HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-23 Board of Selectmen HandoutTOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
• Oak Tree development update
• Interested in moving forward by end of September 2009 — construction may
not begin until spring 2010
• Will immediately (6-25-09) make application to the State for housing
grant/assistance to get to 25% affordable; Town will write letters of support
o Will use 40R
o Will consider LIP as back-up plan to 40R
o Want to use Town's consultant on 40R to assist them with application for
Housing grant/assistance
• Collins Field re-dedication at Parker Middle School postponed — will be re-scheduled.
• Tennis Court painting this weekend and into next week — weather permitting.
• Main Street at Birch Meadow no turn on red
• FINCOM appointment - Kevin Leyne
• State budget and local aid
• Friends and Family day and fireworks were a great success last Saturday.
• Tax billing issues — related to the first use of MUNIs for that purpose, and a good
cross over. If residents have an issue with the name or address on the bill, please
contact the Collector's office ASAP so that eth issue can be resolved in a timely
manner.
Dates and Events:
e September 13 — Fall Faire
OF$EgOr� Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
`team T'wo Reading, MA 01867
Inro
June 23, 2009
To whom it may concern:
Stephen A. Goldy, Chairman
Ben Tafoya, V. Chairman
James E. Bonazoli, Secretary
Camille W. Anthony
Richard W. Schubert
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
(781) 942-9043
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us
The Board of Selectmen wishes to express its enthusiastic support for the application by
Oaktree Development LLC for the necessary subsidies to realize their redevelopment plans of
the former Atlantic grocery store site in Reading. Oaktree's plans would be developed under
the Town's proposed 40R Downtown Smart Growth District. This innovative zoning technique,
advanced by the MA Department of Housing & Community Development, is expected to be
presented for Town Meeting zoning adoption this fall. Reading Town Meeting adopted a Smart
Growth District in another location in 2007.
The re-development proposed by Oaktree for the Haven Street site is seen by the Reading
community as a cornerstone of the proposed Smart Growth district. In fact, Oaktree's vision for
the site has helped gain local popular support for the adoption of the Smart Growth district. The
participation of Oaktree in public workshops on the proposed zoning, the visual appeal of their
design concept, the mix of housing and retail uses, and Oaktree's green building techniques
have galvanized a vision for what a Smart Growth District can achieve for our downtown.
Without the affordable subsidies, however, Oaktree cannot provide the number of affordable
units, 20% or 25% (depending on the level of affordability), . that state law requires in Smart
Growth districts.
Additionally, it is important to take advantage of a favorable construction climate and in place
financing for this project in order to provide additional affordable housing and to put additional
Massachusetts residents to work.
We hope that you will review Oaktree's application favorably and expeditiously.
Sincerely
Chairman
cc: Senator Tisei
Representative Jones
Representative Dwyer
Page lofl
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Zambouraa,8eorgo
Sent: Tuesday, June 23.2OOQ3:15PK8
To: Cormier, Jim; Hechenb|o\kner. Peter; Lee, Michael; McIntire, Ted; Zoger. Jeff; Zomboureo'George
Subject: Illuminated NTOR Rte 28
Peter
Regarding the illuminated no turn o» red sign on Rte 28 i oon�ootorto�eta|8�esignbvthnendofne:L�eek
Theatotehaerema�adthenmmaignmndtheyexpe�tk�r / ��' .
As per the MHD district directors authorization letter, the sign will only be installed on Rte 28 for the southbound
motorists.
The state wants to evaluate the operation of the sign and if everything goes well, then they would consider other
movements within the intersection.
George
6/23/2O09
Downtown Spotlight - Reading, MA (www.ci.readin2.ma.us)
• Recently voted #1 in MA, Best Affordable Suburb- (Business Week)
• 2008 Retailer of the Year (RAM) — GoodHearts Children's Shop
• Chocolate Guide — 2009 Sweetest Chocolatiers — The Chocolate Truffle
Bucking the Trend — Reading, MA — Despite the daily economic headlines of late, the downtown center
of Reading has added four NEW retailers /restaurants to an already existing "hearty" group of small
business owners. Peter Hechenbleikner (Town Manager) and Carol Kowalski (Community Services
Director /Town Planner) couldn't be happier, "It is truly remarkable that in the worst economy this nation
has seen in decades, Reading is attracting new businesses. Most are single proprietor businesses,
highlighting the entrepreneurial spirit of the community. We are thrilled to be working with al of these
business ventures, and know that our community will support them."
