HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-21 Select Board Packet
Town of Reading
Meeting Posting with Agenda
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
2018-07-16 LAG Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Select Board
Date: 2023-03-21 Time: 7:00 PM
Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room
Address: 16 Lowell Street Agenda:
Purpose: General Business
Meeting Called By: Caitlin Nocella on behalf of Chair Mark Dockser
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 reasonab ly 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:
This Meeting will be held in-person in the Select Board
Meeting Room at Town Hall and remotely on Zoom. It will
also be streamed live on RCTV as usual.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89714215395
Meeting ID: 897 1421 5395
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,89714215395# US (New York)
+16465189805,,89714215395# US (New York)
Dial by your location
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 646 518 9805 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 897 1421 5395
Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kcyzaSnaLX
PAGE #
7:00 Overview of Meeting
7:05 Public Comment
7:15 SB Liaison and Town Manager Reports 3
7:30 Presentation from Consultant on FY24 Water & Sewer
Rates 11
8:00 Presentation from ReCalc 23
Town of Reading
Meeting Posting with Agenda
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 | 2
8:30 Presentation from Economic Development Director on
Parking Kiosk Roll-Out 54
8:45 Presentation of Town Forest Committee 72
9:15 Select Board Policy 1.6.8 – Vote to Declare Surplus
Property; Police Handguns and ammunition 85
9:30 Discuss and Vote on Select Board member to Affordable
Housing Trust Board; as well as advertise for members 87
9:45
Discuss the purchase of 17 Harnden Street and other real
property for municipal use, including a potential executive
session under Purpose 6 to consider the purchase and
value of 17 Harnden Street
10:30 Discuss Future Agendas 90
10:45 Approve Meeting Minutes 93
Office of the Town Manager 781-942-9043
16 Lowell Street townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
Reading, MA 01867 www.readingma.gov/town-manager
To: Select Board
From: Fidel A. Maltez
Date: March 16, 2023
RE: Town Manager Memo for March 21st, 2023 Meeting
We have concluded meetings with FINCOM to review the FY2024 Budget. FINCOM does an excellent job
reviewing the budget and provide valuable insight ahead of Town Meeting. Our Department Heads
delivered professional presentations and answered all questions. I am extremely proud of our leadership
team, and thankful for their hard work in this budget process.
At our last meeting, I provided a preview of the Birch Meadow Phase I project, noting that construction
prices came significantly over budget, compared to the original estimate presented to the Reading ARPA
Advisory Committee last spring. I want to emphasize that the increases are due to the high inflationary
environment we are in, as well as supply chain issues affecting all construction projects. Following
guidance from the Recreation Committee and the Finance Committee, and with approval of our Select
Board, Town Staff will request that Town Meeting fund the difference in cost for the entire project. We
heard that Birch Meadow has been a community priority for over 10 years. We also know that
construction prices are not likely to go down soon, and the Town would gain economies of scale by
completing the entire project at once. Finally, this project is shovel-ready and would be built this coming
construction season. We heard a preference from the Finance Committee, to recommend that we use
funding sources other than Free Cash for this project. Town Staff have identified the following funding
sources for Town Meeting:
1. $600,000 from the Parker Middle Roof Project. The Select Board might recall that we received
competitive bids for this project. This project was bonded at 0.87% interest rate.
2. $180,000 from the Police Station Renovation Roof Project. This project is now completed and has
a remaining balance. This project was bonded at 0.87% interest rate.
3. $440,000 from the 40R District Incentive/Bonus Payments from the Commonwealth. We
currently have $917,000 in this stabilization fund. The incentive payments can only be used for
capital projects.
The numbers above might change slightly as we get closer to the Town Meeting, and we finalize the draft
motions. Finally, the Department of Public Works will hold a public forum on Monday March 27 at 6 PM
in the Select Board Room to discuss the upcoming article for rubbish and recycling carts.
FAM
Town of Reading
Birch Meadow Phase I Project Discussion
March 21, 2023
Birch Meadow Phase I Project
New Parking Lot
Birch Meadow Phase I Project
New Pedestrian Walkway
with lighting, Lacrosse
Wall, and Pavillion
Birch Meadow Phase I Project
Birch Meadow Phase I Project
Birch Meadow Phase I Project –
Budget Update
•Bids were significantly over the $1.5 Million from ARPA. Recreation
Committee recommended asking Town Meeting for the remaining funds.
•Option 1: do Infrastructure Only, Option 2: do Infrastructure and Pavillion
•Belko is low-bidder for Infrastructure Work
•Construction Dynamics is low-bidder for Pavillion
•Requesting 20% Contingency to Anticipate Unknows
BELKO (Base+3 Alts)1,349,900.00$
Police Details 25,000.00$
CA - Activitas - 5%67,495.00$
Contingency - 20%269,980.00$
TOTAL 1,712,375.00$
Town Meeting Request 212,375.00$
"Infrastructure" Only
BELKO (Base+3 Alts)1,349,900.00$
Construction Dynamics 787,000.00$
Police Details 50,000.00$
CA - Activitas - 5%106,845.00$
Contingency - 20%427,380.00$
TOTAL 2,721,125.00$
Town Meeting Request 1,221,125.00$
"Infrastructure" + Building
Birch Meadow Phase I Project –
Potential Funding Sources
Unspent Amounts from Past Projects
•Parker Middle School Roof -$600,000
•Police Department Renovation -$180,000
•Total: $780,000
•Remaining Funding: $440,000
Additional Funding Sources
•Finance Committee voted 8-0 to fund the remaining balance from the 40R
Incentive/Bonus Payments from the Commonwealth. This requires a 2/3
vote of Town Meeting since it is a stabilization account
•40R Incentive Account Available Balance -$917,000
•Funding Request -$440,000
•40R Incentive Account After Request -$477,000
Town of Reading
Water and Sewer
FY 2024 Rate Study
The Abrahams Group
March 2023
Rate Study Objectives
•Review historical and current water and sewer fund financials.
•Use historical and current financial and billing data to project revenues and
expenses over a five-year period of FY 2024 to FY 2028.
•Create rate options to ensure the funds remain in good financial standing.
•Including targeting a retained earnings balance of 20% of fund expenses.
•Consider the implementation of a tiered rate structure for water and sewer.
•Compile billing data into a file that can be used to project revenues from a tiered
rate structure.
•Mass. General Law states that MWRA communities shall have a base rate that “shall
be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and
consumption of high-volume users of water”.
2
Current Rate Structure
The Town bills users quarterly, typically in July, October, January, and April.
Water
•Flat Rate of $11.41 per 100 cubic feet of usage
•Minimum Charge of $21.80 per bill
Sewer
•Flat Rate of $10.86 per 100 cubic feet of flow
•Minimum Charge of $21.80 per bill
3
FY 2023 Projections
FY 2023 projections in the financial analyses indicate:
Water
•Projected deficit of $300,000
•Retained earnings of $3.7 million, or 41.5% of expenses
Sewer
•Projected surplus of $60,000
•Retained earnings of $7.0 million, or 92.7% of expenses
4
Projections –FY 2024 to 2028 –Baseline –Water
The following projections are from the baseline scenario, which assumes
no rate action. The graph contains projected retained earnings.
5
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (758,101)$ (1,340,108)$ (1,019,981)$ (1,262,771)$ (1,472,979)$
Projected Retained Earnings 2,315,451$ 1,295,470$ 32,699$ (1,440,280)$ (2,913,259)$
RE as % of Budget 27.0%14.4%0.4%-16.1%-31.8%
Baseline
Projections –FY 2024 to 2028 –Baseline –Sewer
The following projections are from the baseline scenario, which assumes
no rate action. The graph contains projected retained earnings.
