HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-04 Permanent Building Committee MinutesTown of Reading
4,; & Meeting Minutes
z
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
Date: 2024-11-04
Building: Reading Town Hall
Address: 16 Lowell Street
Purpose: Permanent Building Committee
Attendees: Members - Present:
please see attached
Members - Not Present:
please see attached
Others Present:
Permanent Building Committee Meeting
Time: 6:00 PM
Location: Berger Room
Session:
Version: Draft
Please see attached
Minutes Respectfully submitted By: Brian Hromadka from Turner &Townsend
Topica of Discussion:
Please see attached
Page I 1
L4 pM IZ: 39
MEETING MINUTES# 01
ARMldeee
XRJd1la
t
rdle Role
Email
TN.
etrick Tompkins
PT
Project:
Reading Center for Active Living
project No:
TTH# HII.2408100
Meeting No:
PBC - ReCAL 01
L Von:
Zoom/Town Hall (Hybrid)
Dare:
2024-11-04 @ 6:OOPM
Recorded By:
B. Hromadka
Purpose:
Reading Center for Active Living
File:
1809300 - A02-00
attachments:
Role Call Sheet. Meeting Packet
Abbreviations:
BH+A - Bergmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.
gregory_tepler®Yahoo.com
COA - Council on Aging
Irk McCormick
OPM - Owner's Project Manager
®
PBC - Permanent Building Committee
klrk.maormick@hotmail.com
ReCAL - Reading Center for Active Learning
anti Ziemlak
RDTC - Reading Daily Times Chronicle
®
RCN - Reading Community Television
nlxlemlakOgmail.com
SBC - Killam School Building Committee
ark Dockser
SO - Schematic Design
®
TOR - Town of Reading
mark.dockser®d.reading.ma.us
TTH - Turner & Townsend Heery
MEETING MINUTES# 01
ARMldeee
XRJd1la
t
rdle Role
Email
TN.
etrick Tompkins
PT
Dg
Chair, PBC, TOR
ptompkinsOctawnstruction.com
(781) 942-9043
Bnty Twomey
NT
0
Puce Chair, PBC, TOR
nj2me600mcasa.net
(781)942-9043
hn Coote
1C
®
Member, PBC, TOR
jas.cootepverizan.net
(781) 942-9043
regory Stapler
GS
0
Member, PBC, TOR
gregory_tepler®Yahoo.com
(781) 942-9043
Irk McCormick
KM
®
Member, PBC, TOR
klrk.maormick@hotmail.com
(781) 942-9043
anti Ziemlak
NZ
®
Member, PBC-ReCAL, COA, TOR
nlxlemlakOgmail.com
(781) 942-9043
ark Dockser
MD
®
Mmber, PBC-ReCAL, Select Board, TOR
mark.dockser®d.reading.ma.us
(781) 942-9043
Ichael Namm
MN
®
Associate, PBC, TOR
mpnamra@verizon.net
(781) 942-9043
rl Greenberg
AG
IZ
Associate, PBC, TOR
arisgreenbergOgmail.com
(781) 942-9043
avid Swyter
DS
❑
Associate, PBC, TOR
(781) 942-9043
Add Alaandaee
ZeMeM
invent
Conebmw [ROM)
41116
Tel.
ad Kraunelis
MK
®
Town Manager, TOR
mkraunelisoreadmgma.gov
(781) 942-9043
sine Wellman
1W
N
Asst Town Manager, TOR
jweliman®readingma.gov
(781) 942-6637
enna Wood
JWD
®
Community Services Dlrectar, TOR
jwood@reedin9ma.gov
(781) 942-6672
oe Huggins
]H
®
Director of Fadlides, TOR
jhuggIns®re,d g-gma.go,
(781) 670-2824
^"w.turnemodtowil5cad rom Page I I M4 www heery com
ar wRaaa1R
Gwnpsn7 filial
EMBN
7M.
Cal
KC
®
Assistant Dinill of Facilmes, TOR
kcabuz7J0d.rading.ma.us
(781) 942-5492
Gabrlello
KG
❑
Director of Operations, TOR
kgabnello®readingma.gov
(781) 942-6696
Kowalski
CK
®
Elder and Human Services Adminbtrator
(791) 942-67%yn
Shapleigh
MS
0
Reading Council on Aging
shaplaigh.mar-11,Dgmail.ram
(781) 942-6794
Hromadka
SH
®
Tumer a To msend Heery (OPM)
brlan.hromadkaOtumtown.rnm
(978) 572-6509k
edam
CA
®
TumeraTownsentl Hary(OPM)
chuck.atlamOturntpwn.mm
(978)500-5435Collins
lb
PC
❑
Tumer a Townsend Hemy(OPM)
peter.colllnptumbwn.com(617)823-3265ergmann
TTH introduced themselves as the OPM. This was followed by
Is
®
Bergmann Hendne+Archetype, Inc.
IbargmannObhplus.Mon
(617) 350-0450
y Tobin
IT
❑
Borgmann Hendne+ Archetypa,tnc.
)mbrObhPimcom
(617)350 4550
Naaaro
CN
IN
Chair, Klllam school Building Commlaee
olmes
BHM
®
News Edhor, RDTC, RCN
Delvaoution
Ink1aY alwasaY
37W nab
!mall
lid.
TTH noted that the environmental test results for the Symonds
NEW BUSINESS
Any-+
aalanm
oue oua
sww
01-01
tALL 19 OMER
Closed
The meeting was called to order by PT at 6:00pm
01-02
Closed
Role call was taken by Pf. Refer to attached Role Call Sheet,
JC Joined during the site evaluation discussion.
01-03
tUaLl MMMINT
Closed
There were no public comments.
01-D4
INTRODUCTIONS
Closed
TTH introduced themselves as the OPM. This was followed by
introductions of the PBC, TOR staff and BH+A.
01-05
OPNILEVEEW OF PAST WORK
Closed
7TH provided a brief summary of their report on past work and
site evaluations. The full TTH report was included in the
meeting packet along with the feasibility study from BH+A.
TTH noted that the environmental test results for the Symonds
Way site came back favorable.
www.tumerandtownsend com Page 12 of 4 www.heeN.com
NEW BUSINESS
Page 13 of 4 www.heery con,
-
ave o.0
swv.
01-06
PBC,
11/13
Open
TTH recommended using the same site evaluation tool that
JWD,
was put together by BH+A for ReCAL and provided an overview
BH+A,
of how the tool works and how customized Input can be
TTH
provided In the final section of the tool.
NT commented about weighting each site location within the
evaluation tool. Site locations and past survey results related
to location were discussed. MD & JWD provided insights from
ReCAL's use of the tool, including consideration of location and
community feedback. NZ provided feedback from COA noting
that Symonds Way appeared to be the preferred site.
PT solicited feedback on the weighting of each evaluation
category. MD recommended looking closer at the operational
costs In the future and perhaps bring on an outside consultan
to assist. JC noted the Importance of considering location
relative to users and the pros and cons of the Pleasant Stree
site. Various categories were also discussed including the
ability for each evaluator to use the 20 discretionary points to
fine tune the survey to their individual values.
The PBC agreed to Increase the weighting of traffic (#3) and
use categories (#9) by 0.5 points and lower the weighting
operational costs (*8) and sustainability (#11) by 0.5 points
due to the known information on these categories at this time.
It was agreed that the final selection would be made after Input
from the selection tool was reviewed by the PBC. A vote on the
preferred site is planned for their next meeting.
01-07Closed
presented a draft project schedulehighlighting the
mon time frames between the ReCAL and Klllam School
cts and the need far clear communications to the
munity on the timing of each project. The PBC will need to
FCTSCHEDULE
lete the ReCAL site selection prior to engaging BH+A an
schematic design which is targeted to be complete by
g of 2025.
PBC agreed to prioritize the site selection in advance opcoming
Town Meetings (12"', 14"' & 18'" of November)
eting date was set for November 13' . PBC members will
review past reports and submit their evaluation tool results to
JWD by 11/11 In preparation for the 11/13 meeting. TTH will
continue to update the schedule over the course of the project.
01-08
WORKINGORQUIPS
PBC
11/13
Open
The PBC discussed setting up working groups to help support
the PBC and bring in other stakeholders to provide Input on the
project. Three main groups were identified including
communications, sustainability and overall design/use. PBC
members will consider potential member selections in
preparation for PBC review. Recommendations can be sent to
JWD or JW. Further discussion and participant selection will be
targeted for the next meeting.
Page 13 of 4 www.heery con,
NEW BUSINESS
e" -Moe
A-W000rt
weak
Meter
01-09
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Closed
Site Selection, PBC Working Groups, Invoice Approvals
01-10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Closed
A motion to approve the meeting minutes from 09/16/2024
was made by MD and seconded by KM. A role call vote was
taken.
01-11
AMURNMENT
Closed
A motion to adjourn was made by ]C and seconded by MD. A
role call vote was taken. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 pm.
"oet�dag: November 13M, 7:30pm, Zoom/Town Hall (Hybrid)
END OF MINUTES.
]be above summarizes Tome, a Townsend Heeryt Intergmtebon orltems doo Beed, and Oetlslons reaMed dud, Me meeting. Addffi nS or conectmns
must be submitted in wMMg M Me auMor we Mn Mree days orreceoa gMer , Me minutes w✓I stand as wdMen.
wwwa,merandtaiNnsead.cgm Page 14of4 www heerv.cnm
�u
Project: Reading Center for Active Living
Project No: TTH# HII-2408100
Meeting No: PBC — ReCAL 01
Location: Zoorn Town Hall (Hybrid)
Date: 2024-11-04 0 6:OOPM
Recorded BY: B. Hromadka
RurPose: Reading Center for Active Living
File: 1809300 — A02-00
ROLE CALL VOTE S
Plan ATTrwnFra
ryq
Vet
VOW
"3 VVI lees we Voa] lY1 YM1
Patrick Tompkins • Chair
J
J
J
Nancy Twomey—VIM Chair
J
4
J
John Coote • Member
NPV
J
J
Gregory stapler• Member
J
4
J
IOrk McCormick -Member
J
J
J
Nancy Ziemlak • Member
J
J
J
Mark Docksor-Member
J
J
J
Michael Namm-Associate
J
AtGmenberg -Associate
J
David SigUr-Awodme
Vote 1 Roll Call
Vote Vote to Approve Meeting Minutes dated 0911624
Vote 3 Vote to Adjourn
J • is a YES vote
NPV is Not Present for Vote
AS is Abstained
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING
Owner's Project Manager Review - DRAFT
October 28, 2024
Report issued to Reading's Permanent Building Committee
Table of Contents
WaterTreatment Site............................................................................................................_............... 16
FormerWalgreens Location .................................................................................................................... 16
MasonicLodge ............................................. ............................................. ............................. _............... 16
PleasantStreet Center ............................. ............. ......................... .... .................................................... 17
Oakland Road Lot ........................ ......... .e
SymondsWay........................................................................................._....._..._................................... 18
ProjectFeasibility........................................................................................................................................ 19
PleasantStreet Site Analysis .................. _............................................................................................... 22
ExistingBuilding........................................................... _...... _............................................................. 22
22
Cost....................................................................................................................................._.............. 23
OaklandRoad Site Analysis ....................................................................._........._...................................25
Construction........................................................................................................................................ 25
Cost..................
SymondsWay Site Analysis..................................................................................................................... 27
Land..................................................... _...................................................... _................................... _. 27
Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Cost............
Project Budget..,
Project Schedule
READING CENTER FOR ACFIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 1 of 31
Communications& Public Outreach........................................................................................................... iu
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................30
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 2 of 31
Executive Summary
Following a 2015 study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) indicating a significant
expected increase in Reading's senior population, Reading commissioned the University of
Massachusetts Boston's Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging (UMass) to assist the
Town In understanding the needs of this demographic group within the community. A significant finding
from the ensuing UMass work indicated a present shortcoming in services and facilities to serve this pan
of Reading's population.
In response to this identified need, the Town of Reading's Select Board established a committee to
investigate specific solutions for this problem. The committee was known as the Reading Center for
Active Living Committee (RECALL) and served from 2021 to 2024. Duringthis time the committee
worked with various community groups and design professionals to document specific needs and
establish the necessary parameters for improvements to senior programs within the community.
Through conversations with user groups and investigations of senior programs in other towns, RECALL
clearly established that Reading's current home for senior programs, the Pleasant Street Center, was not
able to address the Town's needs under Its current wnfiguration and building footprint.