A core group of Downtown merchants didn't let the economy stop them from producing their annual
"Shop the Block" during the holiday season. These retailers include The Chocolate Truffle,
GoodHearts Children's Shop, as well as relative newcomer, Everything But The Dog, and a long-
standing staple of the business community The Hitching Post a gift shop located near the corner of Main
and Haven Street.
New Businesses:
• Aine's Boutique — Women's specialty store (Opened in December) located on Haven Street
above Main Street
• Ristorante Pavarotti — Italian restaurant (Opened Valentine's Day) — Comer of Main/Haven
Street
• Swissbakers (Opened in March) - Train station — Baker specializing in healthy Swiss baked
goodies including, pretzels, croissants, and Berliners. Swissbakers' owners cater to the Swiss
Consulate in Boston, and the owners have experience in establishing retail establishments
worldwide
• Be Gifted — (Opened in April) The second retail establishment by the owners of GoodHearts
featuring specialty gifts for all occasions. The "birth announcement" of this second store can be
seen in the windows of their Main Street store. Be Gifted is located at the end of a newly
freshened up alleyway featuring iron archways, brick paving and a mural which was spearheaded
by the Economic Development Committee
More to Come:
• Mixed Use: Oaktree Development - Is coming to Reading after completion of its new
development in Lexington Center. Oaktree purchased The Atlantic Market grocery — which was a
staple of the downtown for 87 years; and plans include bringing a grocery back to the space as
well as a bookstore and restaurant; while at the same time providing residential space above. The
space is conveniently located less than a block away from the commuter train to Boston
• Mixed Use: MF Charles Building - In 2007, James Mawn purchased the building located on
Reading's historic "hub" on the corner of Main and Haven Street. Initial plans were designed by
D
an architectural firm that specializes in preserving the historical elements of a building while
creating new use functionality. Current plans are to have residential condominiums above retail
that will be a central downtown location for possibilities such as: restaurants, ice cream retailers
and children's specialties.
• The Olde Redding Butcher Shoppe — Slated to Open by Labor Day with the tag line, "the people
you know, the meat you love. Former Atlantic meat cutter, Gregory Chesnulovitch, is adding
additional life to Haven Street, one of the anchor streets of Reading's downtown.
• Restaurant- A sad closing of a long -time business, Wayside Bazaar, quickly turned to a new
business possibility when regional restaurateur, Michael Palmer, owner of Tanner Tavern, in
Woburn, and Stearns & Hill, in Melrose, who has had his eye out for a good location for a
restaurant in Reading and the Wayside Bazaar location fit the bill. Though a bit up Main Street
from downtown it's less than a block off the Route 128/95 exchange.
Wfly Reading ?:
• Downtown Streetscape Project - $5.49 million state and town funded project to improve the
sidewalks, lighting, road structure and aesthetic appeal of the Main Street corridor. During this
project a tighter relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and the business community grew.
• Economic Development Committee (2006) which was an outgrowth of Reading's Master Plan, is
focused on creating better outreach and recruitment of small businesses. Recent projects have
included creating a business tab on Reading's town website that lists the commercial properties
available in Reading, revitalizing a downtown pedestrian alleyway, and currently reviewing the
sign by -laws in hopes of creating a better understanding of the rules and regulations and possibly
creating Design Guidelines that can be used by the business community.
• Community Involvement — The Reading community and town committees thrive through
Reading citizen volunteers. This past year some members of the community formed a World
Cafe that provided a facilitated forum to collect ideas and concerns for Reading's future. Top of
the list was to create a vibrant Downtown. The process of capturing that need/desire as well as
individuals interested in creating this possibility is a strong step in the right direction.
• Reading -North Reading Chamber of Commerce (2000) is dedicated to having a working
partnership among the business community, the public officials and the residents of Reading, so
government and business decisions result in an improved economic environment and quality of
life. The Chamber serves as an important and valuable resource to members for advocacy,
information, and marketing exposure that enhances their business success. Most importantly, the
Chamber adds value to the community at large by working for legislative changes that are critical
to economic growth in Reading.
Small Business Utopia?
Not at all; in fact, Reading town officials and committees have been focused on changing a perception
that Reading was a tough place to do business. There are a lot of things that the town can't control, i.e.
state health and safety regulations, but as Pete Hechenbleikner states on the website, "Reading is taking a
proactive approach to economic development." More than likely perfection will never be achieved but the
town is working on doing all that it can do to make a difference.