6
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (214,062)$ (1,995,786)$ (1,429,294)$ (1,386,617)$ (1,542,027)$
Projected Retained Earnings 5,020,167$ 3,590,873$ 2,204,256$ 662,229$ (879,798)$
RE as % of Budget 66.3%38.4%25.1%7.6%-9.9%
Baseline
Rate Option 1 –Rate Changes Only –Water
7
User Type Usage Current Bill FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Low-End User 500 57.05$ 58.90$ 60.82$ 62.80$ 64.84$ 66.94$
Avg. Residential User (45 gpd)1,500 171.15$ 176.71$ 182.46$ 188.39$ 194.51$ 200.83$
Avg. Residential User (65 gpd)2,200 251.02$ 259.18$ 267.60$ 276.30$ 285.28$ 294.55$
Large Residential User 4,500 513.45$ 530.14$ 547.37$ 565.16$ 583.52$ 602.49$
Large Commercial User 10,000 1,141.00$ 1,178.08$ 1,216.37$ 1,255.90$ 1,296.72$ 1,338.86$
Very Large Commercial User 100,000 11,410.00$ 11,780.83$ 12,163.70$ 12,559.02$ 12,967.19$ 13,388.62$
New BillsUser Impact (per Bill) - Water Bills Only
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
3.25%3.25%3.25%3.25%3.25%
New Rate 11.41$ 11.78$ 12.16$ 12.56$ 12.97$
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (518,342)$ (852,797)$ (277,072)$ (255,958)$ (193,684)$
Projected Retained Earnings 3,042,521$ 2,765,449$ 2,509,491$ 2,315,807$ 2,122,123$
RE % of Budget 35.4%30.6%28.8%25.9%23.2%
Rate Changes:
Rate Impact
Rate Option 1 –Rate Changes Only –Sewer
8
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%2.00%
New Rate 10.86$ 11.08$ 11.30$ 11.52$ 11.76$
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (73,341)$ (1,711,530)$ (998,631)$ (806,620)$ (809,710)$
Projected Retained Earnings 5,445,144$ 4,446,513$ 3,639,893$ 2,830,183$ 2,020,473$
RE % of Budget 71.9%47.6%41.4%32.4%22.7%
Rate Changes:
Rate Impact
User Type Usage Current Bill FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Low-End User 500 54.30$ 55.39$ 56.49$ 57.62$ 58.78$ 59.95$
Avg. Residential User (45 gpd)1,500 162.90$ 166.16$ 169.48$ 172.87$ 176.33$ 179.85$
Avg. Residential User (65 gpd)2,200 238.92$ 243.70$ 248.57$ 253.54$ 258.61$ 263.79$
Large Residential User 4,500 488.70$ 498.47$ 508.44$ 518.61$ 528.98$ 539.56$
Large Commercial User 10,000 1,086.00$ 1,107.72$ 1,129.87$ 1,152.47$ 1,175.52$ 1,199.03$
Very Large Commercial User 100,000 10,860.00$ 11,077.20$ 11,298.74$ 11,524.72$ 11,755.21$ 11,990.32$
New BillsUser Impact (per Bill) - Sewer Bills Only
Rate Option 2 –Tier Structure
Objectives:
•Set tiers and rates per tier to recover a similar amount of revenue as
in FY 2023. This does not include a rate increase for FY 2024.
•Aim to minimize impact on users’ bills, avoiding large swings in bills.
•After initial implementation, can consider different changes to different tiers.
•Create four tiers, with the option to switch to five in the future.
Water Sewer
9
Tiers Start End FY 2024
1 - 500 10.10$
2 501 1,000 10.80$
3 1,001 2,500 11.70$
4 2,501 5,000 13.00$
5 5,001 +13.00$
Tiers Start End FY 2024
1 - 500 10.00$
2 501 1,000 10.50$
3 1,001 2,500 10.70$
4 2,501 5,000 12.00$
5 5,001 +12.00$
Rate Option 2 –Tier Structure –Water
10
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Tiers 4.50%4.50%4.50%4.50%
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (764,719)$ (1,015,048)$ (348,318)$ (228,909)$ (60,617)$
Projected Retained Earnings 2,633,893$ 2,285,575$ 2,056,666$ 1,996,049$ 1,935,432$
RE % of Budget 30.7%25.3%23.6%22.3%21.1%
Rate Changes:
Rate Impact
User Type Usage Current Bill FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Low-End User 500 57.05$ 50.50$ 52.77$ 55.15$ 57.63$ 60.22$
Avg. Residential User (45 gpd)1,500 171.15$ 163.00$ 170.34$ 178.00$ 186.01$ 194.38$
Avg. Residential User (65 gpd)2,200 251.02$ 244.90$ 255.92$ 267.44$ 279.47$ 292.05$
Large Residential User 4,500 513.45$ 540.00$ 564.30$ 589.69$ 616.23$ 643.96$
Large Commercial User 10,000 1,141.00$ 1,255.00$ 1,311.48$ 1,370.49$ 1,432.16$ 1,496.61$
Very Large Commercial User 100,000 11,410.00$ 12,955.00$ 13,537.98$ 14,147.18$ 14,783.81$ 15,449.08$
New BillsUser Impact (per Bill) - Water Bills Only
Rate Option 2 –Tier Structure –Sewer
11
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Tiers 2.50%2.50%2.50%2.50%
FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Surplus/Deficit (177,548)$ (1,782,458)$ (1,034,731)$ (806,289)$ (771,290)$
Projected Retained Earnings 5,270,009$ 4,235,278$ 3,428,989$ 2,657,699$ 1,886,409$
RE % of Budget 69.6%45.3%39.0%30.4%21.2%
Rate Changes:
Rate Impact
User Type Usage Current Bill FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028
Low-End User 500 54.30$ 50.00$ 51.25$ 52.53$ 53.84$ 55.19$
Avg. Residential User (45 gpd)1,500 162.90$ 156.00$ 159.90$ 163.90$ 167.99$ 172.19$
Avg. Residential User (65 gpd)2,200 238.92$ 230.90$ 236.67$ 242.59$ 248.65$ 254.87$
Large Residential User 4,500 488.70$ 503.00$ 515.58$ 528.46$ 541.68$ 555.22$
Large Commercial User 10,000 1,086.00$ 1,163.00$ 1,192.08$ 1,221.88$ 1,252.42$ 1,283.73$
Very Large Commercial User 100,000 10,860.00$ 11,963.00$ 12,262.08$ 12,568.63$ 12,882.84$ 13,204.91$
New BillsUser Impact (per Bill) - Sewer Bills Only
Thank You
Question/Comments?
12
Reading Center for Active
Living Committee
ReCALC
•Summary Presentation
•March 21, 2023
Executive summary
Charge
•The charge of ReCALC is to explore the current and future needs
of the Community, and initiate planning for a potential new
Senior/Community Center in town that will focus on residents
aged 60+ and possibly other members of the Community
Results
•Identified current and future needs of the entire community
for a Senior/Community Center (with a dedicated senior
space)
•Solicited the community’s preference for addressing facility
needs
Primary Recommendation
•Identify and implement a solution to the facility needs for the
Senior population in the immediate (2 to 3 year) timeframe.
