HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-09 Board of Selectmen PacketTown of Reading
• Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: October 5, 2007
RE: October 9, 2007 Selectmen's Meeting
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
I will not be present at the meeting — I will be at the ICMA Conference, Bob LeLacheur will be
there and will be able to handle the meeting.
Rick Schubert has Office Hours at 6:30 p.m.
1 c) In your packet are a few items of note:
® We received notification of the preliminary certification for our tax rate
for our every three year revaluation. This reflects on the good work of the
Assessment Division and the Board of Assessors.
® We've been accepted for the MMA's 6th Essay Contest. I will be working
with the Superintendent of Schools on this.
® We will be having a Veteran's Day Celebration on Sunday, November 11
at 11:00 a.m. on the Common.
0 A reception for Ben Nichols will be held on Saturday, October 13 from
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Senior Center. The community is invited. We have
asked Steve Goldy to be present to represent the Board of Selectmen, as well as
any of the other Board members who can be there.
® On October 27, 2007 at noon we will have a "ribbon cutting" on Franklin
Street at Fox Run Drive for the new sidewalks. We've asked our legislative
delegation and our Town Engineering staff to be present to be recognized for their
efforts. Chairman Bonazoli will be present for that and the rest of the Board is
invited.
® On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 1481 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli will be present for the Board and we
hope that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
2a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175th Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a term expiring June 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 6). The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the time at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification.
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128/I93 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867 -2685
FAX: (781)942 -9071
Email: townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: October 5, 2007
RE: October 9, 2007 Selectmen's Meeting
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942 -9043
I will not be present at the meeting — I will be at the ICMA Conference. Bob LeLacheur will be
there and will be able to handle the meeting.
Rick Schubert has Office Hours at 6:30 p.m.
1 c) In your packet are a few items of note:
• We received notification of the preliminary certification for our tax rate .
for our every three year revaluation. This reflects on the good work of the
Assessment Division and the Board of Assessors.
• We've been accepted for the MMA's 6th Essay Contest. I will be working
with the Superintendent of Schools on this.
• We will be having a Veteran's Day Celebration on Sunday, November 11
at 11:00 a.m. on the Common.
• A reception for Ben Nichols will be held on. Saturday, October 13 from
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Senior Center. The community is invited. We have
asked Steve Goldy to be present to represent the Board of Selectmen, as well as
any of the other Board members who can be there.
;treet On October 27, 2007 at noon we will have a "ribbon cutting" on Franklin
at Fox Run Drive for the new sidewalks. We've asked our legislative
delegation and our Town Engineering staff to be present to be recognized for their
efforts. Chairman Bonazoli will be present for that and the rest of the Board is
invited.
lc1
• On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 1481 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli will be present for the Board and we
hope that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
• I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
2a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175th Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a term expiring June 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 6). The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the time at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification.
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128/I93 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
( G'L
CH
�������Q� [VK��OOf�DO8/S8O��� V�
/wm�mw�c/xu�u�w"^^ _ y '
Henry Dormitzer, Commissioner Robert G. Nunes, Deputy Commissioner & Director of Municipal Affairs
21D7 OCT —4 ANN:
October 3, 2007
Reading Board ofAssessors
Town Hall —1O Lowell St.
Reading, MA 01867-2693
Fe: NOTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION
Dear Board Members:
The Bureau of Local Assessment has completed its preliminary review of your revaluation program and
proposed assessments for all classes Vf property fo[fiaCa|yeor2OO8. The Bureau's statistical analysis
of arms-length residential oe|as indicates compliance with the Commissioners standards for
certification. |O addition, the Bureau's review ofo representative sample of parcels and ofpersonal
property accounts indicates o consistent application of the valuation methodologies employed for these
classes of property throughout the community.
With the aUoCeoGfu| completion of this preliminary review, you are now authorized by the Bureau to
proceed with the appropriate public disclosure process necessary tn receive final certification .for these
prOp8dYdG�S�e. Th�p/Vo9dUrenneqVinedbocV0np|e18 this phase are outlined iO the BUreaUo
Guidelines For the Development f A Minimum Reassessment Program ' /2/2000\.
When the Board of Assessors has reviewed all assessment changes resulting from public disclosure,
please submit to this office a copy of the public disclosure notice and the "Assessment Adjustment List",
Form LA-1 0, which identifies each property with an assessment change in excess of ten percent of the
proposed valuation iD effect during our preliminary FeVievv. Also, when all assessments are finalized,
you must complete the classification of all property and submit the total assessed valuation of each
major d@osOOFVrn0LA-4,"AoseGsnnen�(�|8sGiDc8tiOnFkepor['bJtheBVn3aUof Local Assessment.
��'giptof the completed forms LA-4 and LA-1D will enable the Bureau to review and issue its final
certification.
Your cooperation isappreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Marilyn H. Wowne, Chief
Bureau of Local Assessment
CC: Board of Selectmen
K8B/88 _
Post Office Box 05GQ Boston, MA02/14-9569, Tel: G17-G26-2300,Fax,'6l7-G26-2330
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: Kristi Williams [kwilliams@mma.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11:41 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: MMA Second Annual Sixth Grade Essay Contest
Congratulations!
Page 1 of I
VI
Your community has been selected to participate in the MMA's Second Annual Statewide Essay Contest
for 6th graders.
You will receive a packet of contest materials early next week. Information has already been mailed to
all principals to distribute to their 6th grade teachers. Material are also available on our website.,
vrvvw.mrna.org.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 617-426=7272 x107.
Sincerely,
Kristi Williams
Database and Administrative Coordinator
MMA
One Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110
617-426-7272 x107
617-695-1314.fax
www,mma.org
EMAIL DISCLAIMER
This message is a private communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy,
it to others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it fr
Email transmission may not be secure or error free. Information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, des
or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the c
message that arise as a result of email transmission. Thank you.
icq
10/4/2007
Octerber 1, 2007
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867 -2683
Mr. James E. Bonazoli,Chairman
Board of Selectman
16 Lowell Street Town Hall
Reading MA,01867
Dear Mr. Chairman,
G
VIA 0
Francis P. Driscoll Director
VETERAN'S SERVICES
Phone: (781) 942 -6652
Fax: (781) 942 -9070
I would like to invite you and the entire Board of Selectmen to the Town of Reading's Veteran
Day ceremonies. This year's ceremonies will be on Sunday November 11, 2007 atl 1:OOAM on
the Town Common. We will be forming in the Town Hall parking lot at 10:45AM. I hope you
will join us this year and help make this Veterans' Day a special day. Thank you
Sincerely,
Francis P. Driscoll
Veterans' Service Officer
"To Care For Hie: Who Shall Have Borne The Battle... "Abrahmn Lincobt
IcS
Page I of I
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: K,risti Williams DuwUUa .
Sant Thursday, October O4.2OO712:11PM
Subject: MMA Fall Conference for Selectmen, Oct 13th
Attachments: 2UO7 Fall Conf for Gelectmen.odf
To: All Selectmen
From: Ellen Stoolmacher, ember Services Coordinator
Re' MMA's Fall ConfemnoaforSe|ectmen - Oct 13th
Date: October 4,2OO7
ThemMA is pleased m invite you »o the only statewide conference inwassachuse�soOe�dcxcus*e� for e�ecmen.eo�new
and seasoned elected officials are encouraged to attend. An agenda was
mailed to all selectmen in September, however, please find
an agenda, registration form and directions attached for your convenience. Please forward this information to any interested
Selectmen, We expect a great cross section of attendees from communities across the commonwealth, We hope you will attend as
M00A`s Fall Conference for Selectmen
Saturday, October 13'2007
8:00 a.mm.to 2:30 p.m.
Sturbridge Host Hotel
o:noam'Regist,aton Networking and Breakfast
9:00 am-Welcoming Remarks
9:05 am-Lt. Governor Tim Murray
9:*s am-Michael Widmer, President, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
10'20 am'anaax
10:30 am-Action Strategies: The Give and Take nfDevelopment
11:40 am-Break
11:50 am7lt's Easy Being Green: Innovative Ideas that Save
z'oo pm-Lunch and Legislative Update
z:10 pm-The Debate onCasinos
a'so pm-C|oa)oo Remarks and Adjournment
Full agenda, directions and registration are attached.
RegisterToday via Fax: (617) 695-1314
You ' also register online at
http: .mma.o,g'indcx.php?opuon=com_nvcntsotask=view_detoUangid=zasoyoar~zoo7mmnnth=znadav=zsultemid=47
Questions? Please call Ellen stoomocharat the nMA.at 800.882.1498
I��
K�� _
l0/4/2007
Page of
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: Geoffrey C. Beckwith nle.org
Sent: Thursday, October O4.20O7214PM
To: Reading -Geleotnnnn
Subject: Massachusetts Municipal Association Legislative Breakfast Update
K8MA Legislative Breakfast Series
10/4/2007 Contact:
JaokieLaGnand
617-426-7272
Massachusetts Municipal Association
Dear Local Official,
There are just a few days remaining before we launch our Legislative Breakfast Series. We have
finalized all the dates, times and locations, including setting the dates of our Andover (Nov 30) and
Cape Cod (Dec 14) meetings. We have combined our Gloucester and Beverly meetings into one on
November 30 in Beverly, and we have confirmed the location of our North Adams(Oct 12) meeting
at Mass K8oCA.
An you know, the Patrick-Murray Administration has started to assemble House Two, the
Governor's fiscal 2UO8 budget blueprint that will bm filed in January, and legislators vvi||snonbegin
meeting with their House and Senate leaders to talk about their own priorities for the budget year.
Our breakfast meetings come at e vital time, and it is critically important to have the full participation
of our cities and towns across Massachusetts. Legislators want to hear the fiscal problems that
communities face and many Representatives and Senators have committed to attend. We know
these meetings will be successful and productive, and give us momentum leading up to the budget
debate.
PLEASE SIGN UP TODAY! For your convenience, you can click here to see all the meeting
locations and dates, and register online if you have not yet done so. |f you have already registered
to attend o Legislative Breakfast meeting, thank you very much!
You can also register by contacting Jackie Le Grand at the MMA by e-mailing .
orby calling G17-42G-7272 ext. 1U4to confirm your attendance.
If you have any questions about the breakfasts, please call MMA Legislative Director David Baier at
O17-420'72y2 ext. 12O.
Finally, please feel free to forward this e-mail to municipal and legislative ooUeaguen, and ask them
to attend.
Thank you very much for your leadership and dedication to public service et home, and tobuilding
a stronger future for communities across the state.
Sincerely,
l0/4/20O7
® On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 148.1 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli will be present for the Board and we
hope that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
• I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175`x' Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2
L2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a.term expiring June 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for, the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 6). The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the time at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification.
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128/I93 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
ac,,4-,U
Certificate Certificate of Recognition
This L, Awarded 1
1 !'�
In Recognition I L eir celebration of 175 years
Idfaithfulness and for the honor that this 1 1I I III'
has brought to the Church, I I I and the community
Given this 27th day of October, 2007
By the Reading Board of Selectmen
Subject: Demiserniseptcentennial Celebration!
Dear Mr Hechenbleikner;
Jolalc)-7
7107 SEP 18 AN 10: 13
45 Woburn Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 tel: 781 - 944 -3876
Www.fbcreading.org
V"
David Wesley Reid
I am pleased to invite you as the guest of the Anniversary Steering Committee to join the First
Senior Pastor
Baptist Church in Reading as we celebrate 175 years of God's faithfulness.
Dana Jon Smith
Associate Pastor
On Saturday evening, October 27th, there will be an Anniversary Dinner and Program.
Because of the Town of Reading's support of First Baptist we extend this opportunity for you
Betty MacLean
to share a few brief comments on this occasion. The key note speaker for the evening will be
DimctorofCongngatdonal Can'
Rev. Dr. Stephen Macchia. Dr. Macchia is the past president of Vision New England, and
currently is the director of the Pierce Center for Discipleship at Gordon- Conwell Theological
Kellie Tropeano
Seminary. He will be sharing his thoughts on the importance of being a Biblical witness in
Director of Music & Worsbdp
New England during the past 175 pears.
Kerrie Fraser
Armr*andst
The evening's events will take place at Angelica's Restaurant on Route 114 in Middleton, MA.
The plan for the evening's program is:
Kathy Cooper
6:30 — 7:30 Appetizers
Business Manager
7.30 Dinner is Served
8:30 Evening Program
The Anniversary Steering Committee is pleased to host you and a guest to this event. We
request the honor of your reply by October 1 st so that we may finalize plans for the evening.
If you have any questions regarding this event, please don't hesitate to contact Joyce Gould at
781 942 3810 or (joyciegould ,yahoo.com).
On behalf of the First Baptist Church and the Anniversary Steering Committee, I warmly invite
you to join us as we celebrate God's unwavering faithfulness.