For more information contact:
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page I of 8
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleilkner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: CSTC URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT RE: SIGNIFICANT OPEN MEETING LAW
CHANGES PROPOSAL
importance: High
TM report
From: Ellen Doucette [mailto:ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Fw: CSTC URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT RE: SIGNIFICANT OPEN MEETING LAW CHANGES PROPOSAL
Importance: High
You and the Selectmen may be interested in this alert from the City Solicitor/Town Counsel Association re:
changes to the OML. While the legislature has apparently seen the light and omitted the provision that would
have imposed a $1,000 fine on each board member for violating the OML, some of the other provisions are also
onerous.
Ellen
Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq.
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 799-9739
(508) 799-9799 Facsimile
----- Original Message - - - --
From: James B. Laov-k—e
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: Fw: CSTC URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT RE
PROPOSAL
SIGNIFICANT OPEN MEETING LAW CHANGES
IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE ALERT- IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
City Solicitors and Town Counsel Association
James B. Lampke, Esq., Executive Director/Secretary-Treasurer
115 North Street, Suite 3 Hingham, MA 02043
781-749-9922 fax-781-749-9923
jlampke @massmurAaw.org —Org www.massmunilaw.org.
No doubt you have heard about the pending ethics law changes being worked on by a
conference committee at Beacon Hill. What you and many others may not have heard about
however is that tucked away in this important ethics reform legislation are very significant
proposed changes to the Open Meeting Law (OML).
We certainly support appropriate ethics reform. We also certainly support meaningful reform
0q
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 2 of 8
to the 01VIL.
These proposed changes contain many good changes to the OML, such as consolidation of
enforcement in the Attorney General's office as opposed to the present system of each county
having its own interpretations, training for local employees and officials, the authority for the
AG to enact regulations and other authorizations such as for improved notices, and many
helpful clarifications. Importantly, the new proposed changes within the ethics bill do not
include fines for individuals who may violate the law (which was sought in prior years; although
other bills pending purportedly provide for such fines).
However, the proposed legislation does not contain the important the codification of the
attorney-client privilege that was recognized by the SJC in Suffolk Construction, a much
needed exemption for negotiation of non-labor/personnel contracts and licenses such as cable
licenses and other needed improvements.
Also, and critical to the effective and orderly administration of local government, is the fact that
the proposed legislation creates new burdens on local boards to, for example:
have to list on the agenda all items the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed;
specify when going into executive session not only the reason for the executive session (as
is presently required) but also "all subjects that may be revealed" in the executive session;
- provide in the minutes of both open and executive session a summary of all matters
discussed at the meeting;
- include as part of the record of the meeting a listing of all documents "used" (whatever that
means) at the meeting, and include all such documents "used" as part of the official record of
the meeting along with the minutes and all such documents (with limited exceptions) also
become public records not entitled to the protections of the Public Record Law (anyone have
any empty warehouses for storage?);
- authority for the Attorney General to reinstate an employee (with back pay, etc.) who may
have been terminated in a meeting the AG determines was in violation of the 01VIL;
- there are other problems with the proposed changes as well.
What is particularly disheartening is the fact that there has been, to our knowledge, absolutely
no opportunity for public input of these changes. There has been no public hearing on these
proposed changes. Apparently, it appears that the House passed an ethics reform bill that did
not contain these 0IVIL changes. The Senate passed an ethics reform bill that did contain
these 0IVIL changes. As a result, the bills go to a conference committee to work out the
differences. We are advised that the current bill being considered with these changes is S.
2050. These conference committees have limited ability to add to the bills and generally can
only delete or clarify the language. The conference committees do not hold public hearings or
have any formal procedure or opportunity facilitating public input, even from those
constituencies that would be most impacted. The timing and scheduling of when a conference
committee releases its report and bill is also not subject to any advance notice.
These problems with the bill should cause great alarm and concern for all local government
boards and officials.
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 3 of 8
Your Association only recently learned of the proposed OML changes tucked away in the
ethics reform legislation. What is greatly feared is that in the urge to enact needed ethics
reform, these important changes to the OML will be enacted with little review or analysis.
When your Association found out about this, we sent emails and made contact with certain
officials to express our concerns. At one point we urged that the OML changes be "stripped"
from the bill and addressed separately so that there could be needed public input and proper
analysis. Leiter, the position was softened to withdraw the request that the OML changes be
stripped from the bill if our concerns were addressed. It remains unclear exactly what will be
done with these changes and our concerns.
WHAT CAN AND SHOULD YOU DO?
Your help is critical in getting the message to local officials about these pending changes.