Nov 2021 Select Board creates and appoints 7-member Ad-Hoc Committee
Dec 2021 Bi-monthly meetings including joint meetings with COA
Jan 2022 Review of project parameters; Committee feedback
Feb 2022 Public Services Department hires UMASS Gerontology Institute (2021
Capital Funds) to lead community engagement.
Mar 2022 15 Site Visits to area centers; joint meeting with COA/UMASS Consultant
team to review community outreach plan
Apr –Jun 2022 Held three community forums and four stakeholder focus groups
July-Aug 2022 Secured $300k ARPA funding for future feasibility study work
Jul-Sep 2022 Prepared & executed Community Survey
(1470 responses)
Sep-Oct 2022 ReCALC working group review of potential Walgreens site
Lunch & Learn –Sr. Center Options presentation by “Town Mgr.
Select Board presentation –Extension of ReCALC to June 2023
Nov-Dec 2022 UMASS presentation on Survey results and final report
ReCALC MILESTONES
Why Plan for A Center for
Active Living (ReCALC)?
Vision
•A far-reaching vision for the future is needed to plan for the
needs of the community.
Needs
•What are the needs of the community?
Pleasant Street Center has outlived its’ useful life
•Needs Assessment, UMASS Gerontology Institute, 2017
Demographic Trends
•Growing overall population with 27% residents are 60+years
Impact on Service Delivery
•A dedicated staff having difficulty meeting the demand of
community
Limited Capacity
•Some residents leave town for Services
Pleasant Street Center
Deficiencies (not a complete list)
Non-Dividable Multi-Purpose
Room (700 Sq. ft.)Kitchen
•No bathroom on first floor
•No private offices
•No one-on-one space
•Inadequate Kitchen
•Unable to run multiple (lg.) programs at once
•140 yr. old historical building
•No dedicated space for art, fitness, social, library
•Building Access
Computer &
Game Rooms
(basement)
Office in the Hallway
Hallway Waiting Areas
Nurse & Senior. Case Worker Office
(no privacy or one-on-one space)
Art/Lunch/Meeting Room
(no dedicated storage)Registration
Reception
ReCALC Strategies
➢Engaged the community
➢Collaborated with other community partners and
volunteer boards
➢Benchmarked local Senior Center/Community
Centers
➢Established lines of communication
➢Explored a combined option of an All-ages
Community Center (ACC)
Supporting
Recommendations
➢Review the identified needs, perform a more detailed assessment of
priorities, and then define explicit plans to address the needs.
➢Perform feasibility study (studies) on potential Senior Center/ACC
solutions
➢Advocate for continued investment in Elder Services
➢Develop communication strategies and tools to keep the community
informed
➢Support the concept of an ACC ensuring first that the needs of the
Seniors are being met.
Community Needs
Overall
•The focus of ReCalc was to assess needs and then translate that
assessment into a recommendation for a Senior Center/ACC.
•Program and service needs differ by age group, but implications for the
facility (indoor & outdoor space and accessibility) appears to be
consistent (and similar).
•The survey results provide insight into the top five selected indoor &
outdoor space and accessibility needs across the age groups, and for the
most part, those results were well aligned.
•There was a clear difference in service needs (respondents were given
option to select service importance) by age group.
8 Areas •Socialization
•Interesting/Specialty
Program Offerings
•Physical Activity
•Meals
•Outdoor Activity
•Administrative Services
•Accessibility
•Affordability
Socialization
The need for socialization is a common theme
Every aspect of bringing people together can be
thought of satisfying this need
Facility Implications:
•Café or drop-in space, dedicated arts and
crafts space, multipurpose space for both
small and large group activities, space for
games, space for group exercise
•many of the local centers visited included a
dedicated lounge area
PSC
PSC
Other
INTERESTING/SPECIALTY
PROGRAM OFFERINGS
Desire for expanded program offerings designed to draw in more
participants, engaging a larger demographic.
Art, theater, clubs, games, thought-provoking activities, like enriching
courses in cooking, technology, lectures, etc.
Facility implications:
•Dedicated space -Art, Games, and Technology
•Flexible multipurpose space (large space) that can be configured
(broken up into smaller space) to adapt for a particular program
•Classrooms and program rooms should be accessible and
inclusive, including technology for audio and visual presentations
and the capability to receive participants who are participating
virtually.Peabody
Peabody
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
One of the top attended programs at the current Pleasant
Street Center (PSC) are those with a physical activity
component, such as Zumba or Yoga.
Community feedback was consistent, expressing more
support and facilities for fitness programs and access to
exercise equipment.
They would also like to see expansion of these programs
and the addition of other options such as Dance.
Facility implications:
•Dedicated space, or at least space that is designed
with the correct flooring (etc.)
•Dedicated fitness and exercise rooms (indoor space)
were listed as a top priority for all age groups.PSC
Other
MEALS
•Providing the option for a daily meal was not only deemed a priority
from the community survey, but also appeared as a common service
offered by peer community centers.
•The differentiating factor is the facility amenities to support provision of
meals. Currently the PSC does not provide the ability for on-site
preparation, limiting what can be provided.
•The community expressed the need to have access to food and nutrition
services.
•Facility implications:
•Kitchen to support the defined dining space
•Consider commercial kitchen
Peabody
Needham
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY
•The community has expressed the
need for a set of outdoor activities that
should be supported by a new center.
•Facility implications:
•Benches/comfortable seating
•Picnic area
•Grass area for lawn games
•Gardening area
•Walking/running track.
Other
Other
Other
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
•Staffing to provide the programs and services
•Provide private office spaces for staff to conduct 1-1
appointments with residents.
•Provision of adequate staffing to support the core
programs and services of Elder Services is a pre-
requisite, with additional staff needed to meet new
program, service and facility requirements.
•Facility implications:
•Private office spaces
•1-1 conference rooms The staff of the Pleasant Street Center are “maxed-out
in their ability to meet the demands of the community.”
Needham
PSC PSC PSC
ACCESSIBILITY
•Support for hearing (audio assistive devices), sight (design considerations),
and handicapped accessibility beyond the standard ADA compliance
•Access the center because of limited hours of operation (for those that work
during the day), the need for transportation (those that don’t drive),
adequate parking either on-site or in satellite lots (with shuttle service).
•Program and/or service accessibility can also be impacted by
communication of information and the registration process
Facility implications:
•Hours of operation
•Parking & Transportation
•Technology for virtual participation
•Design for disabilities
PSC PSC
Other
AFFORDABILITY
•Most selected accessibility feature for a Sr./Community
center was No to little cost to participate in programs.
•Center Cost
•(+) Forty-seven percent of residents indicated they would be
willing to pay up to $200 (added to annual property taxes), and
sixty-four percent indicated they would be willing to pay up to
$100
•(-) A third of those surveyed indicated they would not support a
new building if it required an increase in taxes. Those willing to
pay $200 or more per year was only 23%.
•Resident concerns about affordability and the realization
that some may be priced out of the community if the
increase in taxes and other expenses (rent, utilities, etc.)
continue unabated.
Other
CENTER PREFERENCE
(MOST PREFERRED SCENARIO)
•82% of the respondents selected either a senior center for residents age 60+ (33%) or an all -ages
community center including designated space and programming for residents age 60+ (49%).
•Preference for a senior center increased with age, preference for an all-ages community center
with designated space and programming for residents age 60+ declined with age
•Nearly half of survey respondents elaborated on their selection
•21% of those expressed support –stating a community center as “an opportunity for
community cohesion and inclusion.”