A community wide survey conducted by RECALC indicated strong support for expanding these services
with 64% of residents being willing to accept an <$100 tax increase (in 2022 dollars) and 4796 willing to
pay an <$200 Increase to fund these efforts. The committee began looking at potential expansion
opportunities at the current location as well as considering several other potential sites. The effort was
to leave no stone unturned when finding the best location for the expanded senior programs.
In 2024 RECALL engaged with Bergmann Mend He+Archetype, Inc. architects (BH+A) to conduct a
detailed investigation Into the project's feasibility by studying the three most promising sites. These
included the current Pleasant Street Center location, a 4.5 -acre Town owned IM on Oakland Road (across
from the High School), and space within a 15.2 acre piece of Town owned land located at Symonds Way,
which currently houses the Burbank Ice Arena and Symonds Athletic Field.
The design team worked with civil engineers and traffic consultants to document and evaluate each of
the locations and determine where the proposed program could most suitably be Implemented. They
also provide professional cost estimates of probable development costs for all three locations.
These findings were presented to RECALL and resulted in the different sites being rated for suitability by
the committee as well as the Council on Aging and the design team. Using a scoring matrix, RECALC
members factored in a wide variety of site -related topics including accessibility, neighborhood
disruption, traffic, parking, development and operational costs, and many more. While all three sites
showed potential and were able to accommodate at least a number of the stated objectives, the
evaluation led to a first, second and third choice among the three.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 3 of 31
=-Rr
Y.
Lowest on the list was the current Pleasant Street location. Although the accessibility of the site was
valued, lack of space for all needed programs, historical restrictions on the existing facility, limited
parking availability and a proposed addition that could potentially overwhelm the residential
neighborhood and historic structure caused it to finish in third place.
In second place was the Oakland Road location. This hilly property was able to accommodate the full size
of the building but had limited space for future expansion or additional outdoor spaces such as a walking
trail and flat surface for lawn games. The proximity to residential neighbors was also a concern. Benefits
of this site included overflow parking during non -school hours at the adjacent High School.
The first choice among RECALL and all other groups went to the Symonds way location. The flat site was
able to accommodate the full program as well as provide ample space for exterior recreational uses,
overflow parking and future expansion. Although the site abuts wetland, the study showed that there
was ample buildable land. One outstanding question was whether any contaminated soils were located
on the site, and if so, if that would alter this property's position as most desirable. In October of 2024,
Wilcox & Barton was engaged to explore the possibility of hazardous materials on the site. Their report is
expected to be released by the beginning of November.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 4 of 31
M®
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING -OPM REVIEW Page 5 of 31
RECALL
COA
ALL
SHIM
Average
Amp
Average
Average
%of
%of
%of
%of
Awage 9falghls
Rax
Average Weighte
Sea
Avenge Waighk
Nn
Averge Welghte
%n
&oro
d3can
Soon
Score
d8care
Score
Score
dScen
Scare
Score
dScore
Scare
leasant
res of the site
2.9
4.3
29%
3.3
4.9
33%
3.0
4.5
30%
2.0
3.0
20%
impact on abutters
3.9
5.8
39%
3.6
5.4
36%
3.6
5.4
36%
3.0
4.5
30%
traffic cocdidons
4.7
4.7
47%
5.5
5.5
55%
5.1
5.1
51%
4.0
4.0
40%
parking quantity
2.7
4.1
27%
4.8
7.1
48%
3.9
5.8
39%
2.0
3.0
20%
oration of parking
7.7
7.7
77%
7.1
7.1
71%
7.2
7.2
72%
8.5
8.5
85%
e0andsMoodawart
7.7
7.7
77%
8.9
8.9
89%
8.4
8.4
84%
10.0
10.0
100%
she construction coal
4.3
6.4
43%
5.4
8.1
54%
4.9
7.4
49%
7.0
10.5
70%
operational coals
5.0
5.0
50%
5.4
5.4
54%
5.2
51
52%
3.0
3.0
30%
muM-gen use
3.4
3.4
34%
5.5
5.5
55%
4.4
4.4
44%
7.5
7S
75%
outdoor activities
2.3
2.3
23%
2.6
2.6
26%
2.6
2.6
26%
1.0
1.0
10%
sustainability impact
4.1
4.1
41%
3.5
3.5
35%
3.9
3.9
39%
4.0
4.0
40%
niorcenter
5.1
7.7
51%
4.8
7.1
48%
4.9
7.4
49%
4.0
6.0
40%
Total Score
54
63
44%
50
71
49%
57
67
46%
56
65
48%
Oakland
area of the site
7.4
11.1
74%
5.9
8.8
59%
6.9
10.3
69%
7.0
10.5
70%
Impact on abutters
3.4
5.1
34%
3.9
5.8
39%
3.9
5.8
39%
3.5
5.3
35%
ffic conditions
5.1
5.1
51%
49
4.9
49%
5.1
5.1
51%
8.0
8.0
80%
parking quantity
7.3
10.9
73%
69
12.0
80%
7.8
11.7
78%
9.5
14.3
95%
location of parking
8.0
89
80%
8,5
8.5
85%
SA
8.4
84%
8.0
8.0
80%
etandsMoodplains
7.0
79
70%
6.4
6.4
64%
6.8
6.6
68%
9.5
9.5
95%
its construction cost
3.9
59
39%
4.6
6.9
46%
4.1
6.2
41%
3.0
4.5
30%
pera6onal costs
6.1
6.1
61%
6.5
6.5
65%
6.5
6.5
65%
7.5
7.5
75%
multi -gen use
6.1
8.1
81%
6.8
6.8
68%
7.5
7.5
75%
6.0
6.0
60%
utdoor activities
6.3
6.3
63%
5.5
5.5
55%
5.9
5.9
59%
5.0
5.0
50%
ustainability impact
5.7
5.7
57%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.0
6.0
60%
8.5
8.5
85%
senior center
7.6
11.4
76%
7.3
10.9
73%
7.6
11.4
76%
8.5
12.8
85%
Total Scone
76
91
63%
74
89
61%
76
91
63%
54
100
69%
Symonds
area of the site
8.9
13.3
89%
8.9
13.3
89%
69
13:4
89%
8.5
12.8
65%
impact on abutters
8.1
12.2
81%
7.1
10.7
71%
7.7
11.6
77%
9.0
13.5
90%
traffic conditions
6.6
6.6
66%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.4
6.4
64%
8.0
8.0
80%
parking quantity
8.7
13.1
87%
8.6
12.9
66%
8.8
13.2
88%
9.0
13.5
90%
location of paddng
7.0
7.0
70%
7.6
7.6
76%
7.5
7.5
75%
7.5
7.5
75%
OandsMoodplelne
3.9
3.9
39%
4.8
4.8
48%
4.4
4.4
44%
4.5
4.5
45%
'le consbuctioo cost
5.1
7.7
51%
5.1
7.7
51%
5.1
7.7
51%
5.0
7.5
50%
banal costs
6.9
6.9
69%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.6
6.6
66%
8.0
8.0
60%
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING -OPM REVIEW Page 5 of 31
mu6-gen use
outdoor activities
sue@inabiliry, impact
nor center
6.3
U
7.0
8.1
6.3
8.9
7.0
122
63%
89%
70%
81%
5.4
8.6
6.6
8.1
5.4
8.6
6.6
12.2
54%
86%
66%
81%
5.9
8.9
6.9
8.2
5.9
8.9
6.9
12.3
59%
89%
69%
82%
54
9.0
8.0
10.0
5.5
9.0
8.0
15.0
55%
90%
80%
100%
Total Score
85
105
72%
93
102
70%
95
105
72%
92
113
78%
Subjective Boom
Pleasant
5.9
5.9
29%
8.8
8.8
44%
72
7.2
36%
5.0
5.0
25%
Oakland
11.0
11.0
55%
11.8
11.8
59%
11.5
11,5
58%
12S
12.5
63%
Symonds
14.0
14.0
70%
17.2
17.2
86%
15.4
15A
77%
16.5
16.5
83%
Incl Score -Pleasant
fi0
69
42%
69
80
48%
64
74
45%
61
TO
42%
irel8core-Oekknd
87
102
fit%
86
101
61%
68
103
62%
97
112
68%
inel8core-Symonds
99
119
72%
100
119
72%
101
120
73%
109
129
78%
After reviewing work completed by the Town of Reading and Its consultants, it is the opinion of Turner &
Townsend Heery (7TH( that the Town has done an excellent Jab in studying the needs of the community
and putting together a program that is supported by residents and will satisfy elder demand in the
coming decades. The feaslbility study and site selection conducted by BH+A, together with RECALL, was
professional and thorough and documented the value of each of the sites.
TTH recommends that the Permanent Building Committee use the same detailed scoring matrix to
determine which site they find most suitable after reviewing this report and the details of BH+A's
Feasibility Study (dated 06/12/2024). This recommendation can then be made to the Town's Select
Board for final review and approval.
Once the site selection is finalized, work can begin on the schematic design, community engagement,
and budget development 1n advance of spring 2025 Town Meeting.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING - OPM REVIEW Page 6 of 31
Introduction
In October of 2024, Turner & Townsend Heery (TTH) was selected to serve as Owner's Project Manager
(OPM) for the Reading Center for Active Living project. During the first few weeks TTH participated in four
meetings with Town officlaIs and past representatives of the project to gain Insight and understanding of
pertinent Issues and to develop a plan for the project's success. Key issues identified in these meetings
included the need to coordinate activities and public outreach with the concurrent Killam Elementary
School project so that both projects could have equal representation within the community and enable
each project to stand on its own merits without one overshadowing the other. Also discussed was the
desire for creating a new community space that provided services for all ages while focusing on including
dedicated space to serve the growl ng population of Reading seniors.
As the project has been in development for some time, Reading expressed it's eagerness to build on past
momentum and move into the schematic design phase of the project in the hopes of bringing a well-
defined and priced project proposal to town meeting in the Spring of 2025. TTH was asked to review the
past work completed on the project and provide feedback to the Permanent Building Committee (PBC)
relative to its completeness and validity, as well as identify any recommended areas of investigation or
improvement. Key with this review was to provide feedback on the final potential building locations and
assist the PBC with final site selection and recommendation to the Town's Select Board.
Need Analysis & Program Development
2015 Study
In 2015 the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) developed an Economic Development Plan for
the Town of Reading that projected the senior population (age 65+) within the Town of Reading to increase
by 73% by 2030. This prediction forecasted an additional 2,500 seniors, which would bring the senior
population to nearly 7,000 residents, or over %of the Town's population. In response the Town of Reading
initiated several actions to address the changing demographic needs. One of these was to conduct a study
of the needs of the senior population to better understand how to serve this growing group of citizens.
2017 Study
In 2017 the University of Massachusetts Boston's Center for Social and Demographic Research on Aging
(UMass) was commissioned by the Town to conduct a study that would investigate the needs, interests,
preferences, and opinions of the Town's elder resident population, with respect to Irving and aging in
Reading. This effort was done in collaboration with the Town of Reading's Elder and Human Services
Division and the Center for5ocial and Demographic Research on Aging. The study identified that overthe
next few decades the number of residents over 60 would make up as much as 29% of the population.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 7 of 31
Figure A3. Population trends. age distribution of Reading residents under
age 50, age SOS9, 60-79, and age 80 and older, 2010 to 2020 with
projections to 2030•
5% 5%
1S7% 21% 23%
16%
15% 13%
64% 59% 58%
2010 2020 2030'
alunderageso sAge 50 to 59 Age 60079 Age 80 and older
U. PoPuMtlanflaumrfar 1950 Mm 2010 hem Me U.S amm. FieWerlara120anhom
AmnKan CommuNN 3yryey. }016-IDSO
Flpwahaan5 are Me 57nMa ropPotlan PmNctlmtl eenemrcdhY Me OPmhwbatlWrc Uaiwbiry
ofA6wahmetb: htlp://PePdaaaP,m'IatlWrc.eq/
This demographic group was found to live primarily alone In their own homes and have less available
income compared to younger demographic groups within the community.
Figure 10. Median bousehold income in Reading by age
and living situation (in 2015 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Householder Householder Householder Menage654 Womenage
age 25 m 44 age 45 m 64 age 654 Hying alone 65. living
alone
No,,. lndudaonlycommunayhouseholda nocgroupquamossuchasnuninghoma
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 8 of 31
The UMass team also conducted four focus groups with a total of 54 key stake holders, and in the Spring
of 2022 also sought input from 172 residents during three public forums. These community engagements
provided valuable input from Reading citizens and highlighted concerns over senior's mental health needs,
better community engagement and the multiple limitations inherent in Reading's current Pleasant Street
senior center (PSC). The need for expanded programs and resources to serve this growing demographic
group were identified as well as the need to expand operation times and transportation methods.