Your help is also critical in getting the word to Representatives and Senators about the
problems with the OML language. We urge you to contact your local state house officials and
others involved with the process, including the Governor. We also urge you to forward this
email to your local officials and urge them to do likewise. The only chance we have to halt
these changes from moving forward is for there to be a concerted effort to implore Beacon Hill
not to enact these changes, at least not without adequate study and opportunity for comment.
Pasted below into an email letter you can use or modify is an example of the emails that your
Association through its President Christopher Petrini sent to Representative James Vallee, a
member of the conference committee and a state house leader. For convenience, we have
combined the two emails that went to Representative Vallee (and others) into one and also
added a comment about the section that enables the AG to reinstate an employee and made
some other changes to make it more appropriate for your use and that of your local officials.
As you can see, we identified the text by line numbers. We have only focused on what we felt
were the most significant issues- there were other concerns as well and you may have
additional concerns.
YOUR PROMPT ACTION IS ESSENTIAL. PLEASE ACT NOW AND FOLLOW UP ON YOUR
EFFORTS. PLEASE LET US KNOW OF ANY REPLIES YOU RECEIVE. IF YOU KNOW
WELL ENOUGH BEACON HILL OFFICIALS, PLEASE CONTACT THEM DIRECTLY AND
PERSONALLY TO EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS.
If you have any questions or other concerns, please contact us. If you need. a copy of the law
before the conference committee (S. 2050), let me know and we will email it to you. It is about
112 pages long, so we are not attaching it to this email.
Thanks for your interest and support. And again, it is critical to act immediately on this. Many
local officials (and we suspect some state officials) do not even know of these pending
changes, so spread the word.
9=
Jim
City Solicitors and Town Counsel Association
James B. Lampke, Esq., Executive Director/Secretary-Treasurer
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 4 of 8
115 North Street, Suite 3 Hingham, MA 02043
781-749-9922 fax-781-749-9923
11ampke(cD-massmunijaw.ong www.mas.smunilaw.orq
1 9=1
I am writing about the proposed changes to the Open Meeting Law (OML) that are contained in
the Ethics Legislation (S. 2050) presently before a conference committee. Being involved in
local government, I and others are very concerned that these changes to the OML have not
been publically discussed and there has been no opportunity for input from those who will be
most affected by the changes. While we all agree that there should be changes to the OML,
and many of the proposed changes are good, there are a number that will place unreasonable
burdens on local government.
Contained below are some comments on these proposed changes and some very significant
omissions in the proposed law.
Unfortunately, these concerns are being raised rather late in the process, as we were not
aware of the changes until recently and more importantly were not aware of the tight time line
on the bill which contained the proposed changes. There was no opportunity to appear before
any public hearing that we are aware of to discuss these significant changes.
We recognize that the present focus is on the very important ethics law; however we are
concerned that in the process these very significant, and in some cases adverse to the
effective and orderly administration of local government, changes to the Open Meeting Law
might be enacted in the drive to pass needed ethics reform.
It would be extremely unfair to local government, the public in general and the many people-
particularly the thousands of unpaid volunteers in local government-to have such sweeping
changes and increased burdens enacted without thorough consideration. Local government
organizations are dedicated to the improvement of local government through the advancement
of municipal law and stand ready, willing and able to promptly meet to discuss these changes
and work to bring about needed and effective changes to the Open Meeting Law.
I would greatly appreciate your review of this matter and passing it along, hopefully with your
support, to your colleagues involved in the process, particularly those on the conference
committee.
If I can provide additional information or if you wish to discuss this matter further in the
meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Here are some of the key concerns:
1. Attorney- Client Privileged Meetings: In addition to other needed changes, the
proposed legislation suffers from a major defect insofar as it does not include a statutory
6/23/2009
IM__J
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 5 of 8
exemption to the Open Meeting Law for boards to meet with their attorneys. I and others
strongly urge that the proposed revisions to G.L. c. 39, § 2313, Open Meeting Law, include a
new subsection 11 to statutorily codify the Supreme Judicial Court's recent holding in Suffolk
Construction. Co., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Managemen , 449 Mass. 444 (2007), which
recognized unequivocally that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications between
public entities and their counsel. The SJC made clear in Suffolk, that, for private and public
alike, "the attorney-client privilege is a fundamental component of the administration of justice,"
Suffolk, supra, 449 Mass at 445, which constitutes an "essential function" in "a society that
covets the rule of law." Id. at 449, and "serves the same salutary purposes in the public as in
the private realm." Id. at 450. As the SJC recognized in substantiating its ruling, it is now well
established that communications between government agencies and agency counsel are
protected by the privilege as long as they are made confidentially and for the purpose of
obtaining legal advice for the agency." Id. at 450-451. The Legislature should revise the Open
Meeting Law to reflect this tenet, as has been done in several other states.