•Nearly the same number (1 in 5) expressed resistance to a new building/development
citing concerns “about how development costs will influence their own expenses (e.g.,
increased tax bill) as well as perceptions that there are other priorities for town funding
(e.g., improving school facilities, addressing road and sidewalk repairs). Those expressing
resistance to a new development also reported the perception that are adequate existing
resources in town that can be rehabbed or repurposed.”
CENTER PREFERENCE
(RECALC CONCLUSION)
•ReCalc believes the desire for an all-ages community center (with dedicated Sr. space) is real, but
•It should not take precedence over first meeting the program, service and facility needs of
our Seniors
•Take into consideration existing town services and facilities that could be used to support
the types of programs and opportunities expressed for such a center.
•There should always be separate space, programs and services for older residents.Lexington
Needham
Lynnfield
NEXT STEPS -PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION
The following next steps should be performed to address the primary
recommendation (identify and implement a solution to the facility needs for
the Senior population in the immediate (2 to 3 year) timeframe):
(1)Define and execute an immediate facility solution for replacing and/or
expanding the current Senior Center.
(2)Continue to enhance (invest in) the programming/services for Seniors
including new offerings and better accessibility (e.g., address
transportation, evening programming, etc.)
(3)Develop communication strategies and community outreach regarding the
needs for Seniors
FUTURE OF
RECALC
•ReCALC is scheduled to sunset by June 30, 2023
•Extension of its work to this date (from November 2022) was intended
to allow the committee to finish its work on this phase of the
Sr./Community Center project and report to the Select Board its final
recommendations.
•ReCALC has developed an in depth understanding of the community
needs.
•Whether ReCALC continue to exist, executing the
recommendations found in this summary report would benefit
from continued support from members of the ReCALC committee.
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 1 of 10
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING
COMMITTEE (ReCalc) SUMMARY REPORT
February 28, 2023
Presented by: ReCalc Members
• John O’Neill – Chair
• John Sasso – Vice Chair
• Ron Assini
• Nora Bucko
• Michael Coltman
• Mark Dockser
• John Parsons
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 2 of 10
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement: ................................................................................................................ 2
Executive Summary & Recommendations: .............................................................................. 3
Senior Only versus All-Ages Community Center (ACC): ............................................................ 7
Deliverables: .......................................................................................................................... 8
Next Steps: ............................................................................................................................. 9
Attachment A – Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living
(ReCal), February 2023 ......................................................................................................... 10
Attachment B – ReCalc Visit Summary Report ...................................................................... 10
Attachment C – ReCalc Communication Plan ........................................................................ 10
Attachment D – Reading COA Motions (February 13, 2023) .................................................. 10
Attachment E – Community Services Memorandum to ReCalc (February 15, 2023) ............... 10
Acknowledgement:
The members of ReCalc would like to acknowledge the efforts and support of the following boards,
committees, commissions, town government departments, organizations and individuals. This report,
and the efforts it represents, would not have been possible without the cooperation of those named
below.
- Reading Council on Aging
- Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging Gerontology Institute at UMASS Boston -
Reading Select Board
- Local Senior/Community Centers Visited
- Jean Delios, Assistant Town Manager
- Jenna Fiorente, Community Services Director
- Kevin Bohmiller, Community Services Director (Retired 6/22)
Lastly, we want to acknowledge Elder Services Town staff who have served the community well; albeit
constrained by a building that presents challenges.
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 3 of 10
Executive Summary & Recommendations:
The Reading Center for Active Living Committee (ReCalc) was charged with the following:
The charge of ReCalc is to explore the current and future needs of the Community, and initiate
planning for a potential new Senior/Community Center in town that will focus on residents aged
60+ and possibly other members of the Community
ReCalc has determined that the issues identified in the 2017 Report (Aging in Reading, Massachusetts: A
community needs assessment), still exist. The current Senior Center is inadequate. The community is in
support of upgrading its facility and service/program offerings to meet the needs of the growing elder
population. This must include an accessible, inclusive building and that has sufficient space to provide
support services, programs, events for reading residents age 60+ now and into the future. Therefore;
The primary recommendation from ReCalc is to identify and implement a solution to the
facility needs for the Senior population in the immediate (2 to 3 year) timeframe.
Through its efforts, which included the hiring of a consultant (Center for Social and Demographic
Research on Aging Gerontology Institute at UMASS Boston), ReCalc accomplished two major goals:
(1) Identified current and future needs of the entire community for a Senior/Community Center
(with a dedicated senior space)
(2) Solicited the community’s preference for addressing facility needs
Note: Although not originally defined, the premise of an all-ages Community Center (hereafter referred to as an
ACC) is intended to mean a facility (or facilities) that provides programs and services for the entire community
(multi- and/or inter-generational) with dedicated space for senior (ages 60+) programming and services. This was
explicitly included as a basis for the preferences in the Community Survey. For readability purposes, when
referring to the ACC throughout this report, it includes the assumption of dedicated senior space.
Summary information for both goals can be found in the first two sections of this report.
ReCalc implemented the following strategies in support of these goals:
(1) Engaged the community, with assistance from the UMass Consultant, through several forums
and focus groups, culminating with a survey of 1470 residents (see Attachment A)
(2) Collaborated with other community partners and volunteer boards including but not limited to:
the Select Board; the Council on Aging; the Reading Public Library (provided meeting room use)
and RCTV (recorded ReCalc meetings, public forums, and provided additional support).
(3) Benchmarked twelve Senior Center (12) and three Community Centers (3) in 15 local
communities (see Attachment B)
(4) Established lines of communication and began the process of educating the community about
the need for an accessible, inclusive Senior Center that has sufficient square footage to provide
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 4 of 10
support services, programs, events for reading residents age 60+ for now and into the future.
(see Attachment C)
(5) Explored a combined option of an ACC.
In addition to the primary recommendation (above), the following are supporting recommendations
based on the work performed by ReCalc:
(1) Review the identified needs, perform a more detailed assessment of priorities, and then define
explicit plans to address the needs. This should include all aspects of facility, staffing, services,
programs, transportation, financial, etc., and should consider centralized and distributed
approaches to service/program delivery whenever possible.
(2) Perform feasibility study (studies) on potential Senior Center/ACC solutions that may include
renovation or construction of buildings. Ensure any proposed facility satisfies all ADA
requirements and inclusivity recommendations for all populations.
(3) Advocate for continued investment in Elder Services (to support capital and operational
expenses) aligned with the facility investments resulting from (1) and (2) above and Sr. Center
use projections established from current use, demographic trends and comparable community
data.
(4) Develop communication strategies and tools to keep the community informed of efforts and the
rationale/priority for addressing the identified issues and unmet needs.
(5) Support the concept of an ACC ensuring first that the needs of the Seniors are being met.
Implicit in this recommendation is to consider the “inventory” of currently provided Reading
services and facilities to determine how best to meet the needs of the community. Whenever
possible space in the ACC would be available for the community at large to use as is the option
with current space at the Senior Center which is available for groups to reserve and use.
Although not something that can be implemented by the Town, ReCalc has encountered several
communities that have established non-profit organizations (e.g., Friends group) for the purpose of
fundraising for Senior activities. Many have used these organizations to fund furniture, fixtures and
equipment in new and/or renovated Senior Center/ACC. ReCalc encourages the creation of a non-profit
organization independent of town government that can raise funds for seniors. This model has been
used successfully in other communities and provides an added resource to meet the needs of the senior
population.
At their meeting on February 13, 2023, the Reading Council on Aging (COA) voted to support two
motions related to the efforts of ReCalc. A copy of the COA communication is included as Attachment D
to this report.