The study also benchmarked six area senior centers (Milton, North Andover, Bedford, Natick, Andoverand
Westborough). Many of these communities faced space shortages with their senior centers, though
Reading's facility lacked the most in terms of space per resident and was nearly Ss the size of centersthat
were deemed to have sufficient program space.
4a4onr! 9,000 1903 No
9/6
350
300
100
$1.000
Bedford 14.398 NP No
3/3
150
7
too
5000
Ntxaa 8500 2001 No
4/3
30
25
75
$750
N[ticP• 36468 2012 Y.s
5/5
250
30
125
91,375
Noah ae IAN 1965 Ro
5/7
75
45
100
53000
w.t,.,h Iowa 1989 No
4/13
45
60••'
125
SL375
Now NP=Nohow . NIX =ft, soli[aN['PT=6W111me; Ph
rtYmm
0.999
No
loMaJ,om NNrn[[L
fin/ a1.
avmwnt,[part,vmPlehEN]OIA
ook.ut/MAatl ,b.1anr[entn'xw
M1o[aM(naN,anEmuYnpal6udaing
••iecawmo.6amammmanlryrm¢.6
oq
^^na ym.mPouamaaanaaem ..oala rw
Town
Size
Population
SF Resident
Sufficient Space
Reding
p00
25 500
0.235
No
North Andover
31,000
0.238
No
Andover
,000
36,500
0.246
No
Milton
500
28,600
0.297
No
Westborough
1[7,400
0,00021
O.462
Yes
Natick
6,46837,000
0.985
No
Bedford
4,398
14,400
0.999
No
The study concluded that the existing senior center was grossly limited in its ability to serve the needs of
the Reading senior community. Both the programs that can be offered, and the number of participants
that can be accommodated are restricted by the Pleasant Street Center's size and configuration.' The
UMass study recommend working with existing community groups to explore methods of expanding
operations, facilities and accessibility of the center.
' Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal) — December 2022
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 9 of 31
2021 Committee: RECALC
Following the recommendations of the UMass study, Reading's Select Board established the Reading
Center for Active Living Committee (RECALL) to explore the current and future needs of the community
and to initiate planning for a potential new Senior/Community Center. The committee Included
representatives of the Council on Aging (CCA) and Reading's Recreation Committee, as well as five
members with backgrounds in design, construction, finance, community outreach and with various types
of involvement with the 60+ community. All meetings were open to the public and documented on the
Town's website.
One of the first actions the committee completed Was to conduct site visits to fifteen area centers to collect
data in a uniform manner about what worked and what didn't with respect to other senior and community
centers. Twelve (12) senior centers and three (3) community centers In 15 local communities were visited.
In addition, ReCALC looked at 6 communities currently planning/building new centers (Andover, Lexington,
Lincoln, Newton, N. Reading, and Wilmington) to better understand the space needs and costs of such
facilities.
MIIIItMIM LNr01r
1YwIMXeMYr
slf
I•W
P,*d
srrl
PrNPII
rerPpw
PNMm
rYM
xDsvua.
.fMnV MAe1D C.mer
]eFW
3 ]
mXl,
rYrDf
AWMitln Caun
lea fpmwmY dYf
31.
1/1f
1.1.
pW Y, mvmn,oY
Mlt�nrx Rd.Ix.. A%
Xnw4.
23
'M
Oms
3emYsdNo; Hill OI
MfWT
[wmD'eMVC[mn'
1e13
We
fML Hex01
al.
w smnrcxm�.,
n
roe
me
sa�wumNwllm,Mcommm.
L3ei w a f e[Xller MmN %Dn
X.Ilpy
c I
31Jx4
ILO
WmmXuerMeMn
The committee also engaged with the community through discussions with related community groups,
newsletters, public meeting participation and an extensive survey which was sent out to the entire
community and well represented.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 10 of 32
Figme Al. Age distribution in Reading and Massachusetts
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Massachusetts 14%17% 4%
Reading 25% 11% SK
Age 50 [p 59 MASe501a" ■AavaM
Spam: MxMnn CpNnunly.LVMR Nna-Xno lank a0lC0l. NwnWmmmbJeMJjmmSyKr
pwaeynamam
These efforts provided valuable knowledge relative to the needs and desires of Reading's citizens as well
as a benchmark of successful solutions accomplished within other communities. Key findings included the
supports an all -age community center with dedicated space for seniors, as well as the amount of financial
support citizens were willing to provide.'
22023-02-28_RECALC Summary_Repor[_Final
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 11 of 31
Figure 6 Most Preferred scenario, by age
Agag0e 5)x 30x 3%
Age fOJ9 49% 36x 9% 6%
Age 6069 36% 15% 10% 9%
Age 5059 2l% SAM, 12% 13%
Age IS 49 m
9%
Aliages33% AYM, 10% e%
I I I
0% 20% 40% 60% g0% 100%
aA Senior Center for residents age 60,
An all -ages Communlry Cmmr Inrlutling designated space end pmgrammingfor
msldents age 60.
I have ao preferentt
aother(pkaseipedrY):
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 12 of 31
Figure a Maximum household tax increase supported, by senior or community
centerpreference
34%
I
58%
Allremondmn5% 31% V%
21% 12% 11%
-M cable tefevision
8%
Asenldr Canter 6% 3{96 '30%
24% 9% ]%
89
11%
Mall-agescommuaty Lente, 6% 20% is 29%
i6% I4%
Iha.enoprehrenre 9% 32% 21%
16% 11%
Other BO%
s% 9% s%
1%
D% 20% 40% 60% 00% 100%
aN/A 1 am am responsible for paying property taxes atthb time
Towoofiteadingwebsita
ONO immas.1 would o'ysupp.m a new building if itome at m xddi0o..I mal m r side's
n Lea Man S1DD perysr
6B%
5100-11200peryear
(1%
■ 5201.5300 perysr
Local prim: (no
Da0y79mm Ghromide)
S301eperyew
7%
The survey also pointed to the need for clear communication and transparency in the development
process and how best to engage with Reading's citizens.
Q13. When do you prefer to find information about the activities and services
offered by the Town]
Newsletters(e.g., monthly
newsletter for Reading's 604)
59%
34%
MMMI
44%
58%
82%
84%
-M cable tefevision
8%
1%
7%
89
11%
2096
Word elmoum
20%
33%
21%
15%
13%
18%
Towoofiteadingwebsita
65%
71%
6B%
72%
(1%
38%
Local prim: (no
Da0y79mm Ghromide)
is%
7%
1996
20%
21%
25%
Local an.. sewspsp.r (Tha
Reading Poster The Pamh)
37%30%
40%
43%
42%
22%
Facebo.kornthersochl
marina sites
39%
6496
55%
36%
22%
10%
01her(p1easespeclff).
8%
9%
9%
1 8%
1 5%
6%
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 13 of 31
Figure 1L Where do you prefer to Md information about
the activities and services offered by the Town?
Town of Reading websites 58%
Ne"Ieners(e.g.. uonthly newsletter for 53%
ReetlNgs 60e)
Fesebook or oilier social medu sites 33%
Laol Doane newspaper(Tbe Reading 33%
Postor The Pitch)
Wordafr000tb 18%
Leal pint oewspaper Me Dally T rue 16%
Chrnnkb)
Loalabletek loa .7%
Other (plass apedy):.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 90% 60% 60% 70%
Finally, the survey sought Input on the location of a proposed Center for Active Learning and what key
program spaces and elements would be critical to the project's success. The vast majority of respondents
where open to locations throughout the Town of Reading.
Figure 7. Location preference for a future senior/community center
■Located In the downtown
fg% area
32% Located outside of the
downwwn area
1 have no preference on
location in Reali g
{3% 10%
■Other (please spaify):
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 14 of 31
In October of 2022, ReCALC presented it findings to the Select (bard. This presentation noted several key
programmatic elements Identified for the planned facility including':
• Low/No cost to use
• Ample parking, open early and late
• Large & small group programs
• Indoor exercise space
• Caf6/meal space
• Outdoor space for relaxation, walking, lawn games
As the building program developed, a more specific set of requirements was compiled. These included
the following desired spaces and attributes:
o Key indoor spaces:
• Kitchen/dining
• CaM
• Arts & crafts
• Small group activities
• Large group activities
• Games/billiards, etc
• Indoor exercise
• Bathrooms on every floor
• Offices & private 1 on 1 meeting spaces
• Will access& computer classes/ dedicated technology room
• From select board update:'
• Gym & locker room
• Fitness center
• Washer&Dryer
• Hair Salon
• More Storage
o Key outdoor spaces:
• Picnic spaces
• Seating areas
• Gardening area
• Lawn games
• Walking track
• Pickleball/bocce ball
o Other
• Wheel chair accessibility
• Door to door transportation
• Low cost
• Parking
' Community Engagement and Planning: Reading Center for Active Living (ReCal) — December 2022
• 2022-10-25_Select-Board-Final
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 15 of 31
• Evening and weekend hours
• Multiple programs simultaneously
• Open to all ages
Site Considerations
With a solid understanding of programmatic needs, ReCALC began considering different potential sites
that might accommodate a facility that could address the needs of Reading citizens. An attempt was made
to consider all potential locations and identify which ones were suitable for further study. Together with
participation from various community groups, the following sites received initial consideration for the
proposed center.
Water Treatment Site
According to project debriefs, the water treatment site was explored for RECAL but was rejected by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Conservation Commission because It is
In a vernal pool habitat and within wetland jurisdiction. It is also a priority habitat of rare species and
estimated to contain rare wildlife. Due to the complex and undesirable environmental conservation
conflicts, the site was deemed as an unviable and not explored further.
Former Walgreens Location
This potential site Included the former Walgreens location near downtown Reading. The site was
investigated by ReCALC in 2022 with input from an architect. While the proposed location provided
promise, availability of the site ended, and thus this location was not explored further.
Masonic Lodge
A site walkthrough was conducted at the Masonic Lodge in 2024. In a post walkthrough discussion with
Input from architects, construction, and facilities professionals, it was determined that the 1970's facility
did not provide an attractive location for the ReCALC project due to not being able to accommodate space
for: a parking lot, drop off area, gym space or outdoor recreational space. In addition, the facility lacked
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 16 of 31
an elevator and adequate windows, and contained outdated facility systems. It is also unlikely the building
would be able to support additional stories without major (and costly) interventions. Due to the host of
shortcomings, this site was not explored further.
Pleasant Street Center
The Pleasant Street Center Is located in downtown Reading and houses the current senior center. It
includes a parking lot with drop of space and potential area for building expansion. The existing building
contains an elevator and lots of natural light and although in need of improvements has been well
maintained by the Town of Reading. This site was selected for furtherstudy in 2024.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 17 of 31
Oakland Road Lot
The Oakland Road location consists of a 4.5 acre wooded lot owned by the Town of Reading on the edge
of a residential neighborhood and adjacent to Reading Highschool. It is also near Reading Middle School,
the Birch Meadow Elementary School and the YMCA Center, and about 1 mile from the current senior
center location. The lot is undeveloped and provides a large enough area to accommodate the
programmatic needs of the planned facility. This site was selected for further study in 2024.
Symonds Way
The Symonds Way location consists of a 15.2 acre area owned by the Town of Reading that contains the
Burbank Ice Arena and Symonds Athletic Fields. It's bordered by residential lots to the west, wetlands to
the south, and the Reading Rifle and Revolver Club to the east. The site is about 2 miles from the existing
senior center and can be easily accessed via Haverhill Street or from Interstate 495. It is also very close to
the Killam School. The undeveloped lot is Rat and contains sufficient buildable area beyond wetland
boundaries that can accommodate the programmatic needs of the planned facility as well as potential for
future expansion. This site was selected for further study in 2024.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING—OPM REVIEW Page 18 of 31
Project Feasibility
With three viable sites identified, ReCALC solicited the services of Bergmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.
architects IBH+A) to conduct a detailed investigation into the feasibility of each of the sites. BH+A teamed
with Pare Corporation for civil engineering and traffic consultation as well as PM&C for cost estimating
services.