Specifically, the Open Meeting Law should be amended to add a new subsection 11, as
follows:
Executive sessions may be held only for the following purposes:
1) To allow a governmental body to meet with and consult its counsel for purposes of
engaging in,` , reviewing or discussing communications protected by and within the scope of the
attorney-client privilege, as such privilege is recognized and defined under the common law.
2. Lines 480-483:
a. Re: members of a body attending another body's meeting; This change is very much
needed to address the issue of members of a body attending another body's meeting, and
whether those members can participate or not. This arises when for example members of a
City Council may attend a meeting of the budget committee or subcommittee. Issues have
arisen as to Whether such members can speak and participate at the other body's meeting if
there happens to be a quorum of the other committee present. The present draft language
allows this. We feel this language should be clarified to include members of a main body being
able to attend as individuals a committee or subcommittee of that main body. This can be
easily addressed by adding at the end of line 480 after "body" the phrase "or at a committee
or subcommittee of the main body".
b. Line 483: We believe that the language "do not deliberate" should be deleted. It
suggests, given the definition of "deliberate" in the law that such members would not be able to
make an "oral or written communication" as an individual at the other body's meeting.
3. Line 493: Preliminary screening committee definition- We recommend that the definition
be clarified to indicate that the Appointing Authority itself can be the Preliminary Screening
Committee. There appears to be some disagreement as to whether an Appointing Authority
could designate itself as the Preliminary Screen Committee. This confusion can be easily
resolved by adding a sentence along the lines of the following: "The public body may
designate itself and serve as the preliminary screening committee or subcommittee."
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 6 of 8
4. Line 534: Open Meeting Law Advisory Commission- We believe that the membership of
this commission should include a member of the City Solicitors and Town Counsel
Association. Our organization can and would bring to the mission of this commission our
unique insight and knowledge of local government. We would be able to present helpful
contributions to the process in analyzing how any OML issues impact local government. While
the other proposed representatives on this commission certainly bring helpful information and
important perspectives, having municipal legal counsel work with them will add an important
element to the process. Since adding a member of the CSTC would increase the membership
to six, we would suggest that there be a seventh member, perhaps appointed by the Governor,
to keep the composition an odd numbered body.
5. Line 568 Agendas for meetings: Most boards already use an agenda, particularly if
there are scheduled hearings. The bill however requires listing in the agenda by the chair
"topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting". We believe that
this is unworkable and not practicable. As a practical issue, there are numerous matters that
come to the attention of board members right up to the time of, and even during, a meeting
that may need to be addressed. While the proposed language does reference "reasonably
anticipates", it would be likely that disputes would arise over whether something was
"reasonably anticipat[ed]" by the chair. Other members of a body would still be able to bring
up matters. Members of the public often bring up matters. It would also lead to frequent
disputes as to whether action taken at a meeting on a matter that was not listed was a legal
action or not. There are many instances for example where documents are signed by a board
at a meeting that would not normally be listed on the formal agenda. These might include for
example bond issuances or signing of other documents. Having such actions open to question
because they might not have been listed on the agenda would unduly interfere with the
effective and orderly administration of local government. We are also not aware of this being a
problem in terms of the way boards conduct business. We believe that the language "and a
listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting"
be deleted.
6. Line 622 Executive Session: Proposed language in bill would require "all subjects
that may be revealed" be announced before going into Executive Session. We believe.that
this is very problematic and would, depending on how it would be interpreted, require stating
the topics with identification of the matters when going into Executive Session. We believe
that this would interfere unreasonably with the need to go into Executive Session. We
recognize that the proposed language does make reference to "without compromising the
purpose for which the executive session was called". It would however create situations
where there would be disputes over how much identification must be given on the statutory
reasons for going into Executive Session. It is not in the best interests of the community for a
board to have to state the name of a particular litigation matter publically, thus giving notice to
the other parties that the community is planning something. It would be counter to the purpose
of privacy to have to state the name of the person whose medical condition is being discussed
or information on the medical issue. We believe that the language "stating all subjects that
may be revealed, without compromising the purpose for which the executive session
was called" should be deleted.
7. Line 662 re investigation of criminal matters: We believe the language should be
clarified to also include civil matters as well. Presently, such matters are often covered under
the litigation exemption. However, adding "civil" to this section would clarify the law. This is
especially since our legal system now includes numerous civil penalty situations. There is no
001
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 7 of 8
reason why this statutory reason should be limited to just criminal matters. This clarification
can be easily accomplished by adding the words "civil or" before the words "criminal" in lines
662 and 663.