Lastly, the Community Services team provided input to ReCalc regarding other deficiencies and needs
that should be considered (and addressed) as part of this process. While many of the items were not
explicitly raised during the survey or other community input sessions, these do represent opportunities
for synergies for programs and service offerings given additional (new) space. A copy of this input can
be found in Attachment E.
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 5 of 10
Needs:
The following is an overall assessment of community needs derived from the work described herein.
The focus of ReCalc was to assess needs and then translate that assessment into a recommendation for
a Senior Center/ACC. This section does not provide recommendations for specific programs and
services, although examples are discussed to provide context. While it is true that specific program and
service needs differ by age group, the implications for the facility (indoor & outdoor space and
accessibility) appears to be consistent (and similar). In particular, the survey results, although not a true
prioritization, provide insight into the top five selected indoor & outdoor space and accessibility needs
across the age groups, and for the most part, those results were well aligned. Looking at service needs,
there was a clear difference in choices (respondents were given option to select service importance) by
age group. A more detailed view of the information supporting this needs summary can be found in
Attachments A and B. Needs listed below are enumerated as General needs, with implications for
specific Facility needs highlighted (ReCalc was chartered with assessing both).
(1) Socialization
The need for socialization is a common them especially among the older population as clearly indicated
by research. Every aspect of bringing people together can be thought of satisfying this need. From a
facility standpoint, it was interesting to note that all age groups identified similar indoor space priorities:
café or drop-in space, dedicated arts and crafts space, multipurpose space for both small and large
group activities, space for games, space for group exercise. Kitchen and dining space was of lower
interest for those under age 49 and a lounge space of higher interest for those aged 80 and older.
Although not explicitly recorded, many of the local centers visited included a dedicated lounge area.
(2) Interesting/Specialty Program Offerings
The community, especially Seniors, expressed their desire for expanded program offerings. An ACC
would be designed to draw in more participants and engage a larger demographic. Examples of
programs discussed include art, theater, clubs, games, thought-provoking activities, life enriching
courses in cooking, technology, lectures, etc. These offerings point to a number of different facility
needs including dedicated space for activities such as Art, Games, and Technology, and flexible
multipurpose space (large space) that can be configured (broken up into smaller space) to adapt for a
particular program. Classrooms and program rooms should be designed to incorporate technology for
audio and visual presentations and the capability to receive participants who are participating virtually.
(3) Physical Activity
One of the top attended programs at the current Pleasant Street Center (PSC) are those with a physical
activity component, such as Zumba or Yoga. The feedback from the community was consistent is this
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 6 of 10
regard, expressing more support and facilities for fitness programs and access to exercise equipment.
They would also like to see expansion of these programs and the addition of other options such as
Dance. These programs require dedicated space, or at least space that is designed with the correct
flooring (etc.) to support these activities. Having dedicated fitness and exercise rooms (indoor space)
were listed as a top priority for all age groups. It’s important to note here that exercise classes for those
over 65 and those under 40 are very different. The implications for space needs based on varied
programs have not been fully assessed but should consider whether running concurrent programs is
feasible (requires additional large room space and staff).
(4) Meals
Providing the option for a daily meal was not only deemed a priority from the community survey, but
also appeared as a common service offered by peer community Senior/Community Centers. The
differentiating factor is the facility amenities to support provision of meals. Currently the PSC does not
have a working kitchen for onsite preparation, limiting what can be provided. At a minimum, having a
functional kitchen and dining space is a must. Many of the Senior/Community Centers we visited have a
commercial kitchen which provides the ability to serve larger groups and functions. In addition to the
physical space, the community expressed the need to have access to food and nutrition services. One
comment we heard was “Having high quality nutritious and delicious food is essential to continued meal
programs.”
(5) Outdoor Activity
The community has expressed the need for a set of outdoor activities that should be supported by a
new Senior Center/ACC. Top priorities in this include benches/comfortable seating, picnic area, grass
area for lawn games, gardening area and a walking/running track offering a safe space for those with
disability issues.
(6) Administrative Services
Implicit in any new Senior Center/ACC is the need to accommodate staffing to provide the programs and
services. A very specific need that is currently not being met is to provide private office spaces for staff
to conduct 1:1 appointments with residents. The UMASS report highlighted community feedback that
the staff of the Pleasant Street Center are “maxed-out in their ability to meet the demands of the
community.” Provision of adequate staffing to support the core programs and services of Elder Services
is a pre-requisite, with additional staff needed to meet new program, service and facility requirements.
When considering implications for an ACC, staffing for those expanded programs could leverage
recreation and school department staffing and resources.
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 7 of 10
(7) Accessibility
Senior Center/ACC accessibility spans several concepts. First, there is the physical accessibility aspect,
encompassing the need for design approaches to accommodate those with physical disabilities. This
includes support for hearing (audio assistive devices), sight (design considerations), and handicapped
accessibility beyond the standard ADA compliance*. Second, some Seniors currently cannot access the
PSC because of limited hours of operation (for those that work during the day), the need for
transportation (those that don’t drive), and lack of adequate parking. Third, program and/or service
accessibility can also be impacted by communication of information and the registration process. Any
solution to the needs presented in this report must address all these accessibility issues.
[*Attachment A includes references to several resources to support Accessibility in Facility Design]
(8) Affordability
An interesting piece of data from the Community Survey was the willingness of residents to pay for a
new Senior Center/ACC. Forty-seven percent of residents indicated they would be willing to pay up to
$200 (added to annual property taxes), and sixty-four percent indicated they would be willing to pay up
to $100. Conversely, nearly a third of those surveyed indicated they would not support a new building if
it required any increase in taxes, and those willing to pay $200 or more per year was only 23%.
Comments amplified the resident concerns about affordability and the realization that some may be
priced out of the community if the increase in taxes and other expenses (rent, utilities, etc.) continue
unabated.
It is therefore no surprise that the accessibility feature selected most often by respondents for a Senior
Center/ACC was No to little cost to participate in programs. One program highlighted in other
communities was the ability for Seniors to “work” (volunteer) their time and in exchange earn credit
against property taxes. [Note: this is still an option for Seniors who qualify.]
Senior Only versus All-Ages Community Center (ACC):
As part of the formal community survey, a specific question was asked about preferences for a Senior vs.
an all-ages community center (with dedicated senior space, ACC). The summary from that question is
presented in the figure below (from Attachment A). Although about half (49%) of all respondents stated
preference for an ACC, the breakout by age group is telling, with older residents preferring the Senior
Center only option (aged 70-79 at 49% and aged 80+ at 57%).
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 8 of 10
ReCalc believes that based on the feedback from the survey, discussions at community forums and focus
groups, and the way other communities that have addressed Senior needs, the desire for an all ages
community center (with dedicated senior space) is real. However, it should not take precedence over
first meeting the program, service and facility needs of Reading Seniors.
In addition to the specific question about preference for a center, the respondents were provided the
opportunity to expand upon their selection with a written response. Nearly half of the 1470
respondents did so. While 21% of the written responses advocated for a community center (ACC) as
“an opportunity for community cohesion and inclusion,” almost the same number (nearly 1 in 5)
expressed resistance to a new building or development believing there is “no perceived need for a new
Senior/Community Center (with dedicated senior space), citing sufficient existing opportunities, concerns
about town development, and financial implications.”