Drawing on insights gained during the 2015 and 2017 studies, the extensive work completed by ReCALC
to date, and additionafinput from various stakeholders, BH+A reviewed and updated the building program
to evaluate its implementation on all of the three sites. Drawing on their experience with other such
facilities, BH+A developed conceptual layouts that could test fit the proposed facility at each of the
locations. As the Oakland Road and Symonds Way sites were undeveloped, the same layout was used at
each of these locations. Due to the limited space of the Pleasant Street Center site, a very different
configuration was needed to try and accommodate the desired program. Each evaluation considered the
desired space of the building program, location and accessibility of the site within Reading, likely traffic
and neighborhood Impacts as well as anticipated construction issues and overall costs.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 19 of 31
Lle0y/RkoaaOn
leo
6M
8tl
[nmmYrury SeMmaOMmr
IMuEea
FM9d
Aap..xOn OMIu
IMYEMI
aldalatl
11l.'
ONIR ef11m�RWm
I
YI
14mces lCpAl pn[Ix
IN
100
In
ta. haul semml
100
IZ�:
n.caweinaw.
130
am
faD
116
mcwwln.ra
ixww
mdae.a
omllpn coamumr
I50
IN
'tlltlae/WeMLmal{CamPawnanvexn
ll0
flu Office (\'sena Preln3anal
110
IN
9h
lnnlxmo Mm
]60
310
am 310'
WPy/Syy{e
30
mahba0
klenM GAuw
230
Inda4e0
mclYdMl
IM
p
Loco
,�y1ap
Sao
.l Slwap
340
Galt Man t S3arye
330
590
A—
1.090
971410
130310
w
9a4
I15{99
....
1B
Gil Nadewbl
M9
110
Ifo
SeO•
Gymnxlum
6,650
6,300
p
9. WaWMTr k
iMUM
U Gymnssium S.".
2M
240
svercGl
4s5D
12,550
16,250
21,190
xnn-Prana�^Arca
2.61D
5,550
3.n0
s,010
Total Area
7,160
18,100
20,000
26,300
Pring Garage
19,300
19,300
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 20 of 31
Pleasant Street: With Gym
A
First Flom 8nemd Raimr
Oakland R
Symonds
li mid Floor
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 21 of 31
Pleasant Street Site Analysis
The Pleasant Street Center location is the current home of the senior center and is maxed out in its ability
to meet public demand. There is no 1" floor bathroom, no 1 on 1 space, a non-functioning kitchen, and
no private offices. There is also no dedicated space for art, fitness, or a social library, and the PSC finds it
impossible to run multiple large programs at once within the existing building. The 140 -year-old historical
building also has poor access, though it was outfitted with an elevator in later years.
Existing Building
Constructed in 1885 the 7,000 SF existing buildingwould need to include an addition of over 13,000 SF to
accommodate the programmatic requirements for the proposed center. The last major renovation was 30
years ago and based on BH+A's report, it is unclear if all hazardous materials such as lead and asbestos
have been removed from the building. Due to the age of building improvements and the need for
significant alterations to the space, a full upgrade of all major systems will be needed, including building
envelope improvements to address current codes. No known exploration of the structural condition of the
facility was contained in the report, so additional risks and costs could be encountered here as well. The
building was listed on the national register In 1984. This status will create a variety of restrictions on
building modifications and due to the proposed size of the addition could create barriers to a successful
project completion.
Land
The property is owned by the Town of Reading and zoned A-40 residential. Based on BH+A's analysis, a
community center is permitted by special permit. The site is approximately %acre in size and mostly flat.
Providing the desired gym and parking would be very tight and completely build out the site. There
would also be no space for an Indoor track or outdoor recreational space. The maximum parking that
could be provided with the closest attainment of programmatic needs amounts to only 51 spaces, which
is nearly two times the number of current spaces, but well below the anticipated demand. This shortage
of available parking space would likely negatively impact the abutting residential neighborhood.
Soil conditions were not Investigated during the study of the site. While unsuitable soils are less likely in
this location, contaminated soils could be possible given the age and previous use of the site.
Site development costs would be reduced due to the proximity to Town water and sewer connections,
though the massive site development would require a significant underground infiltration basin to
handle rainwater runoff.
There are no wetlands restrictions on the site. The proposed addition does not comply with setback
requirements. A variance would need to be granted. R is likely that abutters would object due to the
scale of the building within the residential neighborhood.
Construction
Due to the urban nature of the site, construction costs are likely to be higher. As the space is currently
fully occupied by the Town, additional costs and disruption would need to be incurred to provide swing
space while construction work is underway. This would also double the required moving costs. A phased
plan could be considered that would allow continued use of the building but given the proposed
configuration of the building and the limited space on the site, this plan does not seem promising. As the
addition would be built very close to the property line and other abutters, significant disruption to
neighbors is to be expected during the construction phase.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 22 of 31
Location
The location of the PSC is ideal In that it is close to downtown, easily walkable to MBTA public
transportation, and indicative of a 1-2 minute response time from emergency personnel. However, given
the proposed increase in use at the center, additional traffic could negatively impact residential abutters.
Cost
Cost for developing the Center for Active Learning at this location was estimated at roughly $33M or
$28M with a smaller program than desired. This price does also not account for the desired outdoor
recreation space included in the review of other potential building locations. All things considered, the
PSC location carries the highest costs among the three sites studied.
In reviewing the cost estimates prepared by PM&C, the costs appear reasonable based on the limited
design Information. Exterior finish costs may climb if more expensive materials are required by the
historical commission, and another year of escalation should be added to the estimates given the change
in schedule since the initial estimates were prepared. Based on the scope of work proposed, TTH
suggests increasing the design and pricing contingency on this option as unexpected increases are
generally higher on renovation projects.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 23 of 31
on
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 24 of 31
Oakland Road Site Analysis
The Oakland Road location is a piece of undeveloped wooded land across from the Reading Highschool. it
Iles on the outer edge of a residential neighborhood and consists of some steep sloped areas and Infill.
Land
The property is owned by the Town of Reading and zoned 5-15 residential. Based on BH+A's analysis, a
community center is not allowed by may be granted by special permit. The site is approximately 475
acres in size and consists of steep slopes requiring extensive 811 and regrading as well as construction of
retaining walls. There is sufficient space forthe desired gym, parking and pickleball courts, but limited
space for future expansion and exterior walking trails. Given the terrain, the potential exists to create a
basement within the building that could provide for additional space and/or future expansion space. 93
parking spaces fit comfortably on the site and should accommodate the anticipated demand nicely.
During non -school hours additional overflow parking could also be available at the high school.
Soils are believed to be generally suitable and uncontaminated, though the design will need to work with
the existing ledge. Boulders are also likely to be encountered which would add to construction costs.
Site development costs would be moderate to bring Town water and sewer connections to the site. Due
to site contours, higher site costs for a sub -surface infiltration basin would be expected. Tree clearing and
grubbing, while not significant, will also raise the costs for constructing the project on this site.
There are no wetlands restrictions, and the proposed facility would comply with existing setback
requirements. While some disruption is anticipated, the amount of mature trees should help provide a
buffer from the new facility to Its residential neighbors.
Construction
As this would be a new facility, no disruption to the current senior programs is anticipated. Minimal
neighborhood disruption during construction is expected and some Impact on school parking from
contractors could present itself, though this may be able to be absorbed by available on street parking
spaces.
Location
The location of the Oakland Road lot is close to Reading High School, Reading Middle School, Birch
Meadow Elementary School, and the YMCA. As such, this location may provide a synergy for families and
Individuals who are already travelling to this area for other purposes. It lies 0.8 miles away from the
closest META bus stop and affords a 3 -4 -minute response time from emergency personnel. Minimal
Increase in traffic is expected though timing of site visits should be coordinated with school activities.
Despite the visual shielding of the mature trees, some objection from abutters is anticipated due to
additional noise when the pickleball courts are in use.
Cost
Costs for developing the Center for Active Learning at this location were estimated at roughly $28M, but
with less programmed outdoor space than at the Symonds Way site. This brings it In at a close second in
terms of value between the three locations. In reviewing the cost estimates prepared by PM&C, the
costs appeared reasonable based on the limited design Information. However, another year of escalation
should be added to the estimates given the change in schedule since the initial estimates were prepared.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 25 of 31
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 26 of 31
Symonds Way Site Analysis
The Symonds Way consists of a large piece of land that is currently home to the Burbank Ice Arena. The
property Is abutted by forest and wetlands, a small number of residential properties, some athletic fields,
and a gun club.
Land
The property is owned by the Town of Reading and zoned 5-40 residential. Based on BH+A's analysis, a
community center is not allowed but may be granted by special permit. The site Is approximately 15.2
acres in size and mostly flat.
There Is sufficient space for a gym, parking and pickleball courts, as well as ample space for future
expansion and exterior walking trails. Site could also accommodate other public recreational facilities in
the future. There are over 90 planned parking spaces available and ample overflow parking at the Ice
Arena and Athletic Field should R be required.
There is a potential for hazardous materials on the site. This should be verified prior to moving forward.
It may be possible to keep existing soils on site though this would have to be explored further should
contaminated soils be found. Given the amount of It 11 present, soils below the building footprint will
likely need to be removed and replaced.
She development costs are anticipated to be high to bring water and sewer to the site, based on initial
engineering reports. However further Investigation related to water and sewer Infrastructure at the Ice
Arena would be beneficial to better define anticipated site development costs. Site drainage should not
present any major hurdles. Tree clearing and grubbing, while not significant, will need to be Included in
site development costs.
Due to the presence of wetlands restrictions, conservation commission approval will be needed, but is
not expected to be a problem. The proposed facility would comply with existing setback requirements.
The site is in a flood plain with a 0.2% chance of annual flooding during a 500 -year event. Based on
further review it may be possible to raise the building above the flood mark without significant expense.
Construction
No residential neighborhood disruption during construction is anticipated and there is ample space for
construction parking.
Location
The Symonds Way site is close to the Kil lam School and easily accessible from Haverhill Street and 495. It
lies 1.6 miles away from the closest MBTA bus stop and affords a 5 -6 -minute response time from
emergency personnel. It Is not anticipated that this site will incur traffic issues or objection from
abutters.
Cost
Costs for developing the Center for Active Learning at this location were estimated at roughly $28M and
with the most outdoor space of any of the site. This ranks it the highest in terms of value between the
three locations. In reviewing the cost estimates prepared by PM&C, the costs appeared reasonable
based on the limited design information. However, another year of escalation should be added to the
estimates given the change in schedule since the initial estimates were prepared.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING —OPM REVIEW Page 27 of 31
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 28 of 31
Project Budget
While Initial cost estimates prepared during the feasibility study included some anticipated overhead
costs, a full project budget will need to be prepared during the schematic design phase that takes into
account the selected site, details of the proposed construction, anticipated project schedule, anticipated
overhead and owner expenses as well as a healthy contingencyappropriate for the type of work
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 29 of 31
planned. This effort will be supported by the OPM and will help guard the project from failures and
safeguard public funds.
Project Schedule
The feasibility study prepared by BHtA contained a diagrammatic schedule appropriate for the project
stage and known conditions. Since this time there have been significant Manges in events. The present
driving action Item is the selection of a flnaI site for the new facility. Once this is established, the OPM
on provide a more concrete update and issue the official detailed project schedule. A draft schedule has
been already prepared and will be updated as events move forward.
Communications & Public Outreach
Throughout the past decade of investigations, public outreach and communications have been
paramount to the successful development of a new center to meet the needs of Readings senior
population and community at large. Much has been accomplished in this area to date. Going forward,
regular public outreach sessions will need to resume as well as the creation of a public portal that can
broadcast the latest in project information and provide a source for questions and answers relative to
the project. These communications should be steered by a subset of the permanent building committee
and on include various forms of media including a dedicated website, video, newsletters, newspaper
articles and social media broadosts. As the project is running concurrently with the Killam school
project, it may be beneficial to create a joint communications effort that on keep the public Informed on
the developments of both projects.
Conclusion
The Town of Reading has done an exemplary job of identifying developing community needs and
Investing the necessary research and outreach to find viable solutions. The efforts of all parties involved
In the study of a new Center for Active Living are to be commended. It is because of these efforts that
the Town of Reading is poised to realize significant improvements to elder and community services that
will last for generations. With the research, planning and feasibility complete, and the Permanent
Building Committee In place, a final site will need to be recommended for Select Board approval. Once
this is accomplished, the project team can move ahead in developing the plans and budgets necessary to
present the project to the Town for final approval.