8. Line 683: we have already commented above on the importance of adding language to
address the attorney-client privilege. That addition would appear to belong as Exemption No.
11. the next exemption We also believe that it is important in this day and age of major
contracts and licenses that the law be clarified to permit public bodies to negotiate non-
labor/personnel contracts and licenses in Executive Session. Such an exemption would
logically be added at this place. Under the present law, a community cannot negotiate
contracts that may involve a multi-million expense to the community, such as waste
management, development projects, utility licenses (including cable) and numerous other
major contracts. While staff often deals with the negotiations, there are many instances where
it would be in the public interest, as well as a necessity to resolve certain issues, for
negotiations in Executive Session. Often times there are competing companies dealing with
the community and it is not in the public interest that competitors of a party the community is
negotiating with know the terms and conditions, objectives, etc. prior to the contract being
negotiated. For example, many communities are dealing with their existing cable operator
seeking a renewal of their license and a new provider seeking an original license. Preventing
such negotiations to be held in an Executive Session results in each of the two providers
knowing the negotiating posture of the other and more critically what the community may be
seeking. This problem could be addressed by adding a new Exemption 12 to permit
Executive Sessions "to permit the negotiation of non-labor or personnel contracts and
franchise licenses if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining
position of the government body."
9. Line 686- 697 re minutes of both open and executive sessions: The proposed
language calls for having to provide a summary of the discussions on each subject, a list of
documents and other exhibits used at the meeting". The documents used also become part
of the official record. We believe that this requirement is overly burdensome and not practical.
Numerous subjects are discussed at open sessions. The public has ample opportunity to
observe these discussions, as they should. Requiring a "summary" to be in the minutes on
each topic discussed creates a new and unnecessary burden on local officials. With respect to
Executive Sessions, the law presently requires, as it should, that minutes be kept. The new
law would also require a summary of each topic discussed. Executive Session discussions
can only be for certain statutory purposes. Having to list a summary of each topic discussed
will create many of the same problems noted above. In addition, having a summary of the
discussions in Executive Session may likely defeat the purpose of the Executive Session and
may contain information that could be used against the community. Having to create a list of
all documents and exhibits "used" at the meeting and have those documents and exhibits so
"used" as part of the official record also creates similar problems. For example, many times at
meetings someone appearing before a board may use documents and may even display them
to the board. The new law would seem to require that those documents must now be
submitted to the board and be made part of the record. This would place an additional burden
and expense on citizens who may come before boards. We believe that this concept of having
to prepare a summary would create unintended consequences that would not be in the public
interest. Of significant concern is the fact that the proposed language in line 699 would appear
to emasculate any public records exemption of such documents "used" at an open or
Executive Session, regardless of the nature of the document. A fair reading of the proposed
language essentially provides that if a document that would otherwise be exempt from
6/23/2009
RE: Request for Amendments to Open Meeting Law Amendments Contained in Proposed... Page 8 of 8
mandatory disclosure as a public record under an existing statutory exemption in the Public
Records Law was "used" at a meeting, it would no longer be subject to an exemption under the
Public Records Law. For example, a board has before it a request for a sick leave extension
from an employee and a medical record supporting the request. If the board relies on those
documents at a meeting, the documents now become part of the record, must be made
available to the public and no longer would be exempt under the Public blic Records Law, even
though the medical record would otherwise be exempt under the Public Records Law.
Therefore, we believe that the references to these requirements in this section of the proposed
law should be deleted, such as in lines 686-687 "a summary of the discussions on each
subject, a list of documents and other exhibits used at the meeting"; lines 694-696 "(d)
Documents and other exhibits, such as photographs, recordings or maps, used by the
body at an open or executive session shall, along with the minutes, be part of the
official record of the session."; lines 697-699 "the notes, recordings or other materials
used in the preparation of such minutes and all documents and exhibits used at the
session."
10. Lines 766-767: Empowering the Attorney General to reinstate an employee if there
was an OML violation. The ability for an employee to challenge personnel action exists
already in several forums. The law presently provides a mechanism in a judicial proceeding
before a Judge for an employment action to be overturned if there was a violation of the OML.
I would be overly burdensome and disruptive for this type of broad remedy to also be available
to the Attorney General in overseeing compliance with the OML. Sufficient avenues exist for
this remedy in court without having to expand it to another forum.