�Z
Certificate of Recognition
This 1 Awarded 1
TIMOTHY S. CONLEY
Boy Scout Troop 704
In Recognition of 1 1 the Eagle Scout Award for his P 1 1
-fields of the Bare Meadow conservation area *in Reading i working 1 1 1 Conservation 1 -,1 it 1;• was
project leader, guiding 1 1 1 11 other 1
constructing 1 1 bluebird houses and 1 1 1 1.11 1 1 open
Given this 24th day of November, 2007
By the Reading Board of Selectmen
This Certificate is Hereby Awarded to:
ALEXANDER L. ORTIZ
Boy I ut Troop 704
iRecognition of 1 i the 1 Award for
Project of r he librarians of Reading P 1 Library
1 develop 11 reconstruct the Netguide Program
volunteers 1 teach Library users how 1 navigate the World Wide
1 to use search engines, and to develop 1 r computer skills
Given this 24th day of November, 2007
By the Reading Board of Selectmen
September 14, 2007
Reading Town Manager
Peter Hechenbleikner
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner,
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
BOSTON MINUTEMAN COUNCIL
Troop - 704
Reading, Massachusetts
I am writing this letter on behalf of Timothy S. Conley, 16, who will be presented
his Eagle rank in Boy Scouts of America on Saturday, November 24th at 5pm at the
Wood End School in Reading, Massachusetts. Tim is currently active in Boy Scout Troop
704 of Reading.
I am sure you know that the rank of Eagle is the highest rank in Scouting. Not
every boy who joins a Boy Scout troop earns the Eagle Scout rank; only about 4 percent
of all Boy Scouts do so. Tim has lived by the Scout Oath, and has shown exemplary
leadership and a genuine desire to help both his troop and his community. Another of the
many requirements for Eagle Scout was the planning and execution of a service project
for his community.
Working closely with the Town of Reading Conservation Commission, Tim was
project leader, guiding his fellow scouts and other volunteers in constructing eight
bluebird houses and installing them in the open fields of Bare Meadow conservation area
in Reading.
We in the Troop 704 are proud of Tim's achievements. In addition to the honor of
being presented his Eagle rank, I believe a personal message from you, the Reading
Town Manager, would truly make the event memorable. Tim is currently a junior at
Reading Memorial High School, where he is active in soccer and the school's marching
band and jazz ensemble.
Respectfully,
Bernard R. Horn, Jr.
Scoutmaster, Troop 704
99 Beaver Road
Reading, Massachusetts
01867
�b2
I,
September 14, 2007
Reading Town Manager
Peter Hechenbleikner
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner,
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
BOSTON MINUTEMAN COUNCIL
Troop - 704
Reading, Massachusetts
8
C)
I am writing this letter on behalf of Alexander L. Ortiz, 16 who, as an active member of
Boy Scout Troop 704 of Reading, will be presented his Eagle rank on Saturday,
November 24h at 5 PM at the Wood End School in Reading, Massachusetts. As you are
well aware, Eagle is the highest rank in Scouting and only about four percent of all Boy
Scouts attain this rank.
Alex has shown exemplary leadership and a genuine desire to help his community. One
of the many requirements for Eagle Scout was the planning and execution of a service
project for his community. Alex's project was assisting the librarians of the Reading
Public Library to develop and reconstruct the Netguide program that trains volunteers to
teach library users how to navigate the World Wide Web, to use search engines, and to
develop basic computer skills. As there was no funding to develop this program, a
volunteer was needed to restart the program. Working closely with the librarians, Alex
and other scouts recruited the Netguide volunteers, created a logo, and developed a
handbook in electronic format.
We in the Troop 704 are proud of Alex's achievements. In addition to the honor of being
presented his Eagle rank, Alex has also attained a Black Belt in Karate. He is currently a
junior at Reading Memorial High School.where he is a member of the soccer and winter
and spring track teams. I believe a personal message from you, his Senator, would truly
make the event memorable.
Respectfully,
- 4- 1 ^ 1
Bernard R. Horn, Jr.
Scoutmaster, Troop 704
99 Beaver Road
Reading, Massachusetts
01867
ul
• On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 1481 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli will be present for the Board and we
hope that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
• I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
2a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175th Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a term expiring June 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 6). The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the time at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification.
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128493 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
3c" ,
r rc fl�li
Community Planning & Development Commission
Term: 3 years 1 Vacancy
Appointing Authority: Board of Selectmen
Orig. Term
Present Member(s) and Term(s)
Date
EXP.
John Sasso, Chairman
10 B Street
(04)
2008
David B. Tuttle
27 Heather Drive
(06)
2008
Nicholas Safina
221 South Street
(06)
2010
Vacancy
( )
2010
Brant F. Ballantyne
52 Blueberry Lane
(06)
2009
George Katsoufis (Associate)
9 Berkeley Street
(06)
2008
Israel Maykut (Associate)
22 Middlesex Ave.
(07)
2008
Candidates
Christopher T. Nolty
John Weston
*Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment
3a2
Term
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Three years
Appointing ointing Authority Board of Selectmen
Number of Members Five Members whose terms are so arranged that as
nearly an equal number of terms as possible shall
expire each year
Meetings Twice a month on the second and fourth Monday
Authority Reading Charter — Adopted March 24, 1986
Purpose CPDC shall make studies and prepare plans .
concerning the resources, developmental potential
and needs of the Town. CPDC annually reports to
the Town giving information regarding the physical
condition of the Town and any plans or proposals
known to it affecting the resources, physical
development and needs of the Town. CPDC shall
have the power to regulate the sub = division of land
within the Town by the adoption of rules and
regulations governing such development. CPDC
shall have all of the power and duties given to
Planning Boards, Boards of Survey and Industrial
Development Commissions under the Constitution
and General Laws of the Commonwealth, and such
additional powers and duties as may be authorized
by the Charter, by Bylaw or by other Town Meeting
vote.
3 C3
Page 1 of I
Schena, Paula
From: HeohenLdeikner,Peter,
Sent: Monday, October O1.2UO78:24AM
To: Scheno.Pau|a
Subject: RW:CPDCvacancy
From: George K. [mailto net]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 10:39 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: CPDC vacancy
|n response to your Q/28/U7 letter, | would like to thank you for the opportunity to become e full-member ofCPDC.
Ad this time, unfortunately once again, | have to decline this position in2UO7-2O08 due to professional work load
and due to my preference of assisting CPDC with broader planning initiatives rather than the permitting process.
| �| t�|������b��� �a���m�b�
Hev�goa�that would like pvuum'
should CPDC run the risk of becoming a predominantly anti-growth committee.
Thank you,
GeorQallotaoufia
30,q
&K
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES'COMM'�iHW OWN D I N GCLER , MASS,
Name: 1 Date: 11)7-nq '
;Zool SEP I I P. 0 2
a
, : I
(L st) (First) (Middle)
Address: 3,5 Tel. (Home)--)a1-134Z-093-3
Tel. (Work) -C? jLj -1 Z,1 -2-
(Is this number listed?)
Occupation: 1:,,ve-s4w,,enY Cans - # of years in Reading:
Are you a registered voter in Reading? VtS
e-mail address C
Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority.
(Attach a resume if available.)
Animal Control Appeals Committee
Aquatics Advisory Board
Audit Committee
Board of Appeals
Board of Cemetery Trustees
Board of Health
Board of Registrars
_Bylaw Committee
Celebration Committee
Cities for Climate Protection
Commissioner of Trust Funds
(Community Planning & Development Comm.
Conservation Commission
Constable
Contributory Retirement Board
Council on Aging
Cultural Council
Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves
Economic Development Committee
7- Finance Committee
Historical Commission
_Housing Authority
Human Relations Advisory Committee
Land Bank Committee
.M-BTA Advisory Committee
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
_Mystic Valley Elder Services
Recreation Committee
RMLD Citizens Advisory Board
Telecommunications and Technology
Advisory Committee
Town Forest Committee
Water, Sewer and Storm Water
Management Advisory Committee
West Street Historic District Commission
—Other
Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought:
Over 10 �PC5 ek,�erehcR,
W -
3o-,5'�
1M7 AUG 35 AN 11: 4
IV MIL
Name: Q)015 � Jam Date: -
(Last) (First) (Middle)
Address: to W; .%'YWtoQ Tel. (Horne) 716l - 942- Z5L('?
Tel: (Work) 4 g6 5
e;'� (Is this number listed ?)
r
Occupation: ,.M— # of years in Reading:
Are you a registered voter in Reading? YCS. e-mail address: LY-15 n 0a walr%, C6-1..
Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with. #1 being your first priority.
(Attach a resume if available.)
_ Animal Control Appeals Committee
_Aquatics Advisory Board
_Audit Committee
_Board of Appeals
_Board of Cemetery Trustees
_Board of Health
_Board of Registrars
Bylaw Committee
Celebration Committee
_Cities for Climate Protection
Commissioner of Trust Funds
Community Planning & Development Comm.
_Conservation Commission
_Constable
_Contributory Retirement Board
_Council on Aging
Cultural Council
Custodian of Soldiers' & Sailors' Graves
Economic-Development Committee
_Finance Committee
_Historical Commission
_Housing Authority
_Human Relations Advisory Committee
_Land Bank Committee
MBTA Advisory Committee
_Metropolitan Area Planning Council
_Mystic Valley Elder Services
_Recreation Committee
_RMLD Citizens Advisory Board
_Telecommunications and Technology
Advisory Committee
_Town Forest Committee
_Water, Sewer and Storm Water
Management Advisory Committee
_West Street Historic District Commission
Other
Please outline relevant experience for the position(s)
. I . u w_ r -
IM
• On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 1481 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli Will be present for the Board and we
hope that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
® I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed. Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
2a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175th Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a term expiring June 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 61. The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the e at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification. -Z-7'-
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128/I93 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
NCI
Colonial Manor
REALTY
October 3, 2007 ..n
Reading Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Board of Selectmen:
In anticipation of your split tax rate vote, we would like to make several salient points.
Since we own several properties in Reading (between us, 4 residential and 1
commercial); we feel we will save on. one hand and lose on the other. And, we believe
the residents of Reading will' suffer, as a Whole with `a flat 2 tax'step system.
We are a small business owner (real estate) fighting hard to stay alive in this very
volatile marketplace. An increase in our taxes of about $2,500 would eliminate our
ability to continue to maintain our property as we currently do, thus reducing its value
and eventually its assessment. Even if we were to continue to maintain our property, we
(and other small business owners) certainly would not be able to contribute to the
many non -- profit organizations in town, causing them (from our youth to our seniors)
undue stress... plus we believe we would be paying more for goods and services as well.
Massachusetts is the most unpopular "business" state in the country, with the highest
number of businesses fleeing and the fewest "knocking at our doors" to come in.
Reading is just now coming into its own, with new large commercial vendors
establishing themselves here (which should help our economic and tax bases) .
By implementing this proposed system, we would end up with more empty storefronts
and a declining - downtown, resulting in lower home values to all. Whenever there is a
decline in a community, inferior schools, reduced services and an uninviting
downtown result; hurting all property owners.:: quite a high price, to' pay when it
comes to selling your home.
e�
127 Franklin Street, Reading, MA 01867 • (781) 944 -6300 • FAX (781) 942 -7043
If it is deemed absolutely necessary (although why it would, we do not understand) to
have a different tax for commercial properties, then this rate should be "stepped." A
suggestion would be that small businesses under $550,000 be at one. rate, another for
$551-999,000 and a third for $1,000,000 +. It only stands to reason that property
owners such as Jordan's Furniture, Chili's or Stop `n' Shop realize much higher annual
profits per capita than our small real estate office and many other small businesses in
town.
The downtown commercial building owners are already struggling to keep their
tenants. Let's not give them an additional excuse to leave our town. Please do not install
a "Small Business Owners Need Not Apply Here" sign at our borders.
Sincerely,
Bobbie Bottieelli, CBR, CRS, GRI, PMN
Co -Owner /Colonial Manor Realty
n-
rF
ck azzar , CBR, CRS, GRI
Co -Owner /Colonial Manor Realty
LJO
Dear Reading Board of Selectmen:
I do not support differential property tax rates in Reading. I
urge yo I u to keep property tax uniform when you vote this fall
following the public hearing.
Signed —Date CP
Print Name -
Reading Business
491 A
ENDORSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD 017 DIRECTORS OF
THE READING-NORTH READING CHAMBER OF COMNIERCE
Dear Reading Board of Selectmen:
I do not support property tax rates in Reading. I
urge you to keep y tax uniform when you vote this fall
following the public bearing-
Signed��,l.( )Mk�'
Print Name wole4lne-4-k,
Reading Business Ll!}%i(a._ — N— �—f/—
{gin
ENDORSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE READING-NORTH READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Dear Reading Board of Selectrilbn:*-
I do not -support differential. property tax rates in Reading. I
urg6 you to keep propertyltax uniform when you vote this fall
followin"he public hearing.