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING - 0 P M REVIEW Page 30 of 31
Appendix
Materials reviewed:
• 2017 Wass Final Report of Reading Needs for Seniors
• 2021 Comparative Review of Other Senior Centers
• 2021 Comparative Review of Other Feasibility Studies
• 2022 RECALC Newsletters (18,2)
• 2022 RECALL Update to the Select Board
2022 RECALC Final Report
• 2023 RECALC Summary Report
• 2024 RECALC Site Presentation by BH+A
• 2024 RECALC Site Ranking Worksheets & Results
• 2024 CAL Feasibility Study by BHA
• 2024 RECALL presentation to the Select Board
• 2024 COA Emerging Senior Trends
READING CENTER FOR ACTIVE LIVING — OPM REVIEW Page 31 of 31
wn�r.:�w�weuy
w�nwwrw
r Mw
24 IMay'24 Ilul 24 ISep 24 INov'24 Jan'25 IMar'25 May'25 ul'25
Feasibility SkW
Feasibility Study OPM Selection
Site Selection
Reading Center for Active Living
1
4
71
9
12
13
Draft Master Project Schedule
Date: Wed 10/30/24
Pre Design Planning
727 days
Mon 3/1/21
Toe 12/12/23
Killam Project Begins
1 day
Mon 3/1/21
Mon 3/1/21
MSBA Approves Eligibility Phase 1 day
Wed 3/2/22
Wed 3/2/22
MSBA Approves Feasibility Phase day
Wed 3/1/23
Wed 3/1/23
OPM Selection
81 days
Thu 4/13/23
Thu 8/3/23
Architect Selection
92 days
Mon 8/7/23
Tue 12/12/23
Feasibility Study
228 days
Mon 12/18/2:
Wed 10/30/24
Begin Feasibility Study
1 day
Mon 12/18/2_
Mon 12/18/23
PDP Submission
1 day
Thu 7/18/24
Thu 7/18/24
PSR Submission
1 day
Tue 8/20/24
Wed 8/21/24
MSBA Review
50 days
Thu 8/22/24
Wed 10/30/24
Schematic Design
73 days
Thu 10/31/24
Mon 2/10/25
Begin Schematic Design
1 day
Thu 10/31/24
Thu 10/31/24
Page 1 of 10
Half 1,
FOt
eaV\B
\Se
Qt0\�
\e�(,
Vg\eCp
Reading Center for Active �n Draft Master Project Schedule
g Date: Wed 10/30/24
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
NaH t, 2025
15
Complete Schematic Design 72 days Fri 11/1/24 Mon 2/10/25
MSBA Board Approval 57 days Tue 2/11/25 Wed 4/30/25
Town Approval 23 days Mon 10/14/24 Wed 11/13/24
Design Development 83 days Tue 6/24/25 Thu 10/16/25
Begin Design Development 1 day Tue 6/24/25 Tue 6/24/25
Complete Design Development 1 day Tue 10/28/25 Tue 10/28/25
Contractor 5olicitation/PrequaliBo
Construction Documents 161 days Wed 10/29/2: Wed 6/10/26
Begin Construction Documents 160 days Wed 30/29/2'Tue 6/9/26
Complete Construction Documer 1 day Wed 6/10/26 Wed 6/10/26
Bid & Award 21 days Thu 6/11/26 Thu 7/9/26
Project Advertised for Bid 20 days Thu 6/11/26 Wed 7/8/26
Bid Award S day Thu 7/9/26 Thu 7/9/26
Permitting 20 days Fri 7/10/26 Thu 8/6/26
*-
J\g F 0 t
eo`
Qco\
,�e\ Ot\e\�
0
ete;cR
`ao
Re
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 10
Reading Center for Active Living
Draft Master Project Schedule
Date. Wed 10/30/24
ID
Tad[ Name
Duration
tart
Finish
Xam 1, 2025
F M A
29
Permitting Process 20 days
Canstructioe 519 days
Construction Phase 519 days
Commissioning 60 days
Commissioning Phase 60 days
Owner Move In 5 days
Site Demolition a Construction 253 days
Close Out 747 days
of Reading
Public Outreach and Approval 84 days
Public Newsletter #1 (Status Updab 10 days
Public Forum #1 (Site Selection 10 days
Reasons(
Fri 7/10/26
FN 8/7/26
Fd 8/7/26
Thu 8/3/18
Thu 8/3/28
Thu 8/3/28
Thu 8/3/28
Tue 7/24/29
Tue 11/5/24
Tue 11/5/24
Wed
11/20/24
Thu 8/6/26
Wed 8/2/28
Wed 8/2/28
Wed 10/25/28
Wed 10/25/28
Wed 8/9/28
Man 7/23/29
Wed 6/2/32
Fri 2/28/25
Mon 11/18/24
Tue 12/3/24
400
\S�r
�Nc� tza�c.
plc,
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Page 3 of 10
ReadingCenter for Active Living Draft Master Protect Schedule ®__
9 Date: Wed 10/30/24
ID
Task Name
Duratlan
R
Fi i fi
Haff 1, 2015
42
Public Newsletter g2 (Status 10 days Tue 12/3/24 Mon 12/16/24
Update/Forum Notice)
Public Forum d2 (Design Update) 10 days Mon 12/16/24 FN 12/27/24
Public Forum g3 (Design + Cost Upc 30 days Mon 2/17/25 Fri 2/28/25
Town Election 1 day Tue 4/8/25 Tue 4/8/25
April Town Meeting (afdmated) 1 day Mon 4/28/25 Mon 4/28/25
lune Town Vote (estimated) 1 day Tue 6/17/25 Tue 6/17/25
Pre Design Planning 393 days Tue 12/1/15 Thu 6/1/17
Reading MAPC Economic 1 day Tue 12/1/15 Tue 12/2/15
Development Plan Issued
UMAss Senior Center Needs Assess 110 days Sun 1/1/17 Thu 6/1/17
F=m Gmup 22 days Wed 3/1/17 Thu 3/30/17
I
I i
s
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Page 4 of 10
Reeding Center for Active Livin g
Draft Master Project Schedule
Date: Wed 10/30/24
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
D
Half 1, 2025
S4
Community Forum
Senior Center Needs Assessment
Report Issued
ReC11Lt Work
ReCAL Committee created by
Select Board
ReCal Project Meetings
Focus Group
Survey
Select Board Meeting
Town Meeting
ReCalc Newsletter #2 Issued
Public Forum #1
Public Forum #2
22 days
1 day
347 days
238 days
131 days
20 days
42 days
22 days
22 days
1 day
22 days
22 days
Sat 4/1/17
Thu 6/1/17
Mon 11/1/21
Mon 11/1/21
Sat 1/1/22
Tue 2/1/22
Tue 2/1/22
Tue 3/1/22
Fri 4/1/22
Tue 3/22/22
Sun 5/1/22
Wed 6/1/22
Sun 4/30/17
Thu 6/1/17
Tue 2/28/23
Wed 9/28/22
Fri 7/1/22
Mon 2/28/22
Wed 3/30/22
Wed 3/30/22
Sat 4/30/22
Tue 3/22/22
Mon 5/30/22
Thu 6/30/22
000
AAA
55
-0\1
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
6S
Page 5 of 10
ReadingCenter for Active Living Draft Master Project Schedule
9 Date: Wed 10/30(24
ID
Task Name
Duration
Istar,
Finish
MY11, 2025
66
Public Forum N3 22 days Fri 7/1/22 Sat 7/30/22
Funding Secured 44 days Fri 7/1/22 Wed 8/31/22
Community Survey 66 days Fri 7/1/22 Fri 9/30/22
Select Board Meeting 22 days Fri 7/1/22 Sat 7/30/22
ReCAL update to Select Board 1 day Tue 10/25/22 Tue 10/25/22
Peer Community Facility Reviews 238 days Mon 11/1/21 Wed 9/28/22
ReCAL Community Engagement & 1 day Tue 2/28/23 Tue 2/28/23
Planning Report Issued
Architect Selection 46 days Sun 10/1/23 Mon 12/4/23
Architect Selection Process 45 days Sun 10/1/23 Thu 11/30/23
Architect Contract Issued 1 day Man 12/4/23 Mon 12/4/23
Feasibility Study 140 days Tue 12/5/23 Mon 6/17/24
Feasibility Program Study 50 days Tue 12/5/23 Mon 2/12/24
Feasibility Study 90 days Tue 2/13/24 Mon 6/17/24
op
I
f
67ARPA
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Page 6 of 10
Reading Center for Active Living
79 1 OPM Selection
80
OPM Selection Process
OPM Cannac[ Issued
Site Selection
81
82
83 1 Owner Kick Off Meeting
Draft Master Project Schedule
Date: Wed 10/30/24
90 days Mon 7/1/24 Fri
70 days Mon 7/1/24 Fri 10/4/24
30 days Mon 10/7/24 Fri 10/18/24
597 days Sun 3/20/22 Tue 11/19/24
1 day Thu 10/3/24 Thu 10/3/24
84
Owner Update Meeting - SB
Masonic Hall Site Review
Architect Kickoff Meeting
Review of Past Project Materials
Owner Update Meeting - COA
Exec Comm Planning Mtg 01
Evaluation of Site Options
Property Survey
1 day
1 day
1 day
10 days
1 day
1 day
695 days
69 days
Fri 10/11/24 Fri 10/11/24
Thu 10/17/24 Thu 10/17/24
Thu 10/17/24 Thu 10/17/24
Mon 10/21/24 Fri 11/1/24
Tue 10/22/24 Tue 10/22/24
Mon 10/28/24 Mon 10/28/24
Sun 3/20/22 Fri 11/15/24
Sun 3/20/22 Wed 6/22/22
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Page 7 of 10
Half
Draft Master Project Schedule
Reading Center for Active Living Date: Wed 10/30/24
10
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
Half 1, 2025
F
92
Environmental Site 14 days Tue 10/15/24 Fri 11/1/24
Investigation/Testing
Update of Site Selections 10 days Fri 10/18/24 Thu 10/31/24
PBC Mtg 01 1 day Mon 11/4/24 Mon 11/4/24
PBC Makes Final She Selection 10 days Mon 11/4/24 Fri 11/15/24
She Cost Update (if needed) 5 days Mon 11/4/24 Fri 11/8/24
PBC Mtg 02
Select Board Approves Site 11 days Tue 11/5/24 Tue 11/19/24
Selection (following PBC
recommendation)
Schematic Design 66 days Tue 11/19/24 Tue 2/18/25
Schematic Design 45 days Wed 11/20/24Tue 1/21/25
Geotech Site Investigation 12 days Tue 11/19/24 Wed 12/4/24
Establish Design Subcommittee
Draft Project Budget 40 days Tue 11/19/24 Mon 1/13/25
1^
1A\� `
O
-
93
94
9S
95
97
9B
99
100
101
102
103
Page 8 of 10
ReadingCenter for ACtive Living Draft Master Project Schedule
9 Dale: Wed 10/30/24
ID
Task Name
Duration
tart
Finish
Nab 1, 2025
104
SD Design Review 10 days Wed 1/22/25 Toe 2/4/25
SD Cost Estimate 10 days Wed 2/5/25 Tue 2/18/25
Community Outreach Oce" Man 10/14/2, Mon 10/14/24
Establish Communication Subcomn
Set Up Project Website
Project Update Press Release
Public Forum 41
Public Forum Press Release
Public Forum 42
Public Forum Press Release
Public Forum M3
Design Development 165 days Tue 4/29/25 Mon 12/15/25
Design Development 105 days Tue 4/29/25 Mon 9/22/25
DD Design Review 10 days Tue 9/23/25 Mon 10/6/25
♦ 1e
4
O
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
11S
116
117
Page 9 of 10
Draft Master Project Schedule
Reading Center for Active Living Date: wed 10/3024
Name
118
DD Cost Estimate
10 days
Tue 10/725 Mon 10/20/25
Site Plan Approvals
40 days
Tue 10/21/25 Mon 12/15/25
119
Contractor Solicitation/Prequallacati60 days
Tue 10/21/25 Mon 1/12/26
120
Construction Documents
100 days
Tue 10/21/25 Mon 3/9/26
121
eld & Award
50 days
Tue 2/24/26 Mon 5/4/26
122
Permitting
30 days
Tue 5/5/26 Mon 6/15/26
123
Construction
400 days
Tue 6/16/26 Mon 12/27/27
124
Commissioning
20 days
Tue 12/28/27 Mon 1/24/28
125
Owner Move In
10 days
Tue 1/2528 Mon 2/7/28
126
Close Out
260 days
Tue 1/25/28 Mon 1/2229
127
Page 10 of 10
ReCAL Site Ranking Worksheet
INSTRUCTIONS
Step 1: fill out the Pleasant Street ranking worksheet by providing a score between 1 (worst) and 10 (besl) breach category.
he site has sufficient area for the building, parking end future 7-10
nipansion
he site has sufficient erea for the building, parking but not 4-6
A= expansion
he site has sufficient area for the building but not parking or
3
INeexpansion
total
in the sample above, the reviewer only assigns a point value in the gray Gait. the red box has been added for emphasis.