If you need further details, or require further information, please do not hesitate to call me. I
also understand that the Massachusetts Municipal Association (617-426-7272), the City
Solicitors and Town Counsel Association (781-749-9922) and many other groups share many
of these concerns and could also discuss the impact of these changes with you.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these requests.
Very truly yours,
6/23/2009
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:29 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Legislative Alert
Importance: i High
Town Manager report
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Deborah Gaul [mailto:dqaul@mbtaadvisoryboard.org]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Ted Teichert; Douglas P Gillespie; Stephen Goldly; Dawn Rand; Michael D Yunits;
Rosemary Semdile; Thomas L McLaughlin; Timothy C Murphy; Tim Hutt; Terry Finnegan; Kevin
O'Connor; Thomas G Ambrosino; Ira Singer; Shaun Suhoski
Subject: Legislative Alert
Importance- High
Dear MBTA Advisory Board Member:
As you have no doubt heard, the Legislature passed the Transportation Reform Bill
yesterday. While there is much to admire about the new legislation, the bill severely
limits the power of communities to influence the MBTA.
The three seats on the MBTA Board of Directors that were filled by municipalities have
been eliminated. most important for MBTA member communities, the power of your Advisory
Board to approve the MBTA budget and long term capital plan has been eliminated.
Across the Commonwealth, communities that belong to Regional Transit Authorities are
assessed a fee for service and receive the power to oversee the Authority's spending in
return for those funds. The MBTA is a Regional Transit Authority and MBTA member
communities will be assessed over $150 million in FY2010. Until this new legislation was
passed, the communities had the power to review, change or even reject the MBTA annual
budget.
Today, while the assessment continues to grow by 2.5% a year, communities no longer have a
say in how those monies are spent.
These changes to the oversight power of municipalities were not in either the House or the
Senate versions of the Transportation Reform Bill, but were
inserted into the final version of the Bill. The Bill now goes to the
Governor for his review and signature. I am writing to urge you to contact the Governors
Office and demand that the community's right to oversee the MBTA be retained. Urge the
Governor to veto Sections 107, log, III of the new Transportation Bill. Make sure that
your community has a voice in how the MBTA*spends your money.
Thank you
Paul Regan.
MBTA Advisory Board
Call or write:
Governor Deval Patrick — 617 727-4005
State House, Room 280
Boston, MA 02133
-Please veto Sections 107, 109, and 111"
1 9
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:27 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Public Sidewalk Dining
For tonight.
N
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Frederick Van Magness [mailto:vanmagness@verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:24 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Public Sidewalk Dining
Hi Pete,
Just a couple of comments:
if the sidewalk abuts a property but is separated from the building facility by a parking
lot, is it the intention that the business can place outdo-or dining on the sidewalk? You
may want to consider that any sidewalk that is adjacent to a property but is separated
from the building by a parking lot be.excluded from sidewalk dining considerations. Too
hazardous to have people walking across parking lots/parking areas with food, beverages,
etc.
Under standards of operation #14, you may want to consider the requirement that licensees
be required to keep not only the area clean that is subject to the license but also the
surrounding areas, including the adjacent public sidewalk. We would not want food residue,
food containers, etc. left in the public sidewalk area or gutters, blowing around the
area, etc. Also, all trash receptacles should be removed from the public sidewalk every
night...to'prevent rodents, etc. There is always some left over food stuffs that find
there way into these containers, even after trash has been removed.
Also, in item #4 in the first section, there may be a typo ... I think the word "their" is
shown as "tier ".......
Just some thoughts... nice regulations.
Fred Van Magness Sr.
N
N
Page I of 1
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: rnrchambercom@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:05 AM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Outdoor dining comments
Attachments: Outdoor Dining Regulations Comments.doc
Hi Pete,
Here are the comments I received from the membership regarding the draft policy for outdoor dining. I
will not be I able to attend the public hearing tonight, but representatives from my board of directors will
be there.
Irene
Irene Collins
Executive Director
Reading-North Reading Chamber of Commerce
978-664-5060
www.ReadingNReadingChainber.org
Save energy, paper and money -- get the Green Toolbar.
MIR
6/23/2009
Outdoor Dining Regulations Comments
Collected by the Reading -North Reading Chamber of Commerce
6/23/09
Clear, straightforward policy, I have no problem with it.
I applaud the town of Reading for moving forward with creating this policy. As the downtown
shapes up outdoor dining will be a very attractive attribute, but what about serving beer &
wine?
Excellent policy, Reading should go for it.
No alcohol, what type of restaurants will this attract to the town?
You can't even enjoy a glass of wine with a meal outdoors? Ridiculous.