Signed
Date
rC4 ----------- ---- --- C1 v7
Print Name 105.4 imp t-e
Reading Business I- ()MAI Lb 1
Nbs
�.
_ � _
Nbs
Dear Read' -B,.Q=d of Selectmen:
149
do not sui -in Reading. I
ftp�jt differential tax rates '.
- . I . '' . ":� 'uniform this tall
urge you to Xeep,property 5;euni orm when you V* is
follow, the 'p'*'u llic'h ng.
Signed Date
Print Name ry\
Reading Business. U& Q.'W%r0C>1rWJ_ 0___
ENDORSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE READING-NORTH READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
--- - ---------------- ---- -
Dear Reading Board of Selectmen:
I do not support differential property tax rates in Reading. I
urge you to keep property tax uniform when you vote this fall
:following the p lic h g.
ate the h
g
ig 2_1
Print Name
Reading Bus m*ess,4't;XC,4AF-i'_' C=iX4C4 LoAlt__rl apl � Rf-_
r
40fiv
ENDORSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE READING-NORTH READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Dear Reading Board of Selectmen:
I do not support differential property tax rates in Reading. I
urge you to keep property tax uniform when you vote this fall
following the public a g.
following
Signed igned Date
Print Name
Reading Business �RCJQ�'fNPA Q,ML
'M40
Tax Classification Committee
Report to the Board of Selectmen
Fall — 2007
Introduction
On February 6, 2007, the Board of Selectmen (the "Board ") established an ad -hoc Tax
Classification Committee (the "Committee ") of five members', for the purpose of:
1) advising the Board on matters of policy related to the setting of a residential real
estate tax factor;
2) determining whether to establish an open space discount;
3) determining whether to establish a residential exemption; and
4) determining whether to establish a commercial exemption.
In selecting the Committee members, the Board gave consideration to a member or designee of
the following community groups:
➢ The Economic Development Committee;
➢ The Finance Committee;
➢ The Board of Selectman;
➢ The Community Planning and Development Committee; and
➢ The Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce.
(The Policy sheet establishing the Committee is attached as Exhibit A.)
t The Board appointed the first three members on March 27, 2007. At an appointment hearing on May 15, 2007, the
Board reviewed applications from three qualified citizens to fill the remaining two spots. Because of the quality of
the applicants, the Board decided to expand the size of the Committee from five members to six members and
appointed all three applicants.
Page 1 of 8
qb?
The Committee Members and participants are as follows:
Committee Chairman:
Richard McDonald
Town Meeting Member and Former Chairman of the Reading Finance Committee.
Committee Vice Chairman:
Neil L. Cohen
Town Meeting Member and Former Member of the Reading Finance Committee.
Committee Members:
Karen Herrick
Town Meeting Member, Reading Business owner, Assoc. Member of the Reading
Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Act Committee.
Leslie McGonagle
Reading resident and business & business property owner and designee of the
Economic Development Committee.
Kenneth Rossetti
Reading resident and business owner and designee of the Reading/North Reading
Chamber of Commerce.
Ben Tafoya
Member, Board of Selectmen, Town Meeting Member.
Participants:
Steven Cool
Reading resident, Chairman of the 1993 Tax Classification Task Force
Cynthia Cool
Reading resident
Town of Reading Staff:
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr.
Committee Secretary, Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director
David Billard
Town Appraiser
Page 2of8
�I
The Committee held public meetings on the following dates:
Monday, May 21, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Conclusion of the Committee
On July 30, 2007, by a vote of 2 to 4, the Committee did not approve a motion to recommend to
the Board that the residential property and commercial and industrial property (CIP) rates remain
the same and that a residential real estate tax factor of 1.0 be established at the Board's Tax
Classification Hearing in the Fall of 2007.
It was the majority's opinion that a shift in the tax rates from residential property to CIP should
be recommended to the Board.
Thereafter, the Committee, by a vote of 4 to 2, approved a motion to recommend to the Board a
10% shift from residential property to CIP at the Board's Tax Classification Hearing in the Fall
of 2007 and a further shift of 15% (to bring the total shift to 25 %) be instituted at the Board's
Tax Classification Hearing in the Fall of 2009.
It was the majority's belief that a shift in the real estate tax rate was proper and necessary. The
majority felt that a gradual phase -in of the shift will give CIP property owners a chance to adjust
to the change as well as give the Board a chance to reconsider their actions.
Although not requested by the Board, by a vote of 5 to 1, the Committee approved a motion to
recommend that the Board consider establishing a similar tax classification committee to study
the issue within the next five years.
Page 3 of 8 qo
It was the feeling of the majority that the considerable period that had elapsed since the previous
study should not be repeated. This issue is too important to the residents and business owners of
the Town of Reading, and too critical to the health of the Town, to not be revisited within a
reasonable time.
The Committee, by a vote of 6 to 0, approved a motion to make no recommendation to the Board
on the open space discount.
The Committee, by a vote of 6 to 0, approved a motion to recommend to the Board that no
residential exemption be established.
The Committee, by a vote of 6 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that, if the Board follows
the majority's recommendation to shift the tax rate from residential property to CIP, the Board
should implement the maximum commercial tax exemption available under law.
The Committee hopes that by implementing the maximum commercial tax exemption available,
the small businesses in the Town will be spared some of the additional tax burden. The
Committee understands, however, that the definition of a small business (average annual
employment of no more than 10 people, as certified by the Commissioner of the Department of
Employment and Training and a property valuation of less than one million dollars) is quite
limiting. According to information supplied by the Town Appraiser in 2007, only 33 out of 252
CIP owners would qualify for this exemption. In addition, there is little community experience
available with this exemption within the Commonwealth; in the fourteen years this exemption
has been available only 3 municipalities of 351 have adopted it.
Previous Consideration of Tax Classifications
The Board conducts a public hearing and considers the issues of the setting of a residential real
estate tax factor each year in October or November before setting the real estate tax rate for the
or coming fiscal year. The Board has never adopted a tax classification option and has always
applied a single tax rate to both residential and CIP property owners. The last time the Board
constituted a group to study this issue was 1993 when they established what was referred to as
the Tax Classification Task Force (the "Task Force "). The recommendation of the Task Force
Page 4 of 8 VJ:>/ b
was that the Board not adopt a shift in the tax rate. There were several reasons behind this
recommendation, the most prominent being that they felt the greatest possible benefit to the
Town would result from the selling of Town owned property. There was some concern that
increasing the tax rate on the CIP tax base would impede the sale and development of the Town
owned property. A large portion of the Town owned property in question at the time has since
been sold and developed.
Discussion
When1his issue was last studied by the Task Force in 1993, the total assessed value of all the
property in the Town was $1,375,638,600. This value was broken down as follows:
Residential $1,240,608,600 90.18%
CIP $ 135,030,000 9.82%
For this same study, the total tax levy on this assessment was $20,689,604.
f
In 2007, the total assessed value of all the property in the Town was $3,785,159,436 and was
broken down as follows:
Residential $3,509,857,100 92.73%
CIP $ 275,302,336 7.27%
The total tax levy for 2007 was $45,686,874.
These numbers reveal several important facts that lead to the majority of the Committee voting
to make the recommendations discussed earlier. First, while the tax levy has increased by
120.82 %, the total assessed value of the property in the Town has increased by 175.16 %. (See
Exhibit B.) In addition, the breakdown of the assessed values reveals that the total assessed
value of the residential property in dollars has increased by 182.91% while the total assessed
value of the CIP property in dollars has increased by 103.88 %. In other words, the assessed
value on residential property almost tripled over that period while the assessed value on CIP
property merely doubled. This has lead to an incremental increase in the total assessed value of
the residential property in the Town from 90.18% of the total to 92.73% of the total — despite the
Page 5 of & LA /
sale and development and addition to the tax base of such Town owned properties as the former
landfill site on Walkers Brook Drive. In fact, the increase in the number of residential units
(single family homes and condos) over the period was 8.46% (6,703 units v. 7,270 units) while
the increase in the number of CIP units over the period was 14.06% (192 v. 219).
This reveals that the increase in the physical number of CIP units has outpaced the increase in
the physical number of residential units over the period by over 5% yet the increase in the
assessed value of the residential property has outpaced the increase in the value of the CIP
property by 79 %. These numbers reflect the disproportionate increase in the property tax levy
over the period that has been borne by the residential property owners in Town. One would be
troubled to contemplate what would have happened to the residential real estate tax base if the
Town owned land had not been sold and the CIP tax base increased by such a large amount.
Classification issue:
The Committee studied what surrounding towns have done during it's review and deliberations.
As usual, these are the towns that Reading generally compares itself to when studying new issues
and revisiting old issue. (See Exhibit C.) Of the twenty towns listed, only three - Reading,
Belmont and North Reading - have yet to enact a split tax rate. Statewide there are
approximately 100 municipalities out of 351 that have enacted a split tax rate. Most of these
municipalities are in the eastern part of the state; and of those, a great portion are within the Rt.
495/95 area. (See Exhibit D.)
In studying the issue, the majority did not take the position that the Town should follow the
recent trend of neighboring communities and shift the real estate tax rates simply because
everyone else had done it. Nor was the majority concerned with being the last group to the party.
The majority studied the issue, looked into why it was not recommended when the last study was
conducted in 1993 and tried to understand how the Town had changed since the last study. The
Committee also discussed and understood the result of a shift on each of the parties affected; a-
shift of even a small amount would create minor relief to the residential property owner while
creating a larger burden to the CIP owner. The feeling of the majority, however, was that if the
burden had been evenly allocated earlier in time, the residential property owners would have
born less of an unbalanced burden from the start. (For a comparison of the changes in the
Page 6 of 8 qb 1 Z
property tax liability on three commercial properties and three residential properties for FY 2003
through FY 2007, see Exhibit E.)
Effect on Tax Rates:
The following is an illustration of the changes to the tax rate with the adoption of the
recommended 10% shift, based on FY 2007 numbers, as well as a full 25% shift, with no
commercial exemption:
Res. Taxes
Res. Factor
=Res. Taxes
Div by Res. Val.
=Tax Rate Res.
Total Taxes
Less Res. Taxes
=CIP Taxes
Div. by CIP Val.
=Tax Rate CIP*
100%
$42,636,977
100.0000%
$42,363,977
$3,509,957,100
$ 12.07
$45,686,874
$42,363,977
$ 3,322,897
$275,302,336
$12.07
110%
$42,363,977
99.2157%
$42,031,712
$3,509,957, 100
$11.98
$45,686,874
$42,031,712
$ 3,655,163
$275,302,336
$13.28
125%
$42,363,977
98.0391%
$41,533,261
$3,509,957, 100
$11.83
$45,686,874
$41,533,261
$ 4,153,613
$275,302,336
$15.09
*Note — the full commercial exemption adds an additional 0.075 to each of the CIP rates above.
Thus those rates would be $12.14 at 100 %; 13.35 at 110 %; and $15.17 at 125 %.
Page 7 of 8
qbi3
Based on FY 2007 numbers, and the median value of commercial and residential properties, the
taxes owed would be as follows:
No Shift Shift of 10% Shift of 25%
($12.07/$12.07) ($11.98/$13.28) ($11.83/$15.09)
Median Value of CIP $454,350 $ 5,484 $ 6,034 $ 6,856
Median Value of SFH2 $424,300 $ 5,121 $ 5,083 $ 5,019
Median Value of Condo $283,800 $ 3,425 $ 3,400 $ 3,357
If the Board adopts the recommendation of this Committee, the tax owed by a CIP property
owner at the median value would increase by $550 in the first year and by another $822 in year
three. Conversely, the tax owed in the first year by a residential property owner at the median
values would decrease by $38 for the single family home owner and by $25 for the condo owner.
In year three, the tax owed would decrease by an additional $64 for the single family home
owner and by an additional $43 for the condo owner.
2 Single Family Home — although we have lumped single family homes and condos under the category of
Residential throughout this report, the Assessor's Office is not able to supply the median value of residential
property; they are only able to supply the information broken down into its two components.
Page 8 of 8
o� OFR �
tic
a
�r
Y
6�9jINCORp��
Exhibit A: Policy establishing an ad -hoc Tax Classification Committee
There is hereby established a five (5) member ad -hoc Tax Classification Committee
(Committee) to advise the Board of Selectmen on matters related to the tax classification
process. The purposes of the Committee are to advise the Board of Selectmen and the Town
Manager on matters of policy related but not limited to:
• The residential factor;
• The open space discount;
• The residential exemption;
• The commercial exemption.