Step 2: fill out the Oakland Road ranking worksheet.
Step 3: fill out the Symonds Way ranking worksheet.
Step 4: fill out the Ranking Summary worksheet by providing a score between 0 (worst) and 20 (best) for each site.
Step 5: complete the Ranking Summary worksheet by providing an explana5on of the score given for each site.
Step 6: the final score and rank is calculated.
10/31/2024
Atlpr/haedYenipw-my.snxepontmMpaiwnaV}vootl_reatligmnya�LlavamWOmkbp2e24 W M ReCAL She RaWg WoftheellNSTRUCTIIXIS
ReCAL Site Ranking Worksheet
PLEASARt STREET
,.. 'i
I r.aln. r—do...
mnu2o24
see site has sul6dent area "a pliseing, parking and future 7 10
dTwbprnnl nos moimpw on spoken m fems Avbwa 7-10
pale mndiWes do not impact bavelb and from Neste 1-10
Mambo.
nave levels, or the ,to chzrwer
imDweh by the proximity to sweandsAboderalns
Ne site has sufficient area for the Wlkfmg, parking top net 4 6
dev .,p has comeimpw onabuhers in terms of views. 4-6
trent modllions have a mmdarata impact on havel to and horn 4 5
Maaexpanslon
nose lave%, and Ne site'a character
the site
Ne site has sufficient area forNe buiong but not parking or t J
development has major impact on student in tams of whwI-3 s,
baffle rwndillons have a malar impact on bawl to and from the 1 3
-
future expansion
fiobe kve6. and the sloe Me,",
heawly impaled by Ne praemiry to and in,
ofiexer aearded points O and
reviewer awarded points EFS'- totalew
warded punlsO Into
evihbd
led (odor 1.5 0
ost' hfwo 1.5 0
spent fano 1 0
tls situ half sufficient park, to men corn, reguir.tr and 7-10
as paAin9u MwamdsNhse 115 fed Aon Ne tronldnr ]-10
hoorah cotstruclabLty,pestconbd Vidnerva rtarem[ 7-f0
prwlM moral parY'nq
1-10
imDweh by the proximity to sweandsAboderalns
Me site has sufficient partner to mast zorl r uiremmp but 4-6
some pending Is hotel wphln 125 fact horn Ne tont door 4-6
design,ionsbuctabillly, pat con"I and paw cambr are 4.6
no weraw paring
she Masotti sucharye is somewhat wpwed due to
4 6
somewhat Impeded by to pWMlly ID wellendsMoodplalns
Me, sib doe not have suffident paring to me at zonirg
1 3
no paring is lOoetM WNln 125 has born Nehnldoar 1-3
dasyn, cWsibroba iry, peal canal and uatt comfort ere
1-3
reeAamenn
mak0naea,landscaping, and garage repairs
heawly impaled by Ne praemiry to and in,
ironstone awarded points O Ida
nevmacs aaarKd pang Q haat
revlewtt aaerded pmts Q role
(alar 1.5 0
Wo, 1 0
tee iseses few 1 0
I so. 1...1.r.w.. r.st
mind MM1ra.IMtl rn.r.
Mir 9neadn.. mulfix rei...I tlu nnhte
41b WwWdin wrchago is minimally impanid by
7 10
apwaI Wes are minimally Impacted by insurance,
7.10
lb is in dose amoral to multiple other programs
1-10
lapopmphy, uAlii and mer furors
meblOyrarbe,IantlsWping, and garage repaks
schic gnot shape
needs with no mom for mmslm
no othar exterior nonsensical social all Al mthe site 1-3
she Masotti sucharye is somewhat wpwed due to
4 6
opeall"tusks are moderatery imp othel by in...,
4'6
one is in dose porimirybone other program
4-6
biography ulettwand ober factors
mak0naea,landscaping, and garage repairs
ommoverewwdedignil low
segarsed points Iwa 1 0
volignme Pons, Iwbr 1 0
site Wnswcbon surcharge is heseily inpi by 1ppography, f_3
operational are are heawlyimaaded by Insurance,
1-3
she is not in cbse DroemiryboNer programs
f -J
tribalantl other favors
maintnan¢,londsraping, and garage repairs
revieaerawartledpolls= total
redawar awardedpani
Opal
rewriverawardedpunsO
tory
weinhow peaks; her 1.5 0
Poompt factor
1 D
~W teaser
1 0
11 .. trent ILM.IJj In, ak i.r ran4r nnnh
malEple ober Worker redesta y adma will fit on the site 1 10
sustainability goals have no impact on Ne buiding's design 7-10
site lolly wommodathe building with space b support 1.10
program needs for expected groan
W dhw exNrel reaeallnal ectomy will At on 0. age 4.6
apeblaalry gosh have some imparl on Ne Wildirge dayn 4 6
site fails to why accommodate taking win space for program 4 6
schic gnot shape
needs with no mom for mmslm
no othar exterior nonsensical social all Al mthe site 1-3
srmlaNlmh' goals have a mapr impact on Ne Widirg's 1 3
arca aces not accommodam building that an support pagran 1 3
ties, Worreg pool shape
needs
redeweawardO,xi foul
reniNMawaraed,forl Iota
ommoverewwdedignil low
segarsed points Iwa 1 0
volignme Pons, Iwbr 1 0
kcWr 1.5 0
bWbines'lot.O
.tlps/In.irymgw m/.msepanefMrya.mWµm] r.afrgma 9.^�^amFAesYbyAa4aaar NeCPl54 nx'.bq WpwM.P�FASMIalwEE1
ReCAL Side Ranking Worksheet
OAKLAND ROAD
1 Area of Me Sea truth: ]timed.Ah.d..
10f31Rd24
Me site dem sumldent area lar he building, paM1irg and hear, 10
dw*Pan4 has no impact on abumers in terms of views, 10
bask condbons der nd impact baud band Iden he site 7-10
esyarwgr
levels, or bre wars chance.
outride overflow pending
ant site has warfare sea la he WYdlg, parts, but riot
4-6
al leas varve merged m disclose an tams of vias,
4-5
tallic M6mm haw a Mercantileaspect on baud b wmd f.
46
hhre expand.
home lusts. and Userside's aaraan
.side
Me site has suhdent used for Me building but not Marking or 13
laerpplllY. has major impact m summers in teams of views, 1-3
elk corm share have a mayor impact on hand b and form he 1 3
Who expansion
noes frees, and me side's chaxter
rale
reviewanawardedpmini lald
reviewer awarded draints OW bid
reviorerawardedpoids0 toll
wifighted points factor 1.5 0
wrighted fader 1.5 0
sighted polue, factor 1 0
L l.crash eJearlir
•eF4 Alie.rl. and GlrvulNtlm
nl h
ft ate has wMOMtp In, to mad Eater, lel mildnM6 alld
7-10
as p�tent'a boded w/g1s 125led Form lhwfoMdar 7-10
derproderudadllty, pent.,W and user ceTIM we not
7-10
outride overflow pending
site coctoxtron smrhage is wmewha lmpaet due
4-6
cash use madanlely impadetl by inwdence.
1-8
appeal by the pm.mnty bwdbndrfooddam,
l opography, uM1hbesandoherieclors
th she has sulfident peM1Jng b new timing requirements but
4-6
sameparking ab wan 125 beer tom he haul dam 4-6
thei consimbiliry, pest control and use comfort are
4 6
m owlXmv pa'kirg
maintenance Landscaping and garage repars
nvedv
sepia impaclM by he proximity to wetUandsMootlplains
renewer awadee pdna® ba/
he site does nd have sufficient parking to mem whim,
1-3
M panel is Mated wain 125 fed fmn the tont door 1-3
ready n, communal past control and user cannot we
1-3
requhemeds
heavily separated by he prmlmiry to wetlandsMoodger
reviewer awarded pomb
O may
reriewvawa pdnts = told
reviewer awarded pont
= Ma
waighm Ififilles,fxtbr
1.5 0
qday 1 0
nominated planar lam
1 0
sae mnsbucgon Surcharge is minimally speed by 10
par opeds are minimal inreaded by nsurame, 7-10
a9 b in dose KMmity b mu0igea0lan pragme 7-10
bpid,mphy, utilities and cher lamas
maMtmanc., I.d..pn9. and garage repars
faogrlsm needs fm eapaed growth
site coctoxtron smrhage is wmewha lmpaet due
4-6
cash use madanlely impadetl by inwdence.
1-8
ft is in dose pmsimiryto me mhanprogram d-6
l opography, uM1hbesandoherieclors
maoperational
bgnaee, rantlu aping, and garage repairs
Macrae ekpansroabulding
site cmah n surcharge is heavily impacted by topography,
apanatimbl costs use heavily mpaded twevrrance.
1 3
viielend in dace proudbyb draw, programs 1 3
lb art ohs he'll1.3
maintenance Landscaping and garage repars
nvedv
renewer axadM pont !431q1 Maw
renewer awadee pdna® ba/
renewwawarcetl pam6O dela
Med Wft fad 1.5 0
mels 1 0
helm 1 0
In ercnmmrMn.. murM1minn. keni rviR 1 e NwdnWYN rnwl nn rwren NM 11 SethNlwfirm a Senior center Minh
stipule other totarlm raeetodal Scheme will ft on he she 7-10
"a*** goats have no impact on me bdMirg'9 design 710
lb idly accmnmodal buildin, with space In uplcorl 710
faogrlsm needs fm eapaed growth
me dha Meant remea5mal acfiviy oil fit an he site 4�6
some impact on he bindings design 4-6
all with space lir program d 6
to kaaymdMar
thave
Macrae ekpansroabulding
rho ama¢at. radmllma activities win fit an he sire 1 3
asWAab y goals have a mayor imps om the bdbirgs 1 3
ft does not a a ammorcM bildkg hat can suppmrl program , 3
design indudrq dmf shape
nvedv
reviewer awarded pains O tont
reviewer awarded points O Ida
reviewer axersad pomp = tma
wed h1M point factor 1 0
whathad Prefint, tactor 1 0
detect points factor 1.5 0
combined points OO
Mqi/heNlymµwmf maepwm<r.NprNnte.� nNYem:9mmwumenwpaYYp'w26MW Petit SlYRnrYe Wan51n WRI/al] RIM
RICAL Site Ranking Worksheet
SYWWS WAY
I are. nr ren sir. dnx Irani m AMMors
mFY ITreaer dIN...
IM112024
send.