Deliverables:
ReCalc’s efforts were documented in several different ways, including but not limited to the following:
- ReCalc Meeting agendas and minutes
- Presentations to the Select Board
- Summary reports to Town Meeting
- Newsletters
- Postcards
- Emails
- Videos
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 9 of 10
In addition, three main reports were generated that reflect the core of the work performed by ReCalc.
They are as follows:
• Attachment A: Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal),
February 2023
• Attachment B: ReCalc Center Visit Summary Report - Oct 9 2022 Draft
• Attachment C: ReCalc Communication Plan_Nov_8_2022
An additional attachment (Attachment E) was provided by the Community Services department in the
form of a memorandum to ReCalc.
Copies of these three work products and the Community Services Memorandum can be found in the
attachments to this report and on the ReCalc page of the town’s website.
https://www.readingma.gov/601/Reading-Center-for-Active-Living-Committ
Next Steps:
ReCalc is scheduled to sunset by June 30, 2023. The extension of its work to this date (from November
2022) was intended to allow the committee to finish its work on this phase of the Senior Center/ACC
project and report to the Select Board its final recommendations.
The ReCalc Committee, in addition to accomplishing its tasks, has developed an in depth understanding
of the community needs. Its members have been actively involved in this process, having performed in-
person site visits, spoken with members of the community, attended the numerous forums and
meetings, and even advocated for ARPA grant funding for enhancing Elder Services activities and staff.
ReCalc also maximized this work by involving the Council on Aging and other partners as noted above.
ReCalc has formulated recommendations after reviewing the data collected by UMass consulting team
and acknowledges the community’s desire for an ACC. However, a phased in approach is recommended
so that the expense and time needed to meet these combined goals will most likely be the preferred
strategy so that immediate (Senior) needs can be addressed in the short-term.
The following next steps should be performed to address the primary recommendation (identify and
implement a solution to the facility needs for the Senior population in the immediate (2 to 3 year)
timeframe):
(1) Define and execute an immediate facility solution for replacing and/or expanding the current
Senior Center.
(2) Continue to enhance (invest in) the programming/services for Seniors including new offerings
and better accessibility (e.g., address transportation, evening programming, etc.)
ReCalc Summary Report
Page 10 of 10
(3) Develop communication strategies and community outreach regarding the needs for Seniors
Due to the constraints of the current Senior Center staff has always reached out to collaborate with
other town departments and community organizations. It will continue this practice as it has proved
very beneficial to be able to expand offering and services to the Elder and Human Services targeted
population. Nevertheless, Reading’s facility is not able to support the programming required to fully
meet the needs of the senior community which must be remedied in the short-term.
ReCalc also supports moving forward with an all age Community Center (ACC). The specific
recommendations defined in the Executive Summary should be pursued in parallel with the actions
above including:
(1) Review the identified needs, perform a more detailed assessment of priorities, and then define
explicit plans to address the needs. This should include all aspects of facility, staffing, services,
programs, transportation, financial, etc., and should consider centralized and distributed
approaches to service/program delivery whenever possible.
(2) Perform feasibility study (studies) on potential Senior Center/ACC solutions that may include
renovation or construction of buildings. Ensure any proposed facility satisfies all ADA
requirements and inclusivity recommendations for all populations.
(3) Advocate for continued investment in Elder Services (to support capital and operational
expenses) aligned with the facility investments resulting from (1) and (2) above and Sr. Center
use projections established from current use, demographic trends and comparable community
data.
(4) Develop communication strategies and tools to keep the community informed of efforts and the
rationale/priority for addressing the identified issues and unmet needs.
(5) Support the concept of an ACC ensuring first that the needs of the Seniors are being met.
Implicit in this recommendation is to consider the “inventory” of currently provided Reading
services and facilities to determine how best to meet the needs of the community. Whenever
possible space in the ACC would be available for the community at large to use as is the option
with current space at the Senior Center which is available for groups to reserve and use.
Attachment A – Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center
for Active Living (ReCal), February 2023
Attachment B – ReCalc Visit Summary Report
Attachment C – ReCalc Communication Plan
Attachment D – Reading COA Motions (February 13, 2023)
Attachment E – Community Services Memorandum to ReCalc (February
15, 2023)
Downtown Parking Changes
Upper Haven (CVS) and Brande Court Lots
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS FOR BUSINESSES, RESIDENTS AND USERS
MARCH 2023
What is Changing in the
Upper Haven (CVS) and
Brande Court Lots?
Upper Haven Lot
Potential Upper Haven Lot Kiosk Locations
Brande Court Potential Kiosk Location
How has parking changed
throughout downtown
following PARC and staff
recommendations?
Where are employees
expected to park now that
these changes have been
made?
Employee Parking is
Highlighted in Blue
What is our outreach and
communication plan to
ensure a smooth transition?
April May June July August
Begin Notice to Public &
Businesses
Continue
Communications with
Public & Businesses
Kiosks Installed in
Lots, App Becomes
Available for Use
Enforcement of New
Parking Lot Formats
Public Meeting to
Discuss Any Issues with
New Parking Lots
•Flyers placed on windshields
on weekly basis in both
parking lots
•Mailing to abutters and
businesses of parking lots
will occur one month before
implementation
•Social media posts on
weekly basis leading up to
implementation (Facebook,
Chamber of Commerce,
RCTV)
•In person visits to
businesses Downtown
(primary users: 22 Woburn
Street, Medical Offices on
Haven, Retailers on Main)
•Flyers placed on
windshields on weekly
basis in both parking lots
•Mailing to abutters and
businesses of parking lots
•Social media post
(Facebook, Chamber of
Commerce, RCTV)
•In person visits to
businesses Downtown
(primary users: 22
Woburn Street, Medical
Offices on Haven,
Retailers on Main)
•Kiosks installed,
communications
continue
•Parking payment
structure
completed
internally with
Reading financial
departments and
Reading Police
Department
•Upon installation of
kiosks, new parking
formats will be
enforced
•A two-week grace
period will be
granted, issuing
informational tickets
and handing out two
pagers with FAQs
and parking map
•After the two-week
period, parking
enforcement will
begin issuing
tickets/fines
•A public meeting will
be held with
businesses, property
owners, and
concerned residents to
understand what
improvements can be
made to enforcement
and understanding of
new parking format in
these lots.
What will our outreach
materials look like?
Let’s recap on our
communications plan again.
Recap on the Communications Plan
•Flyering of two-sided informational document (FAQs and Map) of vehicles in both lots will occur three
times a week for one month leading up to implementation.
•Abutting businesses and property owners will receive a mailing of the two-sided informational document
one month before implementation.
•The Economic Development Director will work in person with abutting businesses (such as the retail and
restaurants next to the Upper Haven lot and the medical offices abutting Brande Court) to help them
understand the impacts of implementation for employee parking.
•The Economic Development Director will work with relevant communication networks, including Town
Hall communications staff, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, the Public Library, and other
relevant communication networks to disseminate information regarding changes to these lots.
Q&A Session
Thank You!