The Committee will be created from the date of this hearing until December 31, 2007, unless
such term is modified by the Board of Selectmen. They will deliver final recommendations to the
Board by October 31, 2007.
In selecting the Committee membership of 5 members, the Board of Selectmen shall appoint
all members and shall give consideration to members representing the following interests within
the community:
• Member or designee of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce;
• Member or designee of the Economic Development Committee;
• Member or designee of the Board of Selectmen;
• Member or designee of the Finance Committee;
• Member or designee of the Community Planning and Development Committee.
The Committee shall be advisory in all matters. Decisions as to whether or not to implement
measures shall rest as appropriate with the Town Manager, the Board of Selectmen, or other
body having jurisdiction in the matter.
This Committee shall administratively fall within the Finance Department. Staff as available
will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee.
Adopted 2 -6 -07
qbl,5,
Exhibit B
Reading Tax Classification Advisory Committee
Comparison Calculations since 1993Study
11993 2007 K[
Levy 20.880.604 45.686.874
Ass. Value 1.375,630/600 3,785159,436
Tax Rate 15.04 12.0
Increase Over Time
120.82%
Breaking down the increase on assessed value over time -
Ass. Val ue 1.375.838.000 3,785,159,436 175.16%
Res. Share 1.240.808.066 3.509857100 182.9196
Com. Share 135,029,934 275,302,336 103.88%
Calculating change in residential x commercial share over time -
Res. Share 9818Y& 92.7396 2.8296
Comparison of increase in residential units and commercial units over time -
Residential 6.703 7.270 0.46%
(SF &Condu)
Commercial 192 219 14.0896
�
��4o�&n
Exhibit C.
Community Parcels Com% Split 'Shift Max Shift
Lincoln
2,227
3.4%
Y
1.25*
1.5
Melrose
89822
5.0%
Y
1.715
1.795
Belmont
7,811
5.1%
N
1.0
1.5
Winchester
7,568
5.1%
Y
* *
1.5
Winthrop
5,275
5.4%
Y
1.08*
1.5
Reading
8,213
6.6%
N
1.0
1.5
Lynnfield
4,214
7.4%
Y
1.13*
1.5
Stoneham
7,472
11.2%
Y
1.601
1.627
N. Reading
5,521
11.7%
N
1.0
1.5
Lexington
11,042
12.2%
Y
1.78
1.90
Needham
99893
12.4%
Y
1.75
1.8245
N. Andover
9,337
12.5%
Y
1.18
1.50
Wakefield
89656
14.8%
Y
1.90
1.90
Saugus
99958
18.6%
Y
1.90
1.90
Watertown
9,446
18.8%
Y
1.75
1.8088
Andover
119052
20.8%
Y
1.42*
1.75
N. Attleboro
9,848
20.9%
Y
1.05
1.50
Wilmington
8,108
22.5%
Y
1.90
1.90
Woburn
129119
28.7%
Y
1.75
1.7920
Burlington
7,723
32.7%
Y
1.893
1.90
qLo
VT
ox,
CT
91
Reading
Legend
Map by. Town of Reading
State Boundaries Map date: 811107
0 Town Boundaries State boundaries and town
Town of Reading boundaries, from MassGIS.
Communities Shifted
t�_ � o to M'i�es
COMMUNITIES
SHIFTED
tzj
x
H
W
H
H
10
Commercial Properties
Address
580 Main Street (Tambone Building)
Address
VALUE TAX 5 YEAR DIFF
FY2007
1,158,200 $13,979.47 $625.79
FY2006
1,224,300 $14,789.54
FY2005
1,202,700 $15,117.94
17Y2004
1,162,200 $14,213.71
FY2003
1,166,200 $13,353.68
Exhibit E.
Address
5 YEAR PERCENT VALUE
4.686 0.99314 FY2007
FY2006
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
Address
107 Main Street (Wayside Bazaar)
Address
$8,832.83 $990.90
VALUE
TAX 5 YEAR DIFF
5 YEAR PERCENT VALUE
FY2007
720,900
$8,701.26 $766.27
9.657 1.043875 FY2007
FY2006
716,200
$8,651.70
FY2006
FY2005
717,200
$9,015.20
FY2005
FY2004
690,600
$8,446.04
FY2004
FY2003
690,600
$7,934.99
FY2003
Address
FY2007
FY2006
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
161 Ash Street (Boisvert Building)
VALUE
TAX 5 YEAR DIFF
731,800
$8,832.83 $990.90
739,600
$8,934.37
728,700
$9,159.76
682,500
$8,346.98
682,500
$7,841.93
COM R ESTAXCOM. xl s6 /27/2007
Address
5 YEAR PERCENT VALUE
12.636 1.072234 FY2007
FY2006
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
AVERAGE 1.036416
Residential Properties
120 South Street
VALUE TAX 5 YEAR DI 5 YEAR PERCENT VALUE
518,200 $6,254.67 $1,573.64 33.617 1.271969
508,400 $6,141.47
478,200 $6,010.97
448,100 $5,480.26
407,400 $4,681.03
62 Grey Coach
VALUE TAX 5 YEAR DI 5 YEAR PERCENT 'VALUE
871,900 $10,523.83 $2,463.59 30.565 1.242908
850,400 $10,272.83
758,100 $9,529.32
701,500 $8,579.35
701,500 $8,060.24
717 Haverhill Street
VALUE TAX .
388,700 $4,691.61
381,900 . $4,613.35
362,500 $4,556.63
345,500 $4,225.47
308,400 $3,543.52
5 YEAR DI 5 YEAR PERCENT VALUE
$1,148.09 32.400 1.260376
AVERAGE 1.258418
OPPOSITION OF AD HOC TAX CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
KENNETH J. ROSSETTI AND LESLIE MCGONAGLE
TO RECOMMENDED TAX CLASSIFICATION
We respectfully dissent from the majority recommendation of the Ad Hoc Tax
Classification Committee (the "Committee "), and urge the Selectmen to avoid forcing the
Town's commercial property owners and businesses to incur a significant and
disproportionate tax increase that, at best, would create only a negligible benefit for the
Town's residents — a benefit that will be overcome, and perhaps be significantly
overcome, by the higher costs of goods and services charged by Town businesses
compelled to pass on their increased tax burdens to their consumers.
Besides significantly burdening the Town's commercial property owners and
businesses to produce a minimal residential benefit that will, in our view, be more than
dissipated by the higher costs of goods and services, enacting differential property tax
rates will harm economic activity in Town, hinder charitable giving, and threaten
commercial property assessments, residential property assessments, and entry -level job
creation.
Further, other towns with demographics and appearances similar to Reading's
have rejected split tax rates, and one town, Concord, reverted to a uniform rate after the
enactment of split rates led to diminished commercial property ownership and
increasingly severe commercial property tax burdens that only negligibly benefited
Concord's residents.
As explained in greater detail below, we respectfully recommend that the Board
of Selectmen retain the Town's uniform rate of property taxation, in order to avoid the
financial hardship and economic strain that would arise from splitting tax rates, to retain
the Town's competitive advantage in attracting business to Reading, and to be true to
Reading's demographics.
Our opposition to split property tax rates is explained in greater detail below:
I. Split Tax Rates Pose Undue Hardship for the Town's Commercial Property
Owners and Businesses, and Do Not Justify the Corresponding Minimal Tax
Reduction for Residents — A Savings That Will Be Offset By Higher Costs of
Goods and Services.
A. BECAUSE ONLY 7% OF READING'S PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
CONSISTS OF COMMERCIAL' PROPERTY OWNERSHIP,
DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATES WOULD DISPROPORTIONATELY
BURDEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHILE
NEGLIGIBLY BENEFITING RESIDENTS.
r For ease of reference, the term "commercial" shall refer collectively to all property deemed commercial,
industrial, and personal ( "CIP "), the three kinds of property that would be subject to a higher rate of
property taxation should the Board of Selectmen classify the Town's property tax rate.
Enacting differential property tax rates in Reading will pose significant hardship
to the Town's commercial property owners and businesses, and harm the Town's
economy. Each such owner/business would incur a major tax increase (relative to what
would be required under a uniform rate structure) that would, at best, furnish a negligible
savings for residential property owners — a savings that, as explained below, will be
dissipated, and perhaps be far dissipated, by the higher prices of goods and services
charged by businesses that seek to pass on the higher costs of their vastly greater tax
burdens.
To illustrate: under the current tax levy, if Reading were to enact the maximum
differential permitted by law with property values as presently assessed, an owner of
commercial property in Reading, with a median commercial property assessment of
$454,350.00, will pay nearly $2,800.00 more ($2,739.74, to be exact) in annual property
taxes than what that same owner pays under the Town's present uniform rate (the tax
burden will be higher if the owner's property is assessed at a higher value, and lower if
the property is assessed at a lower value). That sharp increase in the commercial tax
burden dwarfs the marginal tax savings that would be realized by owners of residential
property; a Reading resident, with property at a median residential assessment of
$424,300.00, will save just under $200.00 ($199.42, to be exact) in annual property taxes
(more if the residence is assessed at a higher value, and less if the residence is assessed at
a lower value) if the maximum differential is enacted under the Town's current rate.
This stark discrepancy, between the added tax burden on commercial property
owners and the slight savings for residential property owners, arises from two factors: (i)
Reading's small segment of commercial property relative to residential property (93%
residential, 7% commercial); and (ii) the revenue - neutral nature of tax classification,
which does not increase the Town's tax revenues. Tax classification in Reading would
instead shift a much higher tax burden on commercial property owners, and a slightly
lesser burden on residential property owners; commercial property owners would
accordingly pay a much higher rate of property tax, and residential property owners
would pay a slightly lower rate of property tax, than what these property owners would
pay under a uniform property tax rate system.
The product of the commercial rate and the total valuation of the Town's
commercial property, when added to the product of the residential rate and the total
valuation of the Town's residential property, yields the Town's tax levy — the same levy
that results from multiplying a uniform tax rate by the cumulative assessed value of all
properties in Town, residential and commercial. Once again, tax classification is revenue
neutral.
Information furnished by Reading's Assessor's Office to the Committee verifies
the discrepancy between the added tax burden on commercial property owners and the
decreased tax burden on residential property owners, and illustrates that even under the
maximum shift permitted by law, the residential property tax rate would only drop 47
cents per thousand dollars of valuation based on the current tax levy and current assessed
2 c�6z1
values. In contrast, the commercial property tax rate would increase by more than six'
dollars per thousand dollars of valuation.
. The data attached hereto at Exhibit F illustrate this major disparity. The chart on
page 1 of Exhibit F shows that for this fiscal year, the current, uniform property tax rate
is $12.07 per thousand dollars of valuation. Under the current tax levy and assessed
values for all properties in Town, if Reading enacts the maximum differential permitted
by law — adding 50% to the commercial tax obligation — then the commercial tax rate
would increase from $12.07 per thousand to $18.10 per thousand, and the residential tax
rate would drop from $12.07 per thousand to $11.60 per thousand. The Assessor's
information also notes that "[f] or every 10% increase in taxes of [commercial property
owners], the residential property owners save[] approximately .75 % + / -. The maximum
increase of 150% [adding a 50% burden onto commercial property tax payers] would
save the residential tax payer 3.89 %." See Exhibit F, page 2.
Even under the Committee majority's recommended shift —10% in the first year,
and 25% in the third year — the commercial property tax rate would rise significantly, and
the residential property rate would drop by mere cents. See Exhibit F, page 1. Under the
current tax levy and assessed values for all properties in Town, if Reading enacts a 10%
differential, the commercial rate would jump $1.21 per thousand, to $13.28 per thousand,
and the residential rate would drop a mere nine cents per thousand, to $11.98 per
thousand. See Exhibit F, page 1.
Further, under the 10% differential, an owner of commercial property in Reading,
with a median commercial assessment of $454,350.00, will pay nearly $550.00 more
($549.77, to be exact) in annual property taxes than what that same owner pays under the
Town's present uniform rate and under current assessed values (the tax burden will be
higher if the owner's property is assessed at a higher value, and lower if the property is
assessed at a lower value). In contrast, an owner of residential property in Reading, with
a median residential assessment of $424,300.00, will save just over $38.00 ($38.19, to be
exact), or a little more than a dime a day.
Under a 25% differential, and under the current tax levy and assessed values in
Town, the comparative figures are as follows: the commercial rate would jump more than
three dollars per thousand, from $12.07 to $15.09, and the residential rate would drop by
24 cents, from $12.07 to $11.83. See Exhibit F, page 1. Further, the median commercial
property owner would pay an additional $1,372.14 in property taxes annually, and the
median residential property owner would save $101.83, or a little more than a quarter per
day.
