Force in 2017." We were the first non -law enforcement group in the country to see some chilling footage of interviews of cop - killers in prison, who spoke about hunting down police officers proactively. They did so simply because the officer might take away their freedom. Chief Baker also showed clips of African Americans being, in his own words, assassinated by U.S. law enforcement officers in other parts of the country. He spoke of his experience in 40 different countries, and brought a wealth of different perspectives to the difficult issues at hand. One simple message I took away from that experience was the idea of 99 %. It was remarkable to hear convicted murderers, families of victims of horrific acts of pure hatred, police officers and bystanders each say that 99% of all people, without regard to race, religion, sexual preference, or country of origin, are good. But all worried — to varying degrees - about the 1% that were not good. Some then extrapolated that worry into fear and often into split- second violence. �;a Last Thursday night, the Reading Coalition Against Substance Abuse held their annual meeting, and featured speakers including Middlesex District Attorney Marion Ryan and Dr. Ruth Potee. D.A. Ryan explored the wonderful job that my two colleagues do in successful strategies to discourage our youth from falling into a life of substance abuse, all while giving them a clear diversion path with second chances but firm responsibilities. In this regard Reading is held out as a model community in Massachusetts. There is no doubt in my mind that RCASA working collaboratively with the Schools and Police has saved lives. The only doubt might be how many lives — and you should all be very proud of that. Dr. Potee is nationally recognized as an expert in Family and Addiction medicine. She spoke forcefully yet humorously about how addiction is the only brain disease that is 100% preventable. She gave alarming scientific evidence about how decisions made between ages 12 -18 — a time of great peer pressure and vulnerability - will irreversibly change one's future. The juxtaposition of my two Thursday meetings made it abundantly clear that the phrase 'harmless attention - seeking prank' does not fit the recent graffiti incidents in Reading. They say that the longest journey begins with but a single step — and when it comes to acts of intolerance and hate, we must all do whatever we can to prevent that first step from ever happening with our young people. All across the world we see acts of division. Horrific acts of terrorism are now almost a weekly event — evidence the weekend stabbings in Marseille, France. Acts of global civil war have begun — on Sunday Spanish national riot police were ordered in to Catalonia because local police would not enforce anti - referendum directives. Motives for the heart - breaking Las Vegas shooting remain unclear. From my position as Town Manager I will continue to work diligently and collaboratively with Dr. Doherty and Chief Segalla. Together we cannot influence national or international events. However we can - and we must - work with the help of the entire community to ensure that all of our students, residents, %\3 businesses and visitors - each and every one of them — has the safest town we can provide in an increasingly complex world. In retrospect, perhaps the three of us were slow to react to that early May discovery of the first graffiti incident. But I can assure each of you that since we learned of the second incident, at the scene of a pipe -bomb scare over near Joshua Eaton School one night, we recognized the seriousness of the situation. Since then the three of us have been all -in, and working together. I'd now like to introduce Superintendent Dr. John Doherty, who will describe the schools efforts to try to prevent students from taking that first step - in a journey towards a lifetime of intolerance and hatred. OFRFgOV �w 9. INC ORP0 Robert W. LeLacheur, JR. CFA Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA September 21, 2017 Reading School Committee Dr. John Doherty Gail Dowd Sharon Angstrom Reading Board of Selectmen Reading Finance Committee Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 -2685 RE: November Town Meeting — FYI 8 update phone: (781) 942 -9043 fax: 781-942-9071 w: www.readingma.gov e: townmanagernci.reading.ma.us While the Town and Schools are in constant contact about financial issues, the capital plan gets very careful scrutiny in the early fall each year, with the goal to bring a balanced capital plan to November Town Meeting that then only needs minor adjustments in the annual budget process aimed at April Town Meeting. This year after meetings with all departments, the one item that stepped to the front of the line is a needed repair of the skylights at the Wood End School for an estimated $480,000. I will let the Superintendent and Facilities Director share more details on that issue, but in the reminder of this memo explain how we will fund this item in November, and not require any Free Cash (as of this moment) to do so, because of four positive developments First, I am quite pleased to share that the DOR today has certified our New Growth at $841,972. This gives us an additional $341,972 to use in the current year — and more importantly becomes a new baseline for taxes in future years. This figure exceeds my best guess, and is a testament to the economic development that is already underway in the community. Second, we budgeted a bit below the final state aid figure by $100,000 — which is another source of sustainable annual revenue, although increases will remain uncertain each year. Third, Fire Chief Greg Burns and his staff are to be commended for securing a grant for much needed breathing apparatus equipment. The result of the grant is that Reading can reduce the capital outlay from an approved $190,000 to only $25,000 — which frees up $165,000 of budgeted expenses. Fourth, we will spend $190,000 less on debt service for the RMHS litigation settlement than budgeted, although that savings will be reduced by about a $75,000 reduction in tax revenues, for a net savings of about $115,000 of budgeted expenses. The reasons are complex and involve the IRS, DOR and the town — I will explain briefly at the October Financial Forum. Broadly, the legal expenses incurred by the general fund over the last few years have been shifted to the debt exclusion. Legally we could have shifted more, but morally I believe the reduction by $75,000 in taxes levied starting this fall will make the Reading taxpayer whole. The combination of these four items will more than fund the capital request for the skylights at Wood End, which are our collective top need. It is too soon in the process for me to tell if there will be additional expenses or changes at Town Meeting, but at this point I am very comfortable in stating that the School capital need can be funded without the use of any Free Cash, and I would ask for your support. Sincerely, Robert LeLacheur, Jr: 1 1 1 1 REAWNG OU MNG PRODUCTION PLACE Reading The Town of i participate in 0 an interactive i r MONDAY, OCTOBER 30,6:00 PM COMMUNIFTY ROOM AT THE REAWNG PUBUC LIBRARY 64 MIDDLESEX AVE, READIIING Easy RSVP: https://readingcommunityworkshop.eventbrite.co This is an open public meeting and registration is not required to attend. However, your RSVP will help the event planners provide adequate refreshments and materials. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The meeting location is accessible to people with disabilities. Questions? Contact Julie Mercier, Community Development Director 781- 942 -6648 / imercier@dreading.ma.us