We site has wmlent area for be budding, parking and lubre 7.10
cavalryman has no impact on a butlers in him of ears, 210
rase con6Eam do rad Impact Moral b" Who the rate 7-10
eapar4ion
ueae levelsor no not chaader
impacted by the pooll to wetlandsMoodplains
Ie site has sufficient area for Ne to ldug, parking blit rad 4 6
Mesodermal has same impact m abuhens in arms of views, 4-6
bafrr andfions have a moderate iii lm and bath ion 4.6
Mrs shentemn
nose probe, and to rules character
be site
me site has sulcont area for tee busing but not parking or 1-3
basebal lhas major impact on rental in terms of views, 1-3
traffic conditions have a major indeed m breed W and ham the1-3
hture"portion
noise hall and be sin's character
46e
renewer awaobabo ef--j auto
nevawar shed P*KL w
Wpdnb.. al
mea .r -
applied poiniffia favor 1.5 0
aper IS 0
wagetted papsal, feta 1 0
wenn I.
xiM1 aWwwi iCMiMNeln.
fire site has enactor parking to meet mining repuirww% and 2 10
A pending is baled all 125 feet Wan Ne front door ] 10
del rosbucliiy.mtconlMandusammfmtatand 1 10
pmdde moths paring
instruments, andacaang, and gist. repairs
impacted by the pooll to wetlandsMoodplains
M sib has sufficient banking to meet wing bgulremenb but 4.6
seem o lg we butts WNb 125 ant ran be Want door 4 5
cargo, constnmtmilit, pest conal and user mmfat are 4 6
no onsfo.' ig
Woodstock,bndsamng. end image repairs
wmrwbr amounted by fire PFMl, or retlacdsdbMpllne
Ib she Was not have sufficient parking to mete zoning 1 3
was parking a bund wghb 125 beet horn be bad door 1 3
though. conshudabdity. Dut ornbl and beer cannon am 1 3
regoiremenls
morMenu. andeapng, and garage repars
Merely impeded by the aovmiy to wetladsAloodemns
revisarreardedwim,= totyl
reviaverarerdedpwrill rout
nearer awarded glob Q total
affieglithand affierob Iota 1.5 0
removed prow /actm 1 0
affiffighteart points factor 1 0
sib mn,Wd. suMiarge is minimal, miser by g-10
paaaabl costs ore label bripacnd by resonance 2-10
p rely mllok programs
alba blue nmd ro obs 7-10
"raft unit. and other factors
instruments, andacaang, and gist. repairs
program needs ter expected growb
an. .1 mob., surcharge is Winevenal unmated We b
4-g
orbital ars we moderately imported by inWranp,
4-e
rani¢In tlosa prorlmiryroonadnar program 4 6
"al Wines and Baer faders
Woodstock,bndsamng. end image repairs
needs wltll no mem nr elp bi
aha constr Wsurchagen he lyimpeded by bpegrephy, 1-3
heal blanched by insurance,
attributed" costs are1-3
siband'n tie pmvdryroaner programs 1-i
Immee and One, W.
morMenu. andeapng, and garage repars
nttdx
revarr raped pleb = rota!
howexar awarded points Q rail
rmia.er awardM pori ® loot
aredn"d P" stmt 1.5 0
waffignediffiftlecho, 1 0
reentansal Ponbk factor 1 0
In 4nvwvwv w.e..r nii..mv. nMle 11 Wwhiruhtla. rets nn eMtwo Minh 12-M W for a senbr(wmar mYYa
mlapa ober ealerier combine! adeiues M 6l an lee sde 7.10
susanabhry gobs have nmimpact on to building's oers, 1.10
rate telly acmmntal building Wb space to eylpal 7 10
program needs ter expected growb
dM ober bench raralbnm acini, w fit on be site 4-6
sustainaW4y gobs have term impact as be bugdeg s design 4.6
see as to al, accanmodate building Wb spas b program 1 8
bdubp mad shape
needs wltll no mem nr elp bi
1'3
wslainabliry gross have amala impact on to builtling's 1 3
Bile does not accommodate building that can support program
1-y
no ober erlen'orraaealioal activities will0l on Ne site
deago including mot shape
nttdx
rannowerawadMwin= coral
renerarawardedpminbr torw
renewer awarded points Q endo
ted pounds frecur 1 0
W podIs oda 1 0
- b lads 1.5 0
combined .Into O
nemU..S errWri xn.rkammpefwvlyttE_rtMiymay>x9mmmapApJNzeaed m.ur sw mra:e w.19..6r.s wnv
ReCAL Site Ranking Worksheet
RANKING SUMMARY
10/31/2024
Combined Reviewer Final Final
Site Options Points Points 0.20 Explanation of Reviewer Points Awarded Score Rankin
Pleasant Street
0
[INSERT EXPLANATION OF POINTS AWARDED HERE]
0
1
Oakland Road
0
[INSERT EXPLANATION OF POINTS AWARDED HERE]
0
1
Symonds Way
0
[INSERT EXPLANATION OF POINTS AWARDED HERE]
0
1
httpsJ/readingmagov-my.sharepoiM.coMpersonalfjwood__readingma-gm/!)= entsNeskbµ2024-04.09 ReCAL Site Ran"WorksheetRANKING SUMMARY
Reading CAL • Slte Ranking Results Overview
Overview
This document summarizes the site ranking worksheet scores and analyzes the data
The results are intended to serve as a reference point to guide discussion about each site
Items that may require further attention and discussion are as follows:
Pleasant Street has zoning concerns that may render the site nonviable
Oakland Road has abutter concerns that may render the ape non-viable
Symonds Way has environmental osncems that may render the site nonviable
Data
The average scorefor each category, organized by reviewing group limpet, cow, bli aj, is provided
The average weighted spore for each category, organized by recall group (recelc, aa, bh"), is provided
The percentage of maximum sate for each category, organized by reviewing group (rated, aa, bli Is provided
The subjective scow for each site, organized by revehaing group (recall aa, bh a), is provided
Analysis
This tab canpaws the sores given to each site by the respective group Ineoalc and aa)
The results are than analyzed by removing the best more, the worst scare, and the best and worst scree for each site
The reales are further analyzed by removing a single category at a time to determine what has the greatest impact on snore
canmrahb
This tab summarizes all comments provided, organized by site and reviewer
This tab also provides a summary of concerns noted for each site to determine 9 them are any overlapping corncem8 among the manirers
101311!024
ntlpslhea]irypn�w my.sharepinlmm'Ae�mnallrym]_reaAinAmepavlpotuman6lpeakbORA�4C0.t] rewire She RanitinA n 1: Suri
Reading CAL- Site Ranking Results
10131/2024
Mips/Iraatlrgmagovmy marereinewnlpersonaYrrm4reaCingmayovNawmenlslDeseNpldV44Cll Beetling SAe RanFing Results Summary
RECALC
COA
ALL
BIMA
Average
Average
Average
Avenge
Average
Weighted
%of Max
Average
Weighted
%of Moa
Avenge
Weighted
%ef Max
Average
Weighted
%ot Max
Score
Score
Score
Scare
Score
Sore
Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
Scoer
Pleasant
area of the site
2.9
4.3
29%
3.3
4.9
33%
3.0
4.5
30%
2.0
3.0
20%
impact on abutters
3.9
58
39%
3.6
5.4
36%
3.6
5.4
36%
3.0
4.5
30%
traffic conditions
4.7
4.7
47%
5.5
5.5
55%
5.1
5.1
51%
4.0
4.0
40%
parking quantity
2.7
4.1
27%
4.8
7.1
48%
3.9
5.8
39%
29
3.0
20%
location of parking
7.7
7.7
77%
7.1
7.1
71%
7.2
7.2
72%
8.5
8.5
85%
wellandsMoodplains
7.7
7.7
77%
8.9
8.9
89%
8.4
8.4
84%
10.0
10.0
100%
site construction cost
4.3
6.4
43%
5.4
8.1
54%
4.9
7.4
49%
7.0
10.5
70%
operational costs
5.0
5.0
50%
5.4
54
54%
5.2
5.2
52%
3.0
3.0
30%
multi -gen use
3.4
3.4
34%
5.5
5.5
55%
4.4
4.4
44%
7.5
7.5
75%
outdoor activities
2.3
2.3
23%
2.6
2.6
26%
2.6
2.6
26%
1.0
1.0
10%
sustainability impact
4.1
4.1
41%
3.5
3.5
35%
3.9
3.9
39%
4.0
4.0
40%
senior center
1 5.1
7.7
51%
4.8
7.1
48%
4.9
7.4
49%
4.0
6.0
40%
Total Score
54
63
44%
60
71
49%
57
67
46%
56
65
46%
Oakland
area of the site
7.4
11.1
74%
59
6.8
59%
6.9
10.3
69%
7.0
10.5
70%
impact on abutters
3.4
5.1
34%
3.9
59
39%
3.9
58
39%
3.5
5.3
35%
traRiccondi6ons
5.1
5.1
51%
4.9
49
49%
5.1
5.1
51%
8.0
8.0
80%
parking quantity
7.3
10.9
73%
8.0
12.0
80%
7.8
11.7
78%
9.5
14.3
95%
location of parking
8.0
8.0
80%
8.5
BS
85%
8.4
8.4
94%
8.0
8.0
80%
we6andslibodplains
7.0
7.0
70%
6.4
6.4
64%
6.8
6.8
68%
9.5
9.5
95%
site construction cost
39
5.8
39%
4.6
6.9
46%
4.1
6.2
41%
3.0
4.5
30%
operational costs
6.1
6.1
61%
6.5
615
65%
6.5
6.5
65%
7.5
7.5
75%
mulbgen use
8.1
8.1
81%
6.8
6.8
68%
7.5
7.5
75%
6.0
69
60%
outdoor activities
8.3
6.3
63%
5.5
5.5
55%
5.9
5.9
59%
5.0
5.0
50%
sustainabiliy, impact
5.7
5.7
57%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.0
6.0
60%
8.5
8.5
85%
seniorcenter
7.6
11.4
76%
7.3
10.9
73%
7.6
11.4
76%
8.5
12.8
85%
Total Score
76
91
63%
74
89
61%
76
91
63%
84
100
69%
Symonds
area of the site
8.9
13.3
80%
8.9
13.3
89%
8.9
13.4
89%
8.5
12.8
85%
impact on abutters
8.1
121
81%
7.1
10.7
71%
7.7
11.6
77%
9.0
13.5
90%
traffic conditions
6.6
6.6
66%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.4
6.4
64%
8.0
8.0
80%
parking quantity
8.7
13.1
87%
8.6
12.9
86%
8.8
13.2
88%
9.0
13.5
90%
location of parking
7.0
7.0
70%
7.6
7.6
76%
7.5
7.5
75%
7.5
7.5
75%
milandaMoodplains
3.9
3.9
39%
4.8-
4.8
48%
4.4
4.4
44%
4.5
4.5
45%
site construction cost
5.1
7.7
51%
5.1
7.7
51%
5.1
7.7
51%
5.0
715
50%
operational costs
8.9
6.9
69%
6.1
6.1
61%
6.6
6.6
66%
8.0
8.0
80%
mufti -gen use
6.3
8.3
63%
5.4
5.4
54%
5.9
59
59%
5.5
5.5
55%
outdoor activities
8.9
8.9
89%
8.6
8.6
86%
8.9
8.9
89%
9.0
9.0
90%
sustainability impact
7.0
7.0
70%
6.6
6.6
66%
B9
6.9
69%
8,0
8.0
80%
semorcenter
1 8.1
12.2
81%
8.1
12.2
81%
8.2
12.3
82%
10.0
15.0
100%
Total Score
85
105
72%
83
102
70%
85
105
72%
92
113
78%
Subjective Score
Pleasant
5.9
5.9
29%
8.8
8.8
44%
7.2
7.2
36%
5.0
5.0
25%
Oakland
11.0
11.0
55%
11.8
11.8
59%
1115
11.5
58%
12.5
12.5
63%
Symonds
14.0
14.0
70%
17.2
172
86%
15A
15.4
77%
16.5
16.5
83%
Final Score -Pleasant
60
69
42%
69
80
48%
64
74
45%
fit
70
42%
Final Score - Oakland
87
102
62%
Be
101
61%
88
103
52%
97
112
68%
Final Score - Symonds
99
119
72%
100
119
7216
101
120
73%
109
129
78%
Mips/Iraatlrgmagovmy marereinewnlpersonaYrrm4reaCingmayovNawmenlslDeseNpldV44Cll Beetling SAe RanFing Results Summary
Reading CAL - Site Ranking Analysis
101111!014
hnladwatlinpmmvmy.sAaapULmMpaxne14K00_ntlllpmLpovrlbamenlalMkNp1201401'tl ILtlin Sam Ra1Yn caddho blMNn
lapis
cOa
all
Swommenvolsoorm,
pleamant
Oakland
mends
pV
Oakland Symonds
gant
oakmM
s ds
areaoftheaite
2.86
7.43
8.86
325
5.8B
8.88
3.00
6.86
8.93
impact on abusers
3.86
3.43
8.14
3.63
3.88
7.13
3.57
3.86
7.71
tramccondilions
4.71
5.14
6.57
5.50
4.88
6.13
5.14
5.07
BA3
perking quantity
2.71
729
8.71
4.75
8.00
8.63
3.86
7.79
B.79
location of parking
7.71
8.00
7.00
7.13
8.50
7.63
7.21
8.36
7.50
w ilands6bodplaws
7.71
7.00
3.86
8.88
6.38
4.75
8.43
6.79
4.43
site construction mel
429
3.86
5.14
5.38
4.63
5.13
4.93
4.14
5.14
operational anis
5.00
6.14
6.86
5.38
6.50
6.13
521
6.50
6.57
mu109en use
3.43
8.14
6.29
5.50
6.75
5.38
4.3
7.50
5,93
outdoor aclivities
2.29
6.29
8.86
2.63
550
8.63
257
5.93
8.86
sustainabilfty Impact
4.14
5.71
7.00
3.50
6,13
6.63
3,86
6.00
6.86
senior center
5.14
7.57
8.14
4.75
7.25
8.13
4.93
7,57
821
total
54
76
85
80
74
83
57
76
85
spored
22
9
32
14
9
23
19
9
28
M ueb ai arvbssa mmpanaon wslSw leen eadl grtup renal NeYouddemm
Mly.