Update to Reading Select Board
March 21, 2023
Town Forest Committee
Town Forest Committee Update
Report on dead pine tree removal
Report on invasive plant control
Status of ARPA funds approved by the Select Board for
Town Forest work
Need to investigate if policy changes should be developed
to reduce conflicts between residents and commercial dog
walkers with large groups of unleashed dogs
Red pine trees in the Town Forest are dying due to
climate change and invasive plants are widespread
The Problem –Red Pine Trees:
Red pine trees were planted
starting in the 1930s as a
resource to be periodically
harvested
Red pines are suited for more
northern latitudes
Climate change has stressed the
red pines
This stress makes the red pines
vulnerable to fungus and insects
such as pine scale
Need to remove the dead trees
before they fall and potentially
injure users of the Town Forest
or catch on fire
Red Pine Areas
Work to Date:
Phase 1 removed dead trees
on 4.5 acres in January 2020
at a cost of $28,400 (Town
funds)
Phase 2 another 4.5 acres at a
cost of $22,900 January 2022
(Town funds with a $10,000
grant from DCR)
Phase 3 another 4.8 acres at a
cost of $36,493 November
2022 (ARPA funds with a
$10,000 grant from DCR)
Projects were bid and
managed by Reading DPW
The Problem –Invasive Plants:
Invasive plants such as
buckthorn, Japanese
knotweed, tree of
heaven and black
swallow-wort have
become firmly
established in the Town
Forest
The adjacent Compost
Area is a reservoir of
invasives that will
spread into the Town
Forest
If not controlled now,
native plants will be
crowded out and the
Town Forest will be a
tangle of invasive plants
Tree of Heaven Black Swallow-wort
Japanese Knotweed
Buckthorn
Invasive Plants Work to Date:
Volunteer buckthorn pulling by
Scouts, Town residents and others
such as Amazon Robotics
Phase 1 pilot buckthorn treatment
by Parterre Ecological June 2022 at a
cost of $9,545 (Town funds)
An invasive plant inventory and
management plan was prepared by
Parterre in February 2023 at a cost
of $9,575 (ARPA funds) to be used to
document the locations of invasive
plants and plan control measures
including work to be bid to certified
applicators
Invasive Plant Inventory and Management Plan
Status of ARPA Funds
$100,000 of ARPA funds was authorized by the Select Board for dead
tree removal and invasive plant control
Spent to date: $36,068 (dead trees and invasive plants)
Current Balance: $63,932
Estimate for Phase 2 of invasive plant control: $60,000 to $63,932
Additional phases of dead tree removal and invasive plant control will
be needed beyond the currently authorized ARPA funds
Phase 4 of dead tree removal should be carried out in FY 2024 at a cost
of approximately $40,000
Phase 3 of invasive plant control will cost approximately $70,000
Grants will be sought for this work
Concern with Number of Dogs off-leash per handler
Continuing complaints about conflicts between commercial dog walkers with
multiple off-leash dogs and the public
Current bylaw allows for off-leash when under voice control
A recent Facebook post by one commercial dog walker said that:
“I’m a dog walker there [Town Forest] and I bring in 8 off leash and they are all under
voice control. There are a lot of people on the trail who are very mean and will treat you
this way. I deal with it everyday –just do your own thing and ignore them!”
Are the conflicts caused by the dogs not being under voice control?
Do members of the public feel unsafe by large groups of unleashed dogs?
Are residents safety concerns being ignored?
Police limited response due to current bylaw (Town Forest and Conservation Land)
The Town Forest Committee investigating policies in other towns and how they
handle conflicts
Dead trees have been removed from 13.8 acres to date
Replanting will continue in the areas cleared of dead pine trees
The process to control invasive plants has begun and will need
to extend beyond 2023
The Town Forest Committee will investigate the dog policies in
other towns and will explore options to reduce negative
interactions with residents
Summary
Bill Sullivan, Chair
Nancy Docktor
Tom Gardner
Kurt Habel
Bill Hughes
Jeff Lamson
Tim Kirwan
Reading Town Forest Committee
April 4, 2023 TOWN ELECTION
April 18, 2023 Tuesday
Overview of Meeting Dockser 7:00
Public Comment Board 7:05
SB Liaison & Town Manager Reports Board 7:15
Quarterly EV Charging Station Update
from RMLD Board 7:30
Vote on recommendations of parking
violation fees and potential changes Board 7:45
Vote to Accept Donation of Land, 0
Sanborn Lane Board 8:30
8:45
Discuss Future Agendas Board 9:00
Approve Meeting Minutes Board 9:30
April 24, 2023 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
April 27, 2023 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
May 1, 2023 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
May 4, 2023 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
May 9, 2023 Tuesday
May 23, 2023 Tuesday
June 6, 2023 Tuesday
June 20, 2023 Tuesday
July 18, 2023 Tuesday
August 1, 2023 Tuesday
August 22, 2023 Tuesday
September 12, 2023 Tuesday
September 26, 2023 Tuesday
October 10, 2023 Tuesday
October 24, 2023 Tuesday
November 7, 2023 Tuesday
November 13, 2023 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
November 16, 2023 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
November 20, 2023 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
November 21, 2023 Tuesday
Novmeber 27, 2023 SUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING
December 5, 2023 Tuesday
Vote to approve annual licenses
(delegated to TM Office)
Vote to approve Liquor Licenses
December 6, 2023 Wednesday
Department Budget Presentations
December 12, 2023 Tuesday
Department Budget Presentations
Future Meetings - Agenda Items
VASC Policy Changes and
Recommendations VASC
Discuss Early Sunday Hours at
Recreational Fields & Parks Rec Comm
Discuss/Vote to adopt Birch Meadow
Master Plan (discuss with Town
Counsel in advance) Rec Comm
Public Safety Quarterly updates Board
Air BnB update CPDC
Update on 186 Summer Ave / Review of
Select Board role (consult with Town
Counsel) Town Counsel
Discuss Police Department Policies with
respect to Police Reform Legislation &
Department Accreditation Board
Discuss and Approve Flag Policy Board
Recurring Agenda Items
Close Warrant: Annual Town Meeting March 3/1/2022
Close Warrant: Subsequent Town September 9/27/2022
Appoint Town Accountant March Annual
HEARING Approve Classification & May Annual
Appointments of Boards & Committees May/June Annual
HEARING Approve Tax Classification October Annual
HEARING Approve Licenses December Annual
Liaison: RCTV members Report Annual
Liaison: CAB (RMLD) member Report Annual
Liaison: MAPC member Report Annual
Liaison: Reading Housing Authority Annual
Liaison: Reading Ice Arena Report Annual
Town Accountant Report Qtrly
Economic Development Director Semi-ann
Parking/Traffic/Transportation Task
Town Board & Committee visits
Town Department visits
Review Select Board Goals
Review Town Manager Goals
Select Board Draft Minutes
March 7th, 2023
Public Comment
Peter Kramer feels the DPW staff is not being paid enough and that is why they keep leaving. He also
thinks they do a terrible job snow plowing.
Melissa Murphy feels the Select Board should look at implementing a second water meter while
discussing rates for next year.
Liz Whitelam noted she saw the discussion about Town Counsel was on the agenda and wanted to come
and publicly praise and thank her for all her hard work. She worked with Ivria when she was on the PARC
committee and she is a fantastic resource for the town to have.
Jessie Arnold also was present to express gratitude and thanks towards Ivria. She worked with her while
on the Bylaw Committee and feels her knowledge and answers are extremely thorough and helpful.
Angela Binda echoed the prior two comments in regards to Town Counsel and would like to express her
support and thanks to Ivria.
Liaison Reports
Bacci went first noting the Board of Health is updating their tobacco regulations and will be holding a
public hearing in the spring. They are also working on a community health needs assessment. He also
noted the March 11th pickleball event.
Haley noted Winterfest is this Thursday on the common. The VASC interviewed some great candidates
and they have some recommendations for the full board tonight.
McCarthy noted there is a therapeutic art program for adults with disabilities on March 8th and 22nd.
There is an event on March 30th for overcoming hurdles to disabilities inclusion. Lastly, there is a vaccine
clinic on Friday.