The above figures illustrate that tax classification in Reading would significantly
and disproportionately burden commercial property owners, in order to furnish negligible
savings, at best, for residential property tax payers. As explained below, the enactment of
split tax rates in Reading will harm economic activity, hinder charitable giving, and
threaten commercial and residential property assessments — and the residents' negligible
3 q b -L-?"
tax savings will be dissipated by the higher costs of goods and services charged by
businesses compelled to pass on the costs of their significant tax increases.
B. THE NEGLIGIBLE RESIDENTIAL TAX SAVINGS WILL BE OFFSET
BY THE HIGHER COSTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES CHARGED
BY BUSINESSES FORCED TO PASS ON THEIR INCREASED TAX
BURDEN TO THEIR CONSUMERS — THE RESIDENTS OF
READING.
Enacting differential property tax rates on commercial property owners will
significantly and automatically increase the cost of doing business in Reading, as higher
rates will adversely impact property owners, and the businesses that rent space from
them.2 Businesses will then seek to pass the costs of their increased tax burdens, most
likely on their customers /clients — many of whom are Reading residents. In order to pass
on such costs, businesses will increase the prices of their goods and services to their
consumers, from Reading and elsewhere.
Reading residents who patronize the Town's businesses will accordingly pay
higher prices for their groceries, coffee, dry cleaning, pizza, accounting services,
restaurant meals, legal fees, wine, home furnishings, and ice cream, among other things.
There is a reasonable likelihood that these higher prices will exceed, and perhaps far
exceed, the negligible savings to residents posed by splitting the property tax rates.
To avoid causing residents to pay higher prices that would exceed, and perhaps
far exceed, the minimal tax savings afforded by tax classification, the Board of Selectmen
should reject differential property tax rates, and vote to retain a residential factor of "l" in
setting the Town's property tax rate.
C. THE DISPARITY BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT
GROWTH AND COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT GROWTH
REFLECTS THE SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
RESPECTIVE MARKETS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, NOT A NEED TO SPLIT TAX RATES.
Despite the stark discrepancy between the significant tax burden to be imposed
upon commercial property owners and businesses upon enactment of split property tax
rates, and the small gain, at best, to be realized by residential property owners, the
Committee's majority urges the adoption of differential property tax rates to alleviate
what the majority contends to be an unacceptable disparity between the rise in the
Town's residential property assessments in relation to the comparatively more stagnant
growth in commercial property assessments. The majority reasons that since residential
assessments have risen steadily over the past few years, and commercial assessments
have lagged in comparison, residential property owners have borne a disproportionate
2 As explained below, tax classification would significantly harm commercial property owners and the
businesses that rent from them because commercial leases typically require tenants to pay all, or a prorated
portion, of the owner's property taxes.
4 qL 23
share of property taxes, and commercial property owners have not paid their fair share of
property taxes, since one's property tax bill is the product of the Town's property tax rate
and one's property assessment. The majority accordingly endorses differential property
rates to compensate residential property owners for their overpayment of property taxes,
and to cause commercial property owners to pay additional taxes, since those owners
have historically paid too little. As explained below, we find the majority's contention
misplaced.
Suggesting that residents have overpaid property taxes because their assessments
have risen more substantially than commercial assessments implies that the markets for
each kind of property are the same. Such a suggestion is akin to comparing apples and
oranges, and ignores the numerous and obvious differences between the characteristics of
each kind of property. These differences help to explain the disparity between the rise in
residential assessments and commercial assessments, and, accordingly, that disparity does
not justify enactment of differential property tax rates.
D. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DIFFERS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BECAUSE THE RESPECTIVE
MARKETS FOR THESE PROPERTIES DIVERGE SIGNIFICANTLY
DUE TO (I) THE GREATER FINANCIAL RISK INCURRED BY
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS; (II) THE GREATER
LIABILITY RISK INCURRED BY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS; (III) THE COSTS IMPOSED ON COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY OWNERS TO COMPLY WITH ZONING BY -LAWS;
AND (IV) THE GREATER BENEFIT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS DERIVE FROM MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
Residential property and commercial property are inherently different because the
respective markets for each kind of property are markedly dissimilar. Anyone who
doubts this proposition should review a property appraisal report; a. report on a residential
property will not list commercial properties in the comparative sales section, and a report
on a commercial property will not list residential properties in the comparative sales
section.
The reason for this is clear — the respective markets for these different properties
differ so much that residential property and commercial property cannot be meaningfully
compared, as commercial property is typically not as freely transferable as residential
property. Indeed, the following reasons illustrate the sharp differences between
residential property and commercial property:
1. Commercial Property Owners Incur Greater Financial Risk Than
Residential Property Owners.
Residential property and commercial property differ because commercial property
ownership tends to incur far greater financial risk in comparison to residential property
ownership. A purchaser of commercial property usually purchases more than just land;
qb 1Y
such a purchaser also often purchases the enterprise conducted on that land, which
normally consists of inventory, assets, receivables, goodwill, intellectual property, and
other components of the enterprise — a purchase that incurs a risk compounded by the
many costs attendant to complying with the myriad laws and regulations governing
businesses, such as workplace safety regulations, insurance regulations, wage laws,
environmental laws, and anti - discrimination laws — not to mention regulations and laws
specific to the particular enterprise being purchased (e.g., food handling regulations for a
restautant). These factors limit the free transferability of commercial property.
Even if a purchaser of commercial property merely seeks to rent space to
commercial tenants, that purchaser incurs a risk that the incoming tenants will not pay
their rent — a risk compounded by the costs of build -outs typically necessitated to ready
the property for rental, and to ensure that the property complies with relevant laws
pertaining to the structure, access, and egress.
In contrast, a comparatively smaller financial risk surrounds residential property
ownership, particularly in a sought -after "bedroom" community like Reading, with a
reputation for educational excellence, many scenic points, and a close proximity to
Boston, major access roads, and areas north, south, east, and west.3 Given these critical,
well - regarded attributes, Reading is presumably positioned to continue to be a desired
community for individuals and families alike, particularly in comparison to the many
towns and cities whose attributes do not measure up to Reading's. Put another way, there
will always be a strong desire among prospective home purchasers to reside in Reading.
Further, in purchasing a home in Town, the purchaser usually is not seeking to
acquire or establish a business, or to rent the home to another person or entity. Instead,
the residential purchaser almost always simply seeks an agreeable primary residence, and
does not need to rely upon an acquired business, or one or more tenants, to make the
residential purchase work. In contrast, a purchaser of commercial property typically
seeks to simultaneously acquire the business conducted on the premises, or to rent space
to one or more commercial tenants. The purchaser of commercial property, therefore,
risks; among other things, the downturn of the acquired business, and the inability of the
renting business to pay rent — risks that do not attend residential property purchases.
These risks decrease the free transferability of commercial property in relation to
residential property.
In sum, residential property and commercial property are different because
commercial property ownership incurs greater financial risks, which risks hinder the free
transferability of commercial property and dampens the growth of commercial property
assessments.
2. Commercial Property Owners Incur Greater Liability Risk Than
Residential Property Owners.
3 We do NOT contend that there is an absence of financial risk attendant to the purchase or ownership of
residential property. Rather, we contend that there is a greater financial risk to purchasing or owning
commercial property in comparison to residential property.
6 q b 2s
Residential property and commercial property also differ sharply because a far
greater liability risk attends commercial property ownership.4 Anyone who doubts this
proposition should compare the differences in how each kind of property is typically
titled. Most residences — though admittedly not all residences — are owned in the name(s)
of the individual owner(s), which subjects the owner(s) to individual liability in the event
of an accident or injury on the premises. In contrast, most commercial properties —
though admittedly not all commercial properties — are titled in the name of an entity that
shields the principal(s), to some extent or another, from personal liability. Such titling
options for commercial property typically include the name of the corporate entity doing
business on the premises, or the name of the corporate entity that purchased the property
and is renting /managing the premises for one or more businesses on site.
The reason for this difference in titling is clear: commercial property owners face
far greater liability risk than residential property owners, which limits the free
transferability of commercial property. Commercial properties and businesses typically
receive many more visitors than residential properties — employees, customers, delivery
people, and sales people, among others — and this reality increases the likelihood of an
accident or injury occurring on commercial property.
Further, businesses typically conduct activity that is many times more risky than
activity on residential property — dispensing gasoline, fixing cars, dry cleaning clothes,
teaching children gymnastics, taking x -rays, receiving streams of deliveries — which, by
consequence, makes the liability risk faced by commercial property owners that much
greater than what residential property owners face.
In sum, residential property and commercial property are different because
commercial property ownership incurs greater liability risk, which hinders the free
transferability of commercial property and dampens the growth of commercial property
assessments.
3. Zoning By -Laws Differentiate Between Residential and Commercial
Property.
Residential property and commercial property are also sharply different because
of zoning by -laws. Indeed, the very existence of zoning by -laws underscores that
residential property and commercial property fundamentally differ because such laws
expressly stipulate different permitted uses and locations of commercial properties and
residences. Further, such by -laws typically impose comparatively greater costs on
commercial property owners than residential property owners, on matters including
signage, parking, hours of operation, locations, access, egress, conduct and density, and
these factors tend to limit the free transferability of commercial property.
4 We do NOT contend that there is an absence of liability risk attendant to the purchase or ownership of
residential property. Rather, we contend that there is a greater liability risk to purchasing or owning
commercial property in. comparison to residential property.
qb z&
4. Commercial Property Owners Derive Less Benefit From Municipal
Services Than Residential Property Owners.
Residential property and commercial property are also very different because
residential. property owners typically derive greater value from the Town's tax
expenditures — and the municipal services funded by those expenditures — than
commercial property owners, which tends to counter the growth of commercial property
assessments in comparison to residential assessments. Unlike residential property
owners, commercial property owners are responsible for coordinating and paying for
their own trash removal. Further, unlike residential property owners, commercial
property owners cannot send children to Reading's public schools unless such owners are
also residents in Town.
Put another way, commercial property owners must pay commercial property
taxes to fund, in part, a trash removal service they are barred from using, and a public
school system their children cannot attend (unless these owners also reside in Town and
can partake of Reading's residential trash removal and public school system). These are
only two of the disparities between the respective benefits derived from commercial
property owners and residential property owners; these disparities illustrate that
residential and commercial property fundamental differ because residential property tax
payers typically receive more for their tax dollars than commercial property tax payers.
In sum, the respective markets for residential property and commercial property
markedly differ because of the many and obvious differences in the characteristics of
these properties, as set forth above — the greater financial risk to commercial property
owners, the greater liability risk to commercial property owners, the existence of zoning
by -laws and the costs of zoning compliance on commercial property owners, and the
lesser municipal benefit to commercial property owners — and these differences,
individually and collectively, limit the free transferability of commercial property as
compared to residential property. This limitation on transferability explains the disparity
between the growth in residential property assessments and commercial property
assessments, and, accordingly, that disparity does not justify enacting differential
property tax rates. We therefore urge the Board of Selectmen to retain a residential factor
of "1" in setting the Town's property tax rate.
II.. The Hardship Posed By Differential Tax Rates Will Harm Economic Activity,
Hinder Charitable Giving, and Threaten Commercial and Residential Property
Values in Reading
A. DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATES ADVERSELY IMPACT
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENTERS ALIKE
BECAUSE COMMERCIAL LEASES TYPICALLY REQUIRE
TENANTS TO PAY THEIR LANDLORD'S PROPERTY TAXES.
According to information furnished to the Committee by the Assessor's Office,
there are 252 commercial properties in town. One might accordingly conclude that
8 q� 2�7
enacting differential property tax rates will only directly hurt those property owners.
That conclusion is false and belied by the custom and practice of commercial leasing.
Enacting higher property tax rates for commercial property owners will hurt
Reading's commercial property owners and the many businesses that lease space from
these owners, since commercial leases typically contain triple -net provisions that require
tenants to pay all, or a prorated portion, of the landlord's property taxes. Accordingly,
should Reading split its property tax rate, many individuals and businesses will be
adversely affected, particularly when one considers that a number of individual
commercial properties contain multiple tenants. Put another way, the enactment of
differential property tax rates will adversely affect many more persons and entities than
the 252 commercial parcel owners in Town, and as explained below, differential property
tax rates will harm economic activity in Town.
B. DIFFERENTIAL PROPERTY TAX RATES WILL LOWER TAE
VALUE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND HARM READING'
ECONOMY i FORCING ' • . PROPERTY OWNER
• / BUSINESSES TO IMPLEMENT ECONOMICALLY-
DETRIMENTAL
♦ • ,
Enacting differential property tax rates will have immediate and negative effects
on Reading's economy, by causing a small proportion of commercial property owners —
and the businesses that rent from them and that pay their taxes — to incur a significantly
higher property tax burden in comparison to what these owners would pay under a
uniform tax rate structure. This higher tax burden, outlined in detail above, will
immediately increase the cost of doing business in Town, decrease the cash flow of these -
owners and businesses, lower the value of commercial property, and thereby make
commercial property less attractive to lenders as collateral. All of these factors will
adversely impact the Town and its economy.