Tre mea far Oatand and Symolda n 2 ppb, spat Ian seal Mer Nen
mnpwke RCCA.0
and CM mre4 Of ai RECALL
emnE team aka ma flan em
TM mea of Pmm,are 6 pmnm apomomexA Mer
Nan axrpalkq RECALL Who CUA aaaa. M Naim MA axa l orae feadme
nei
on
all
removing bpllworet Scores
pleamant
oaklSM
3yormoned,
oluar9
Oakland symoMs
pleasant
Oakland
s monde
bast amore nemosred
46
68
77
51
66
74
49
68
76
moved
22
9
30
14
9
23
19
8
28
worst score removed
52
73
82
58
70
78
55
73
81
spud
21
9
30
13
a
21
18
B
26
best and wont score removed
44
64
73
51
62
70
46
64
72
Spread
21
8
29
11
8
is
16
B
26
IN Ude above Mamma Ne sips if me dear am vent some an nnmW bhmmlre as sin k
impead" ort me nae Plan anomer.
RwmNig me Lest acorea or remnams
a, ,omrams a, midenl impetlan dre on ani poMspead wUam ma am wan wmsme
REGALE and cuA mrea
Pamng Ne MSl and worst mea As a"rlmpe[I Of
Man pour apart for PYmetIM SpKMafw CM awm
recdc
sae
a9
norea,ing on. cattaffory
pleavant
oakland
symonds
plsn,nt
asklend myneteMa
baanl
oakleM
s reds
without area of the site
51
69T7
57
68
74
54
70
76
speed
18
8
26
1f
6
17
15
7
22
aithout impact on Montle.
50
73
77
57
70
76
54
73
78
Spread
23
5
27
14
6
19
19
5
24
outtrafflcmMilbns
49
71
79
55
69
77
52
71
79
spread
22
B
30
15
8
22
19
8
27
without parking quantity
51
69
77
56
66
75
53
69
77
spread
18
a
26
if
8
19
15
B
23
Wftut location of parking
46
fib
78
53
66
16
50
69
78
speed
22
10
32
13
10
22
18
10
28
without wetlarmIlloodplains
46
69
92
51
68
78
49
70
81
spread
23
13
35
17
11
27
21
11
32
wimout site mrtRtruction cost
50
72
80
55
70
78
52
72
80
Spread
23
a
31
15
B
23
20
8
28
without operational costs
49
70
79
55
68
77
52
TO
79
spread
21
9
30
13
9
22
18
9
27
without mu8igen use
W
68
79
55
68
7B
53
69
79
spread
17
11
29
13
10
23
16
if
27
Without outtdoor activities
52
70
T7
53
69
75
55
70
n
spread
18
7
25
11
6
17
18
B
22
witAoulsuaminabllityimpect
50
70
78
57
68
T7
53
70
79
Speed
21
8
29
11
8
20
17
8
25
wHhoutseni0rcenter
49
68
77
56
67
75
52
69
7/
spread
20
9
29
12
8
20
17
a
25
lM fadeN ..Ina am,a IM waaand.1 ttom
an, ienv.0 mdeMrdrc n.con aihamaeq
one aw more Ilan Mannar.
Ramon p and., me a2. of Imo sik, hnpxton
abutam, paM1Sq Mantis ar aumwr eGrvwa abgpba smoked
man iv.se in tee wheal wwNnaatt
RamaNq elmer me boon of padlq.ratUMRnodpaNs, an moriyer use resmUd 0 a Mmw n Imo nMapaad w,eab' a
hnladwatlinpmmvmy.sAaapULmMpaxne14K00_ntlllpmLpovrlbamenlalMkNp1201401'tl ILtlin Sam Ra1Yn caddho blMNn
Reading M -Sb RIXMNA Lommmb
MON
.n«rwmw-.X m..w mw.—+r•..rN.e..�..o:.w.b.rmmN<.n...... rM1....r a..—,
PxnlYdmrYrdn ewwmw'mn9Am.Wm
dXlpWppagivamWlYYbana..aw
@iJty [e.q reXbadtlMNlb PrdMmYkabpPRN
wMpnYdbToki4bYlwwu MYnVxb16/xaeeW
MrAn®.IdYpeAY.MMYtrslmb
/miry
nraynL4rnI5.vCnM1xabM1mbmn MY
pYkmamnYrnam u.icpWYamtlxn[laddd.
YY9yybM WammWiwlWlrylb
W trynaAryNluW/rMrnannggarmryg5w.
Rmmlllblylrtivlaq MNla NLmrntlMiadbmm
Wmr W[pYpYM1Nytl•YFmNmYl�wtr
m wxeac
witiYPWyW.I+eOiipatlaWmi.
bwia
aanw wwlay.axYmeMaw{ naln�y e.n.m..l
ewmm
lXYe9n awu WdWa.b lmgWXw MX.lapr.
vnurre pemY.ba.mYXin, mmme•arwNn as
Ymsl�
p.ramnapXum.e YpnlRdeq..e. q+awW M1anp
Yarrmw.rY..e mn[Y
.+: paambmW
µ.bnbadwelwr.mY.vimPnmaeW[me
Bdublabry Nm m.aNmwRra Memm Lnqu[
mmaNarFlnnaFpypW b4tlaayM
Cdnnn
rtitlmanmt &YNr9nIN Mem}'a9alm Wbaern
Nnpna x abmnYwlYalYRuvm P m
in#iWYwl[eryyYYaelybyyryX
RrW9n MIX.d.Yanb MenyAl Eelvabaq NN
wAm'waV,NpmtlwmnNVHfwYPocen
66Mnlltrli Ea/ggWimbiYv6Ph118baba
eri+NegPga^.ORn)pwabxnwxhrlllmgw
YWIFPIIbN\apylalmLitlYm
�
CeMWIb
PaViryitENge WYSry Nwnagngn
Ib��WrbYxYabyal[IWaN'nbWtlmvlolM1
8mwbehywllpYnmdlgM.&pc
Gn WrimaNrwN[fMr{a YPnnmlbXb.Wued.W
yy YaNGYfsbeliplb.Yipi ylYiy
OwAn
IUYPaYe. LnwdndY.h Ayr,SmXxMlw[aLMiun
aPN111. Pon naNmdNmWM[eMIMV.M
tlpYYadYnc•ptfpneYYa�'bbmP
ww'wo.mmmdewelwmndwpN..a.wR
rrmlawmirvm.rmmamm.rranrtrw
.IX • b.
romnn.�
abme.x'rAru.ulw,Wmpnwmrml.mYlmpdm
F 'YixbrWq albW rhMim: w.dn. rvellmtl
UW9
In+Aory PaFp; WiLLplmiy lwub.Xeabva5Nll9n:
prAnlr;mnAwpetinepmlilllr XgeizlYNWxew;
IbnbPomvn; W6a aFilYmY0.mymaYmYWI
mnMqurwvCnap'm mYlxYion
q{wim: Vaiemwn[I4mr aubrmlkl NN
Wyn YNm�mNwryrvXlyeYY YtlW.reuiwnrtlerq.
YAdaobery[nOpugc
`
Nvigb.WrbA'm bdlOwwYa NlAn Wq[obrelY
6vl kallluwollllmplM14d3npNNYtllM1dla
Wr•WmSynrYgmWpmNIYIAYwwHIMb
us PScrn rKxvrpdMmawm Ra4elNamirtinp
dWRSMWn.CIrXyIIYMpeamulutl MX{W.
PYMIe
SNblwmy{P>bq N161ManiwP
mFY+'AYIe ArrylniYbmaPnladnYmNmptlN
Bg.ilLLPmRaa AaxxflYWwMrggn.Pm[RIYIw
xlNxWm
Rs.N9NN XYmulA9Mebm IMYb MAaWraM
W...t INW ian4Plrt bbMraJhafeaW
«tlmid WbnpmYAPmtlapvilwi�.'mYXNIdY
WMIq W®
RrX[p CmnwhLnsYb NapR,n YwpYbYlvuLL
9+o Ver9rwv Nil Weprgrnbn W EMeendbx,
�clMasgpOmamlardplrnnY
b"��` b�rnlmimelYYYwdmamYM
iAnwym'wplpi M1bnn MeavatlrargWbm
Ptlb
Iluma'pNiwa rtlflMpbnn MCWrlAnmplbnm
maNpa
MtivxJm alwYmpinm Mnetllw Ye>a MprgMm
belMPlmaam[M1awllrmwtlPrmlMWaIWYtl Xma
�n �nNimandl®BYMN
wn WclwtlbPmiNn OYYMb
msnywNYnanWWwpuINN 4YxeµgWbsM
mmMWPlrvoidmd.&AwT MenYebu N[
Sm CnarNme WpiwlrY'afrd9bb4aWya.
Snb fitln Xrda Nr piuil aN f N Ya to N GMyM.
POYYrmblAla Yk WAAIVYLbbfillNlpwbigry
IWgNlnayn,p45wnwxiim..m,MCegpunNa
Rrilglw reamnmWMYNOWnerotlrpvbgla
.n. We�,dxiraw lNW.inwmrY.Mmmemmin
Fuoampabm"nnl.ww.wmwmnwYWanee
mrlbWm mondm, Ynmenw[npmNnmr
r[m.wwRmYm.9mYmamwW.m.yb.a.r.
egbk.LNIR IIvgaFiYmlAe lirA bALpWamn
Iqk NstlANYVAWIa1.ad Mnbtay.11nanw
gymnihbpgama NYvmp.vYbulirply., pnp Mb
NM Yahym Fa Rilm Wr9pebl, Wlllw
vYtlNnMaxlllybrtluNenX NeuMrNld4Ae4n PIWd
�n IYn WIyrnYYMMOWMra1iM
m. Pacrgnn.. wnYWWYW vmawdmmw qml[
wmonMmwm.rweNm ue PPmbmdYwgrmwem
Abm..mnmdpemlmWny mNrm•W mRe:W
PaNYN bNabmlw.a wµr WaaivLMxafryvb PwNM1
drotl.11bwI
nnYltl YY✓W[mviaYy PmXb.rM
mgYpM1I�IMbNbemWlryaW wMYwAare Wnirn
NrldnnrMlud[vunmlMVYb aMMiVe
bm
[mMYe pFaalWgali nornlmMrxiry bwkw
wmm rrs irRlaPovtivYddmxrriri+'[a,
iYFtlabpeYpbMlNgbbsMry Wp.Mign
ziFlYWn WwItlIN WIygmIMVWlnnmglelureYl
rw4nbwcN%InpYl b[anldatlmWiwuw
WIUINN1in NaLWenr
trY[sn
age4.del AexMbw.
tlNYle'neabb WaW,IwiaranmMatlbntl
rabY.IMarwinma Mkr YugdYe
bnbnnbefvmintlxeWYdnYudmibbr
w.mYraaea5m.filnYlwYab.ryJm.brmaYYSemY
Iggrtrybnufenwew.wnwN,.reaa.no.apm
MIeeX�.aurenmaumYxewaw[uXwPmrr+.N..r
ml.b.r,ilwwu.emwn�smaam[u+r.P.n.naa
dX. a.rFYlwxYmmI:NYW x lmemn.ranmF.wd
ywm �mxdaq.wuNW XNM1mM1W
ahYa Llry m W�Lm. rlw b nd mran ma xMe nra
b�ww
rnelewst>nrc M Mmx pnvq Ptln.
SIWiyA
PrlulebvmrrurvlYnWAnN WYrryinlolwYb Ar
SienlwllW brplmu®Arel'or NNNtlafl YllL1,
INMvidAl;tlmr1 i11Y®Yruiyryymn
m mnnW Mr d.
iir'miauYbNv
mYa
Y a Ivtdp.WpnapvM'ry
0.ymmnarpadggmiriylolRM1 •Aml, pXmaYYYk
gaYYemlimtrlXe pqr{
�Wn
i
Np
NomreMs
Rganbblrybleals. PaNAx Mptli`YmVi Yb:
IYyiaAARWGYwibM.Ar; Pruinhbehd.0b
tr°hIXIYeYW tihnmYtrliYYi lWnNpYame
pagrrr
Srnnerd YFP bmrndpgmmeAbwYlmmi[n
MVram MXPYYanvXlvnpN;AW[nbN
YW iabb[Pot6Wm MIF[M
Wroy.
RIYWnaWW aNiI^id X[Mern mr.
.n«rwmw-.X m..w mw.—+r•..rN.e..�..o:.w.b.rmmN<.n...... rM1....r a..—,