Herrick attended the Mass School Building Association’s latest meeting which Fidel will update more on.
Reading Housing Authority met last night and were discussing the new trust. She noted residents were
speaking about the transportation issues/ timing of available rides. There was a change of ownership on
Minot Street and the new owner plans to raise the rent and she is wondering if there is anything we can
do to help those residents. She attended the Council on Aging meeting and they were discussing starting
a “friends of…” type group.
Dockser noted RECALC met with the Council on Aging and discussed the rendering of a potential building
at Harden Street. The Council is very enthusiastic about a new building and coming together to look at
what is potential to happen sooner rather than later.
Town Manager Report
Fidel noted the Killam School has been officially voted on to enter the next phase of the project to do a
feasibility study. The Town put out a press release which can be found on the town website and in the
Select Board packet. He then noted due to inflation and supply chain issues, the Birch Meadow project
Phase 1, which ARPA set aside $1.5 M for, is severely over budget. He explained the three options would
be to just do the infrastructure, just do the building or do it all. All of these options will need more
money from Town Meeting which is Article 14 in the warrant. He plans to bring a recommendation to
the board at their next meeting. Lastly, there will be a public forum to discuss the trash and recycling
carts proposal again on March 27th at 6pm. The Assistant DPW Director Chris Cole will give a
presentation.
Quarterly Finance Update
Town Accountant Sharon Angstrom gave the board a presentation of the town’s finances for this
quarter. She noted everything is on track for this time of year. The full presentation can be found in the
Select Board packet on the town website.
She then went through the Towns’ Municipal Financial Self-Assessment. This presentation can also be
found in the Select Board Packet on the town website.
Haley moved to appoint Sharon Angstrom as Town Accountant for a term July 1, 2023 through June
30, 2024. The motion was seconded by McCarthy and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Town Counsel Discussion
Haley feels since there is no review process for Town Counsel, we should see if there are some things
that can be improved upon. He spoke of the issue with the holiday display discussion and feels there
could have been a lot more done in the beginning of that whole item.
Bacci noted he wanted this agenda item because he feels the board should look at their options and see
what else is out there to make sure they are getting what they want and at a good rate.
McCarthy feels Ivria’s analysis of the holiday display was sound and she appreciates how she responds
to the board with her answers. She normally agrees that shopping around is best but noted there are
only a handful of firms who handle municipal law.
Herrick noted she appreciates how responsive Ivria is and how thorough she is in her answers. She has
enjoyed working with her over the years and feels she helped us greatly when 59 Middlesex sued the
town. She also noted that she was on the Town Manager search committee in which Ivria was excellent
in that process as well. She is very satisfied with the services we are receiving and doesn’t feel the needs
to undergo the process of looking at other firms.
Dockser also noted he appreciates the way Ivria answers the boards and gives precise answers with the
options the board has. He believes the services they have been receiving are exceptional. He noted he
spoke with some other communities who use Miyares & Harrington and received all strong comments.
He also noted we have a history with Miyares & Harrington and there is a benefit to that.
Maltez echoed a lot of previous comments made and noted he is thankful to be working with Ivria.
Haley noted he does not agree with the statement made previously about the 59 Middlesex Ave; he
feels that was not a win for the town and it never should have gone that far.
VASC
McCarthy went through and explained the candidates, their backgrounds, and which roles they applied
for. Haley noted the candidates were all well qualified and they even had someone who is moving to
Reading next month apply for a position already.
Haley moved to appoint:
• Liz Rogers to a full position on the Cultural Council with a term expiring June 30, 2026.
• William McCants to a full position on the Conservation Commission with a term expiring June
30, 2025.
• Chris Cridler to a full position on the ZBA with a term expiring June 30, 2024.
• Tony Rodolakis to an associate position on the Conservation Commission with a term expiring
June 30, 2024. (Applicant requested the associate position vs. full)
• Mark Wetzel to a full position on the CPDC with a term ending June 30th, 2024
• William Hughes to a full position on the Town Forest Committee with a term ending June 30th,
2024
• Salvatore Clemente to an associate position on the Animal Control Appeals Committee with a
term ending June 30th, 2024
The motion was seconded by Herrick and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Water & Sewer Rates Discussion
Town Manager Maltez gave the board a presentation on going to a tiered water rate system. The lowest
tier would capture small users, seniors, people living alone; the middle tier would capture the average
residential user and the top tier would capture commercial accounts and larger residential users.
Moving to a tiered system would give the lowest users a reduction but give the larger users a cost
increase. The presentation gave the board some projections in new bills per user along with a
recommendation on rates per each tier. The full presentation and information on the new proposed
tiered system can be found in the Select Board packet on the Town website.
Haley noted his concerns about the tier 4 and 5 people getting a 12% increase. He also asked about
second water meters noting now would be a good time to roll out a program for those as well.
Dockser feels the number of people that would feel the 12% increase is slim compared to how many
more would benefit in the lower tiers. He feels the 5 tiers seems about right with maybe a little bit of
tweaking with rates.
Bacci feels this is a good start but they need to look more into the future not just for FY24.
McCarthy asked about process, and it was noted the consultant will give another presentation at their
next meeting and then the board will vote at a future meeting in the Spring. The rates would go into
effect in September.
Herrick appreciates the work to look into a tiered system. She noted most other communities have
already done this and thinks it would benefit the residents greatly. She also noted there is a history that
can be looked into about why second water meters have been consistently voted down in the past.
Dockser the MWRA assessment is the problem and what is hurting our rates. They discussed if/what can
be done about that.
Vote to close Warrant
Maltez noted that two citizen petitions came in after the board already closed the warrant but still
before the deadline so the board must re-open the warrant and add them to it. They will be Article 24
and 25 in the warrant.
Haley moved to reopen the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. The motion was seconded by Herrick
and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Haley moved to insert two citizen petition articles submitted pursuant to Section 2.1.7 of the Town's
General Bylaws into the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant. The motion was seconded by Bacci and
approved with a 5-0 vote.
Haley moved to close the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant now consisting of 25 articles. The
motion was seconded by Bacci and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Discuss and Vote on Town Manager Goals
Maltez gave the board a presentation on his goals for the next year. The presentation can be found in
the Select Board packet on the town website.
The board gave their thoughts and discussed the construction tracker idea, the health department
staff/budget, and grant opportunities.
Haley moved to approve the town manager goals as amended. The motion was seconded by Herrick
and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Fostering Volunteerism
Dockser noted he looked around at other communities and it seems we are not alone with the
vacancies. He also looked into how other communities were advertising their vacancies. Most commonly
was the website but right on the front page at the top so it is very visible.
Haley noted he did get some feedback from a volunteer who used the website to find the vacancies and
noted while he did find them, it would be much better if it was easier to find, like on the homepage.
McCarthy also noted recent feedback was opportunities being heard about through word of mouth from
other residents/volunteers.
Haley suggested sending out volunteer vacancies in notices/water bill mailings. He also suggested giving
out gift cards to local businesses to people who volunteer.
The board agreed posters around town and town buildings would be helpful.
17 Harnden Street
Dockser noted there is no update for this agenda item so they will postpone it until their next meeting
when hopefully there is an update to discuss.
Future Agendas
The board discussed future agenda items.
Minutes
The board edited previous meeting minutes.
Haley moved to approve the meeting minutes from February 21st, 2023 as amended. The motion was
seconded by Herrick and approved with a 5-0 vote.
Haley moved to adjourn at 10:38 PM; with a second from Herrick the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.