The higher commercial property tax burden posed by a split rate will force
commercial property owners and businesses to implement economically - detrimental
measures to compensate for their higher burden and decreased cash flow. As noted
above, one result will be an increase in the prices and fees for the goods and services
charged by the Town's businesses; this will harm the Town's residents, including those
who rent their homes — who will not have any offsetting savings in property taxes
because those renters do not pay property taxes — and those who own their homes.
Indeed, the minimal tax savings realized by residential property owners will be offset,
and perhaps be far offset, by the inevitable increases in prices and fees for goods and
services.
Splitting the property tax rate is akin to setting an added tax on the goods and
services furnished by Reading's businesses because the higher prices, resulting from the
Town's businesses passing on the increased tax burden, would not arise but for the split
rate, all other factors being equal. In other words, in the absence of the split rate,
E
=6
businesses would agree to sell, and buyers would agree to purchase, goods and services at
lower prices.
The higher prices of goods and services will force residents to pay more for what
they purchase in Town. Again, this will harm residents who rent because they will not
have any offsetting savings in the residential property tax rate. This will also harm
residents who own homes because their minimal savings from a split tax rate will be
dissipated by these higher prices.
Additionally, the higher prices of goods and services will prompt some residents
to patronize out -of -town businesses. This will decrease demand for goods and services in
Reading, which will diminish local business activity at a time when there are already
significant, visible commercial vacancies. This will also force residents to incur
increased travel costs and expend more time for their shopping and errands.
Commercial property owners and businesses will also be compelled, regrettably,
to consider other economically - harmful measures to address their simultaneously
increasing tax burden and decreasing cash flow. These measures include reducing or
eliminating any planned expansion; relocating their businesses out of Reading; reducing
anticipated hiring, or terminating staff; reducing compensation for employees; and/or
reducing or eliminating employee benefits. Some businesses may even close, and, as we
argue in greater detail below, charitable giving will be hindered. These measures,
collectively and in isolation, will harm economic activity in Town.
Business activity in Town will also be slowed because the diminished value of
commercial property will decrease the incentive for lenders to finance business expansion
through secured real estate loans, and, accordingly, decrease the loan amounts for which
prospective business borrowers will qualify. This will hinder business expansion in
Reading, at a time when commercial vacancies are so noticeable at present.
Higher prices for goods and services, reduced economic activity, and increased
commercial vacancies are just some of repercussions posed by splitting the property tax
rate. The Board of Selectman can avoid these harms, and others set forth below, by
setting a uniform property tax rate.
C. THE COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE TO ONLY A
SMALL PROPORTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WILL
HARDLY NEGATE THE EFFECT OF THE SIGNIFICANT TAX
INCREASE POSED BY SPLITTING THE TOWN'S PROPERTY TAX
RATE.
Proponents of differential property tax rates suggest that the commercial
exemption blunts the negative impact of the increased tax burden on commercial property
owners and businesses. While we agree with the majority that the Board of Selectmen
should enact the maximum commercial exemption permitted by law — a 10% tax
-exemption on qualifying commercial assessments — if the Board of Selectmen votes to
��
ykz9
split the property tax rate, we believe the commercial exemption will do little to counter
the negative effects of the increased tax burden on commercial property owners and
businesses in Reading.
The many conditions on the application of the commercial exemption support our
view. First, the commercial exemption does not apply to any properties assessed at or
above $1,000,000.00. Second, the commercial exemption does not apply to any
commercial property owner that employs ten or more persons. Third, this exemption
does not apply to property classified as "industrial."
Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, if a multi -unit property has one owner
who does. not qualify for the exemption, then nobody on the property qualifies for the
exemption. According to information furnished by the Reading Assessor's Office, only
33 of 252 commercial properties presently qualify for the commercial exemption —
roughly 13% — which means that 87% of commercial properties do not presently qualify
for the exemption. We believe, therefore, that the commercial exemption will do little to
blunt the negative effect of the increased commercial property tax burden resulting from
a split property tax rate.
For example, under the Town's current tax levy and property assessments, if the
Board of Selectmen enacts the maximum differential and the maximum commercial
exemption permitted by law, a qualifying commercial property owner, with a median
commercial assessment of $454,350.00, will get taxed on 90% of that assessment —
$408,915.00 — and save $827.37. While this figure may have some superficial appeal,
that same property owner will pay $1,942.00 more in property taxes under the maximum
differential, even if the Town adopts the highest permitted commercial exemption, over
what that owner would otherwise pay under a uniform tax rate at the current tax levy and
property assessments. Thus, the commercial exemption will do little to counter the
negative effects of tax classification.
Indeed, the ranges of commercial assessments in Reading, attached hereto at
Exhibit F, page 3,5 underscore that the commercial exemption will do little to blunt the
effect of a split property tax rate (although we view a little help as preferable to no help).
These ranges illustrate that most commercial parcels in Reading are relatively modest in
assessed value. Roughly 50% of these parcels —124 are assessed at $499,900.00 or
below, and nearly 80% of these parcels —197 — are assessed at $899,900.00 or below.
See Exhibit F, page 3. Only about 4% of these parcels —10 — are assessed at or above
$3,000,000.00. See Exhibit F, page 3.
These figures underscore that most commercial properties in Reading are
relatively modest, which suggests that most owners of these properties are also relatively
modest. A split tax rate will therefore primarily hurt small business, not large businesses
— this point is made in greater detail below.
5 This information was furnished to the Committee by the Reading Assessor's Office.
11 qb3D
Further, these figures underscore that the unavailability of the commercial
exemption to 87% of commercial property owners in Town is not principally due to the
assessed value of commercial parcels. Indeed, there are relatively few parcels that
automatically disqualify for the commercial exemption based on assessed value. See
Exhibit F, page 3. Instead, most commercial property owners disqualify for the
commercial exemption because of the other conditions on the exemption's application,
such as the "all or nothing" condition noted above.
In light of the foregoing, while we agree with the Committee's majority that the
commercial exemption should be enacted to the maximum extent if the Board of
Selectmen splits the property tax rate, we caution that the exemption will do little to blunt
the negative effect of the increased tax burden on commercial property owners and
businesses.
In any event, we urge the Board of Selectmen to make this issue academic by
adopting a uniform property tax rate.
D. DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATES ARE A DISINCENTIVE TO
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT,
AND UNFAIRLY BENEFIT HOME -BASED BUSINESSES.
Splitting the rate, by whatever differential, will create a disincentive to developing
and investing in commercial property by causing commercial property owners and
businesses to incur a substantial tax increase — relative to what would be paid under a
uniform tax rate structure — that will significantly and automatically drive up the cost of
developing, owning, and managing commercial property. Developers will be less
inclined to develop commercial property, and lenders will be less inclined to finance
commercial property development.
Further, prospective purchasers and renters of commercial property will be less
inclined to buy or rent such property in Reading because of the added burden posed by a
split rate; this will create a lower demand for commercial property in Town, which will
contribute to diminished commercial property values, and lead businesses to leave
Reading.
Additionally, splitting the property tax rate will unfairly benefit home -based
businesses at the expense of businesses presently located in commercial property. By
driving up the cost of commercial property ownership and leasing, the enactment of a
split tax rate will automatically favor home -based businesses. The accountants,
attorneys, medical providers, construction contractors, sales people, and consultants who
presently work in commercial space will automatically pay much more for.their work
space than the accountants, attorneys, medical providers, construction contractors, sales
people, and consultants who presently work out of their homes. Home -based businesses
will have a greater incentive to remain at home, and be in a position to leverage the
benefit of a lower property tax rate under a split -rate system, and businesses that are in
commercial space and that can move home will have an incentive to do so (and, we
qb 31
believe, will do so, to one extent or another), and lower the demand for commercial
property — and thereby adversely affect commercial property values.
To avoid creating a disincentive to the development, ownership and rental of
commercial property, and to avoid providing an unfair advantage to home -based
businesses, the Board of Selectmen should retain a uniform property tax rate.
E. ADVOCATING DIFFERENTIAL PROPERTY TAX RATES,
BECAUSE SOME TOWN BUSINESSES ARE LARGE, REFLECTS A
FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF READING'S
BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, AND THREATENS
ENTRY -LEVEL JOB CREATION.
Some advocates of differential property tax rates state in substance that the
increased tax burden posed by a split rate will be a "drop in the bucket" for large
companies like Starbucks, so, accordingly, tax rates should be split because large
companies can afford the attendant increased tax burden. This contention
mischaracterizes Reading's business community, and threatens entry -level job creation in
Reading.
There is perhaps no clearer way to explain this point than by simply saying this:
we are not all "Starbucks. "6 Take a stroll through Reading Square; walk up and down
Haven Street; or drive down Main Street to Route 128, and what will one notice? Most
businesses in Reading are small enterprises, usually staffed by one person or a handful of
people. In nearly each instance, these are not remote, well - heeled, Fortune 500
companies; these are your neighbors, striving to serve their community and to make
decent livings for their families.
Indeed, when.advocates of split tax rates propose increasing the tax burden of
these small businesses because large companies can easily shoulder the burden, such
advocates mischaracterize the small -town nature of most of the businesses in Reading,
and, worse, they propose that these small businesses bear an added tax obligation far
more onerous, in comparative terms, than what these large companies would bear;
indeed, a small business owner required to pay extra hundreds or thousands in taxes
(under a split -rate structure, as compared to a uniform rate structure) will feel a pinch
many times sharper — based on that owner's yearly revenues — than Starbucks, or other
such large companies in Town, even though Starbucks' increased tax burden might be
higher, or perhaps much higher, since Starbucks' gross annual revenues surpass those of
most companies - again, because most Reading businesses are not Starbucks, and
certainly not earning anything close to Starbucks' annual revenue.7
6 In this part of the report, the name Starbucks is intended to be synonymous with the names of the
relatively few large companies that have locations in Reading, in comparison to the larger number of small
businesses in Town.
7 I an online article available at htt :Hmongy cnn com/mapazines /fortune /fortune500 /2007 /states /WA.html,
Starbucks' annual revenues are reported at just over $7.7 billion.
13 �b3z
While the added tax burden on Starbucks may be insignificant when compared to
the corporation's total international revenue, the increased tax burden will affect the
company's two Reading locations by making each location more expensive to operate
(and thus less profitable if the added tax burden is not met by a corresponding increase in
revenue for the location and/or a decrease in the location's costs).
When the cash flow to these locations decreases upon enactment of differential
property tax rates, then entry -level job creation suffers, particularly for teenagers just
entering, or barely into, the job market. Routine arithmetic bears this point out.
Company "X" prepares to hire a part-time stock clerk, at the beginning of the
school year, for $8 per hour, and that clerk is expected to average 10 hours of work per
week over the course of a 50 -week year. This clerk will cost Company X $4,000 ($8 /hr.
x 10 brs. /wk. x 50 wks.) in wages alone. If Company X's tax payment then increases by
several thousand dollars upon the enactment of differential property tax rates — in
comparison to what Company X would pay under a uniform rate structure — then
Company X may very well decline to hire that part-time clerk to compensate for the
added tax burden posed by differential rates.
This elementary principle applies with equal force to the large companies with
Reading locations, and underscores that entry -level job creation would suffer upon the
enactment of differential property tax rates in Reading. Perhaps each Starbucks location
hires one less barista, or lets one go. And Staples hire one less stock clerk, or lets one go.
And Home Depot hires one less cashier, or lets one go. And Bank of America hires one
less teller, or lets one go. And so on.
This prospect is especially troubling since large, national companies are often in
the best position (and in the greatest need) to hire entry -level employees — particularly
teenagers just beginning to learn about the work ethic outside of their homes. If large
national companies with Reading locations cut back on entry -level hiring, then an
increasing number of Reading's employable youth may either go without work — which
would strain, however significantly or minimally, their parents' budgets, and cause such
youth to miss out on the money and character - building qualities of one's first job — or be
forced to work out of town.
Working out of town incurs the added costs and risks of longer - distance travel,
and Reading's businesses would lose out on transactions that might otherwise occur in
Town if the kids forced to work outside Reading worked in Town instead. These kids
will take their lunch breaks out of town; meet co- workers for dinner after work at
restaurants out of town; buy their gas at out -of -town stations; and purchase snacks at out -
of -town convenience stores. These are lunch breaks, dinners, gas purchases, and
convenience store sales that might otherwise transpire in Reading if large national
companies in Reading were not forced to forego some hiring because of the added burden
of differential property tax rates.
qb33
In sum, proponents of split property tax rates ask Reading's many small
businesses to shoulder a far more onerous financial burden than what Starbucks, Staples,
and other large companies in Town would shoulder when one considers the vastly lower
revenues earned by the Town's many small business owners in comparison to the
revenues earned by these larger firms. Equally disturbing is the very real prospect of
impaired entry -level job creation if Reading adopts a split property tax rate.