Based on the downtown as it stands now only Town Pizza has the ability to serve outside, what
about attracting other restaurants.
This does not apply to many businesses. There are really no public sidewalks except downtown
and even with the renovations there is no room.
I think this policy applies mostly to the downtown area. Having outdoor dining on the
sidewalks is a fantastic idea. It may entice people driving by or coming home by train to stop
and spend some money, but what restaurants have the room to do this. Also, if Reading wants
to attract any new restaurants on Main or Haven, they should consider allowing them to serve
alcohol outdoors.
The policy should state what type and size of umbrellas and chairs. Umbrellas with beer ads
should be banned.
This policy should be written in a manner to attract new businesses, restaurants and otherwise.
A thriving downtown with outdoor dining is very attractive. I think they should think about
what they want to attract in the future, otherwise we will continue to have just pizza and sub
shops downtown.
The Health Inspector will never go for this. Good luck.
n __7
40A
FY2009 Cherry
FY2010 Gov's
House Ways & House Ways &
Senate
Govemor
Conterence
Sheet(Orig.)
Bdgt (House 1)
Means (v.1) Means (v.2)
Final
Revised
Committee
w/ sales tax
61512009
Assum tion for Reading FYI Budget:
$ 12,501,617
$ 12,501,617 $
12,501,617
$ 12,501,617 $ 12,501,617
$ 12,501,617
Total Estimated Receipts (State)
$ 13,777,127
$ 13,058,626
$ 12,280,426 $
12,996,981
$ 12,051,324
$
12,379,334
$ 12,250,986
ARRA (Federal)
$ 962,961
$ 962,961 $
962,961
$ 1,005,358
$
1,005,358
$ 944,132
Total Estimated Charges
$ 596,923
$ 557,009
$ 558,517 $
558,517
$ 558,517
$
557,101
$ 576,460
TOTAL NET Recei is -Char es
$ 13,180,204
$ 13,464,578
$ 12,684,870 $
13,401,425
$ 12,498,165
$ 12,827,591
$ 12,618,658
Difference vs Reading budget assumption
$ 962,961
$ 183,253 $
899,808
$ (3,452),$
325,974
$1 117,041
Difference_ excluding ARRA
$ -
$ (779,708) $
(63,153)
$ (1 008 810) $
- ..
(679 384)
...
$ (827,091)
..
.. ..
Education:
Chapter 70
9,264,215
,.-
9,264,215
-..
9,264,215
.....r
9,264,215
9,078,931
9,264,215
9,078,931
School Transportation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Retired Teachers' Pensions
Charter Tuition Reimbursement
0
26,978
0
3,481
0
8,825
0
8,825
0
8,825
8,825
Offset Receipts:
School Lunch
15,875
17,197
17,197
17,197
17,197
17,197
School Choice Receiving Tuition
Sub - Total, All Education Items
0
9,307,068
0
9,284,893
0
9,290,237
0
9,290,237
0
9,104,953
9,264,215
0
9,104,953
General Government:
Lottery Aid
2,167,997
General Fund Subsidy to Lottery
331,943
Additional Assistance
Unrestricted General Government Aid
1,534,901
4,034,841
2,882,948
2,731,246
3,341,394
2,656,673
2,656,673
2,856,335
Revenues from Meals Tax Increase
0
383,964
0
0
0
383,964 0
0
Revenues from Rooms Tax Increase
0
74,482
0
0
0
74,482
0
Local Share of Racing Taxes
0
0
0
0
0
0
Regional.Public Libraries
Police Career Incentive
0
210,357
0
165,002
0
0
0
97,303
0
38,921
38,921
Urban Renewal Projects
Veterans' Benefits
0
36,028
0
84,159
0
84,159
0
84,159
0
76,997
0
76,997
State Owned Land
53,804
53,766
53,768
53,768
48,391
48,391
Exemptions: Vets, Blind, Surviving
Spouses & Elderly
102,874
101,949
101,949
101,949
101,949
101,949
Offset Receipts:
Public Libraries
32,155
27,463
19,067
28,171
23,440
23,440
Sub - Total, All General Government
4,470,059
3,773,733
2,990,189
3,706,744
2,946,3711
3,115, 191 3,146,033
Total Estimated Receipts (State)
13,777,127
13,058,626
12,280,426
12,996,981
12,051,324
12,379,334 12,250,986
ARRA Federal
962,961
962,961
1 962,961
1,005,358
1,005,358 944,132
TOTAL RECEIPTS
13,777,127
14,021,587
13,243,387
13,959,942
13,056,6821
13,384,6921 13,195,118