1n order to avoid burdening Reading's many small businesses and hindering
entry -level job growth in Town, the Board of Selectmen should retain a uniform property
tax rate in Reading.
F. MANY MEDICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS CANNOT PASS ON
THEIR INCREASED TAX BURDEN ONTO THEIR PATIENTS
BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACTS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES CAP THEIR CHARGES TO PATIENTS.
Enacting higher commercial property tax rates will pose a particular hardship for
medical providers in Reading, who typically cannot pass their increased taxes onto their
patients because contracts, between medical providers and health insurance carriers limit
the fees that can be charged to the providers' patients. The caps on charges prevent
medical providers, who are at their caps, from doing what other businesses, confronted
with higher tax rates,. will inevitably do if differential rates are enacted — namely, charge
higher prices to the consumers who partake of their goods or services.
Consequently, such medical practices that are at their caps literally get stuck with
the higher tax bill, and must consider blunting that cost through cutting back on hiring;
reducing or eliminating charitable giving; reducing or eliminating employee bonuses or
other benefits; and/or other means that hinder economic activity in Reading.
Why should this matter to Reading? Because Reading is attracting a growing
number of medical providers, and established practices are expanding in Town.
Hallmark Health, based in Melrose, recently invested considerably in a three -story
renovation at 30 New Crossing Road, to create the Hallmark Health Medical Center, a
new outpatient medical facility. Additionally, other medical providers have recently
moved to, or are in the process of moving to, various suites in 2 Haven Street.
Reading residents — those who work for the Town's many medical practices,
those who are treated by these practices, and those who serve the patients and employees
of these practices — benefit from this growth in the Town's medical practices. Indeed,
this growth should be encouraged. Regrettably, tax classification will hinder such growth
by forcing the Town's many medical practices to incur a tax burden that cannot usually
be passed on to the practices' patients; as a result, such practices will be forced to cut
costs through means that hinder economic activity.
qOY
The Board of Selectmen can avoid this detriment to the Town's medical providers
by rejecting split tax rates, and we accordingly urge the Selectmen to retain the Town's
uniform tax rate system.
G. DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATES WILL HINDER CHARITABLE GIVING
BY INCREASING THE COSTS OF SOLICITING DONATIONS.
Differential property tax rates will hinder charitable giving by significantly
increasing the costs of soliciting donations. Indeed, we have received specific feedback
to this effect from the local business community.
As a threshold matter, splitting tax rates will shift a significant sum of money
away from the Town's comparatively small proportion of commercial property owners
and businesses — money, in whole or in part, that might otherwise go toward charitable
giving. This shift will significantly decrease the ability of charities and other
organizations to maximize their dollars -to -donor ratios, a critical element to successful
fundraising. Basic arithmetic underscores this point.
As noted above, under the current tax levy and property assessments, if the
Selectmen enact the differential shift recommended by the majority of this Committee —
10% in the first year, 25% in the third year — then, in that first year, a commercial
property owner with commercial property at the median commercial assessment of
$454,350.00 will suffer a tax increase of almost $550.00 dollars, while a residential
property owner, with a residential property assessed at the residential median assessment
of $424,300.00, will save approximately $38.00.
Put another way, the recommended differential, if enacted, leaves $550.00 less for
the median commercial property owner to donate to charity, and up to an additional
$38.00 more for the median residential property owner to donate. To make up for the
loss of one median commercial property owner inclined to donate $550.00 to charity, a
charity must target 15 median residential property owners ($550.00/$38.00) — and hope
that each median residential owner donates the maximum tax savings (all $38.00)
resulting from enacting a 10% differential shift. Keep in mind that those same median
residential property owners will likely face higher charges for the goods and services in
Town due to the significant increase -in the commercial property tax burden imposed by
differential property tax rates.
Differential property tax rates, therefore, will significantly counter maximizing
the dollars -to -donor ratios of fundraising organizations, particularly where Reading has.
such a small proportion of commercial property ownership. Put another way, charities
and other fundraisers will suffer increased costs of soliciting donations because, as
illustrated above, they must now target many more individual donors to compensate for
the lost sums that commercial property owners must pay toward increased property taxes.
This will entail, among other things, more direct mail campaigns, more telephone calls,
and more flyers — and, by consequence, more costs.
16 yb 3s
Significantly hindering charitable giving has major negative implications for
charitable activity in Town as a whole, and for Reading in particular. As noted in the
minutes of the March 13, 2007 Board of Selectmen's meeting, a copy of which is
attached hereto at Exhibit G, there are multiple concurrent fundraising efforts directed
toward capital improvements in Town — improvements that the Town alone at this time
cannot exclusively fund. These fundraising efforts include the Friends of Reading
Tennis' initiative to raise $150,000.00 to improve tennis courts, and various athletic
organizations' efforts to raise $60,000.00 for an artificial turf field. See Exhibit G, pages
3 -4. Hindering charitable giving through the enactment of differential property tax rates
would therefore make these fundraising efforts, and others (such as the prospective
private funding of parking consultancy work, as the Board of Selectman discussed during
their August 21, 2007 meeting), more difficult than they otherwise would be were the
Town to retain a uniform property tax rate.
Let us be clear on this point. We are NOT advocating that commercial property
owners or businesses decrease or stop their charitable giving. Instead, we merely express
the concern that splitting the property tax rate will make it harder, and thus more costly,
for charities and fundraisers to solicit donations, and, consistent with feedback that we
have received from the local business community, commercial property owners and
businesses will be forced to consider cutting back on charitable giving.
. In order to avoid hindering charitable giving, the Board of Selectmen should
reject differential tax rates and vote instead to retain a uniform rate.
H. SPLIT TAX RATES THREATEN BOTH COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES IN READING.
As explained above, splitting the property tax rate will harm economic activity
and decrease the demand for the development, ownership, and rental of commercial
property by significantly increasing the tax burden attendant to owning commercial
property. The lowered demand for commercial property will decrease commercial
property values. The negative impact on commercial property values will also harm
residential property values.
If businesses shut down or leave Reading, the Town's commercial/business
vacancy rate will increase. There are already a number of commercial properties in
Town that are damaged or vacant; increasing business vacancies will detract from the
Town's economy and looks and consequently, we believe, decrease the demand, however
slightly, for home purchases in Reading (particularly since business people who might
locate their businesses and homes here will consider other towns if Reading splits the
property tax rate), which will adversely impact residential property values.
We do not believe that such a drop in residential values would necessarily be
significant because, as we point out above, Reading is such a sought -after residential
location for a number of important reasons. However, a decrease in residential values
17 qb3G
would not need to be significant in order to demonstrate that splitting the tax rate would
be harmful.
For example, the present median residential property value in Reading is
$424,300.00, and if the Board of Selectmen enacts the largest differential permitted by
law, an owner of such property would save just under $200.00 in property taxes relative
to what that owner would pay under a uniform rate under the Town's current tax levy and
assessed values. That $200.00 savings represents just under 0.05% —five one-
hundredth's percent, or 1120`h of one percent — of the property's assessed value.
If that same property loses just one percent of its assessed value, that value would
drop by more than $4,000 — more than 20 times the minimal tax savings to be realized
under a split rate. Put another way, that property owner would need to save $200.00 per
year for more than tweply years to make up for the loss of 1 % of the assessed value of
that property at the Town's current median residential assessment.
In light of the foregoing, a very slight decline in the value of residential property
will significantly offset the marginal savings to residents under a split tax rate. To avoid
this detriment, the Board of Selectmen should maintain a uniform property tax rate.
III. Towns With Appearances and Ownership Demographics Similar to Reading's
Have Rejected Split Tax Rates, and Maintaining a Uniform Rate Offers Reading a
.Competitive Advantage in Retaining and Attracting Businesses
A. THE TOWN OF CONCORD SCRAPPED DIFFERENTIAL TAX
RATES BECAUSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS
SHOULDERED SIGNIFICANT TAX BURDENS THAT NEGLIGIBLY
BENEFITED RESIDENTS.
The Town of Concord -with a New England- village look and demographics
remarkably similar to Reading's — rejected differential property tax rates after their
enactment led to a decreased commercial tax base, which caused Concord's businesses to
shoulder onerous tax burdens that only negligibly benefited Concord'.s residents.
According to the Concord Board of Assessors' report, "Tax Rate Analysis Fiscal
Year 2007," a copy of which is linked on Concord's web site at
htti)://www.concordnet.org/i)ages/ConcordNlA assessor /Classification %20Re ort%2020
07.pdf ( "Concord Report"),8 Concord adopted differential property tax rates in the mid -
1980s, when the ratio of residential property ownership to commercial property
ownership was 82 % -18% - a split with a significantly higher proportion of commercial
property ownership than in Reading presently.
After Concord increased the commercial property tax rate, commercial property
ownership decreased, and the town recognized that the small population of commercial
8 A hard copy of the Concord Report will be distributed to the Board of Selectmen when the Board receives
the Committee's report.
18 qb3l
property owners in that town shouldered a significant tax burden that only negligibly
benefited Concord's residents. See Concord Report, pages 9 -10. Concord consequently
rejected differential property tax rates in the mid- 1990s, and the town has adopted a
uniform rate in each year since then, and at present, Concord's proportion of residential
property ownership to commercial property ownership is 91%-9% - nearly identical to
Reading's 93 % -7% ratio. See Concord Report, pages 9 -10, 19.
The following excerpt from the Concord Report, at pages 9 -10, underscores the
above point:
"... through the mid- 1990's, the total value of the town
[Concord] became increasingly residential. With this
residential growth, it was perceived that an increasingly
severe shift of the tax levy share to CIP [commercial)
would be required in order to produce only a relatively
small benefit to the residential class. Therefore, the
Board of Selectmen decided to gradually reduce the tax
shift, and in FY1996 eliminated this tax shift entirely.
In each of the ensuing years, the Board of Assessors has
recommended and the Selectmen have voted to adopt a
uniform rate for all classes. (emphasis supplied).
The Town of Reading does not need to endure the detriment that Concord
experienced following Concord's enactment of split property tax rates, and to save
experiencing such a loss, we urge the Board of Selectmen to retain the Town's uniform
rate of property taxation.
B. THE TOWN OF DUXBURY REJECTED SPLIT TAX RATES
BECAUSE OF DUXBURY'S 97 % -3% RATIO OF RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP.
The Town of Duxbury, with a 97 % -3% split of residential property ownership to
commercial property ownership — a split remarkably similar to Reading's 93 % -7% ratio —
rejected differential tax rates because a small proportion of commercial property owners
would incur a significant property tax burden that would only minimally benefit
Duxbury's residential property. owners.
In a report available on the Town of Duxbury's web site, a copy of which is
linked at
http://www.town.duxbM.ma.us/Public Documents/DuxbuUMA Assess /Tax %20Facts
( "Duxbury Report"),9 Duxbury disclosed that just three percent of property. ownership in
9 A hard copy of the Duxbury Report will be distributed to the Board of Selectmen when the Board receives
the Committee's report.
19 qb -3e
that Town consists of commercial property ownership, and illustrated the considerable
attendant tax burden such owners would suffer if split rates were enacted:
if the maximum allowable tax burden shift were made from
the residential property class to the commercial property class,
its effect on the average residential assessed value of $649,100
would reduce the tax bill by $103.8 6. However, the tax bill for
a similarly valued commercial property would be increased
by $3.290.94. (emphasis in original). See Duxbury Report, ¶ 10.
The above illustration mirrors in large part the significant tax burden to be
incurred by Reading's commercial property owners in relation to the minimal benefit for
residential property owners if the Town splits the property tax rate, and favors
maintaining Reading's method of uniform property taxation. To avoid the
disproportionate burden posed to Reading's commercial property owners and businesses,
the Town's Selectmen, like their colleagues in Concord, Duxbury, and more than two out
of every three communities in Massachusetts, 10 should reject split tax rates and keep the
present system of uniform property taxation.
C. THE TOWN OF WELLESLEY — LIKE OTHER ROUTE 128
COMMUNITIES SIMILAR TO READING — MAINTAINS UNIFORM
PROPERTY TAX RATES.
Like Concord and Duxbury, Wellesley has a ratio of residential -to- commercial
property ownership very similar to Reading's — Wellesley's ratio is 90% residential, 10%
commercial, nearly identical to Reading's 93 % -7% proportion. Further, like Concord
and Duxbury, Wellesley has rejected split property tax rates, opting instead to apply a
uniform rate.
Indeed, Wellesley expressly recognizes what Concord and Duxbury expressly
recognize — the adoption of split tax rates in a town with a small percentage of
commercial property ownership causes commercial property owners to incur a substantial
tax burden that, at best, offers a very small benefit to residential property owners. In a
report available on the Town of Wellesley's web site, a copy of which is linked at
http://wellegleyma.virtualtownhall.net/Paizes/WellesleyMA Assessor /FY07 %o20Tax %20
Classification.-pd f ( "Wellesley ReporC),11 the Town of Wellesley notes the 90 %-10%
ratio of residential -to- commercial property ownership - see Wellesley Report, page 15 —
and illustrates the significant burden posed to commercial property owners if Wellesley
were to adopt differential property tax rates. As noted on page 6 of the Wellesley Report,
if Wellesley's Board of Selectmen were to adopt the maximum differential pern fitted by
10 According to information furnished to the Committee, approximately 110 communities in Massachusetts
have adopted differential property tax rates. Since there are 351 communities in the Commonwealth, 241
communities — slightly more than two out of every three — maintain uniform property tax rates.
11 A hard copy of the Wellesley Report will be distributed to the Board of Selectmen when the Board
receives the Committee's report.
20 yq 3q
law — 50% — then an owner of commercial property in Wellesley, with a median
commercial assessment of $1,806,000, would incur a tax increase of $8,019; in contrast,
an owner of residential property, with a median residential assessment of $824,000,
would save just $461.
Put another way, the added tax burden on a commercial property owner in
Wellesley, with property at the median commercial assessment, would be more than 17
times greater than the savings to be realized by a residential property owner, with
property at the median residential assessment in Wellesley.
Wellesley's assessment report also illustrates that other Route 128 -area towns,
with small proportions of commercial property ownership, similarly apply uniform rates
of property taxes. The Town of Belmont — a picturesque New England village like
Wellesley, Concord, and Reading — has a residential -to- commercial property ownership
ratio of 95 % -5 %, nearly the same.as Reading's 93 % -7% ratio. Like Wellesley and
Concord, Belmont applies a uniform property tax rate. See Wellesley Report, page 15.
Similarly, Wayland and Weston — two other picturesque New England villages in
the Route 128 region, akin to Belmont, Wellesley, Concord and Reading — each have
small proportions of commercial property ownership (Wayland, 4 %; Weston, 3 %), and
each applies a uniform property tax rate. See Wellesley Report, page 15.
Another picturesque, Route 128 town with a small proportion of commercial
property ownership — Arlington — employs a uniform property tax rate. According to the
"Report of the Arlington Board of Assessors and the Results of the FY 2007
Revaluation," a copy of which is linked on Arlington's Web site at
http://www.arlingtom-na.izov/Public Documents /ArlingtonMA Assessor /2007AssessorsR
eport.pdf ( "Arlington Report"),12 Arlington's proportion of commercial property
ownership is 4 %, very similar to Reading's 7% proportion. See Arlington Report, p. 9.
Arlington, Belmont, Concord, Wellesley, Weston, and Wayland — like North
Reading 13 — all share an important characteristic with Reading that favors retaining a
uniform property tax rate; besides being picturesque and in the Route 128 area, each
Town has a very small proportion of commercial property ownership. These Towns
recognize — and in the case of Concord and Wellesley, expressly recognize -that splitting
the property tax rate will cause a small number of commercial property owners to
shoulder a severe tax burden that would at best marginally benefit residential property
owners. These Towns have accordingly rejected splitting their property tax rates, and
Reading should as well.
Nonetheless, certain proponents of splitting Reading's property tax rate have
pointed to other area municipalities with split rates, such as Woburn and Burlington, and
suggested that since these municipalities adopted split rates and appear to be doing fine —
12 A hard copy of the Arlington Report will be distributed to the Board of Selectmen when the Board
receives the Committee's report.
13 North Reading has a uniform property tax rate.
21 q 6 Y()
i.e., they have well - recognized business activity — Reading should not be deterred from
splitting its tax rate, particularly since two other towns with small proportions of
commercial property ownership (Lexington and Lynnfield, each with 7% proportions
nearly identical to Reading's proportion) currently split their respective property tax
rates. We respectfully differ on this point.
Towns like Woburn and Burlington — unlike Reading — have a substantial number
of large commercial and industrial entities, not to mention many "box" stores whose
development in Reading is typically not as favored as it is in a number of surrounding
communities. Further, these municipalities have much larger proportions of commercial
property ownership; indeed, Woburn and Burlington's proportions of commercial
property ownership are each roughly 30 %, more than four (4) times Reading's
corresponding proportion of 7 %. Accordingly, comparing Reading to Woburn and
Burlington is not meaningful.
Additionally, even if we agree for argument's sake that these municipalities are
doing fine, we submit that, in light of what Concord experienced as set forth above, there
may have been a drop, however small, in commercial property ownership following
adoption of split rates, with a negative effect, however small, on those municipalities'
economies. We do not want Reading to experience what Concord experienced — which
caused Concord to revert to a uniform rate.
Further, Lexington and Lynnfield are each unlike Reading, and comparisons to
those towns are not helpful. Lynnfield — like Saugus, another split -rate municipality —
contains a portion of Route 1, a well - known, well - developed commercial roadway with a
number of significant businesses in each direction perhaps willing to trade higher
property taxes for the visibility afforded by that highway; Reading does not have
comparable development. Further, Lexington has major office park development — e.g.,
Ledgemont Center — with many national and international companies; Reading does not
have comparable office park development.
In sum, we believe that Reading's looks and demographics follow those of
Concord, Belmont, Arlington, Wellesley, Weston, and Wayland much more than they
follow those of Woburn, Saugus, and Burlington. We accordingly urge the Selectmen to
stay true to those looks and demographics, and avoid the hard lesson learned by Concord,
by retaining a uniform property tax in Reading.
D. MAINTAINING A UNIFORM PROPERTY TAX RATE OFFERS A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO RETAINING AND ATTRACTING
BUSINESSES IN READING.
Proponents of differential property tax rates point to surrounding communities
that have enacted differential rates, such as Woburn, Saugus, and Burlington, and suggest
that since these towns /cities have adopted split rates and appear to be doing okay,
Reading should adopt differential tax rates as well. We respectfully differ, as the
surrounding communities' split tax rates favor keeping the Town's uniform tax rate.
22 qb q1
By maintaining a uniform property tax rate in a region with many split -tax
communities, Reading offers a competitive and nearly - unique advantage to attracting
businesses to the town. A business that is contemplating a start or relocation in the Route
128 region will be more likely to choose Reading if the town maintains a uniform tax rate
instead of a split rate. Furthermore, such a business that is choosing between a Reading
location and a location in a split -rate community will be more likely to choose Reading if
other factors are otherwise equal.
Keeping this competitive advantage is particularly crucial since some neighboring
communities, such as North Reading, maintain a uniform tax rate, and are therefore
positioned to leverage this advantage — and thereby attract businesses away from Reading
— if the Town splits the property tax rate.
The Board of Selectmen can maintain Reading's competitive advantage by voting
to retain the Town's system of uniform property taxation, and we respectfully urge the
Board of Selectmen to reject split property tax rates in Town.
IV. Conclusion: Since Split Tax Rates Would Significantly and Disproportionately
Burden Reading's Small Proportion of Commercial Property Owners and
Businesses to Create Negligible Residential Tax Savings That Would Be Offset
By the Higher Costs of Goods and Services Resulting from the Higher Tax
Burdens on Businesses, Which Would Harm Economic Activity, Charitable
Giving, and Job Creation in Reading, We Urge the Selectmen to Retain a Uniform
Property Tax Rate.
The debate over whether to enact split property tax rates is much more than a
difference over the significance of particular statistics. Indeed, the debate strikes at the
heart of how the citizens view their Town and its business community, and the result of
the debate has significant implications for Reading, its citizens, and its economy — not to
mention its looks and demographics.
While we differ strongly with the majority of the Committee over whether
Reading should split its property tax rate, we do so respectfully, and we, and our
respective constituencies, look forward to a vibrant, civil discourse over the next few
months, as the Board of Selectmen, the business community, and the citizens of Reading
assess whether the Town should split its property tax rate.
We thank the Board of Selectmen for the opportunity to serve on the Committee,
and for the Board's consideration of our many points in opposition to a split tax rate. We
also appreciate the invaluable assistance of Assistant Town Manager Bob LeLacheur and
Town Appraiser Dave Billard in furnishing time and information to the Committee in the
course of the Committee's analysis and deliberations.
In closing, we respectfully urge the Board of Selectmen to maintain a uniform
property tax rate in Reading — for the good of all the citizens in Town.
23 ,4 6 y2
FORMULA FOR THE TAX RATES:
Exhibit F.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED ON PAGE 6.
(1) Column I shows the tax rate and amounts of taxes to be raised if residential and CIP tax rates
are the same (i.e. 100%). The Department of Revenue refers to this as -a residential factor of "I".
(2) Column 2 shows a 10% shift•from residential to CIP or 110 %.
(3) Column 3 shows a 25% shift from residential to CIP or 125%.
.(4) Column 4 shows a 50% shift from residential to CIP or 150%.
(5) The residential tax rate decreases at a much slower rate than the CIP rate Increases.
(6) Page 6 shows the detail ' of the classification shifts and the impact on the residential and
commerciallindustrial and personal property rates.
FY2007 FORMULA FOR TAX RATE
COLUMN I
COLUMN 2
COLUMN 3
COLUMN 4
1.00%
125%
150%
R+O TAXES
$42,363,976.64
$42,363,976.64
$42,363,976.64
$42,363,976.64
X RES FACTOR
100.0000%
99.2157%
98.0391%
96.0782%
TAXES
$42,363,976.64
$42,031,711.73
$41,533,261.42
$40,702,546.20
.=RO
DIV BY R+0 VAL
$3,509,8571,100
$3,509,857,100
$3,509,857,100
$3,509,857,100
+TAX RATE RESIDENTIAL
$12.07
$11.98
$11.83
$11.60
TOTAL TAXES
$45,686,874.39
$45,686,874.39
..$45,686,874.39
•45,686,874.39
LESS RO TAXES
$42,363,* 976.64
$4-2,031,711.73
$41,533,261.42
$40,702,546.20
=CIP TAXES .
.$3,322,897.75
$3,655,162.66
$4,153,612.97
$4,984,328.19
DIV BY CIP VAL
$275,302,336.
$275,302,336
$275,302,336
.$275,302,336
=TAX RATE CIP
$12.07
$13.28
$15.09
$18.10
TAXES:
R + O
$42,363,976.64
542,031,711.73
$41,533,26 * 1.42
$40,702,546.20
C + I + P
$3,322,897.75
$3,655,162.66
$4,153,612.97
$4,984,328.19
TOTAL TAXES
$45,686,874.39
$45,686,874.39
$45,686,8.74.39
$45,686,8.74.39
5
kbq3
FY2007
SHFTT 100 110 120 130 140 150
RES RATE 12.07 11.98 11.88 11.79 11.69 11.60
CTP RATE 12.07 13.28 14.48 15.69 16.90 18.10
For every 10 % increase in* taxes of the commercial/industrial and personal property classes,
the residential property owners saves approximately .75% +/ The max_ imum increase of
150% would save the residential taxpayer 3.89% .
6
ueNy
CLASSIFICATION SHIFTS
20.00
O
16.00
16.00
go
,;54r
14.00
�.
12.00
Ir
10.00
j+
iI
M RESIDENTIAL
8.00
;
{ O COMMERCIAL
6.00
4.00
2.00
RESIDENTIAL
p
100
110
120
130
140
•150
Classification Shift
FY2007
SHFTT 100 110 120 130 140 150
RES RATE 12.07 11.98 11.88 11.79 11.69 11.60
CTP RATE 12.07 13.28 14.48 15.69 16.90 18.10
For every 10 % increase in* taxes of the commercial/industrial and personal property classes,
the residential property owners saves approximately .75% +/ The max_ imum increase of
150% would save the residential taxpayer 3.89% .
6
ueNy
COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL FY2007 DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES:
-VALUE RANGE
QUANITY
PCT
CUM PCT.
LESS THAN 99,900
14
5.556
5.556
100,000 TO 149,900
16
6.349
11.905
150,000 TO 199,900
9
3.571
15.476
200,000 TO 249,900
14,
5.556
21.032
250,000 TO 299,900
19'
-7.540
28,571
300,000 TO 349,900
.19
7.540
36.111-
350,000 TO 399,900.
19
7.540
43.651
400;000 TO. 449,900
14:
5.556
49.206.
450,000 TO 499,900
14
5.556
54.762
500,000 TO 599,900
22
8.730
63.492
600,000 TO 699,900
16
6.349
69.841
700,000 T0799,900
15
5-.952
75.794
800,000 TO 899,900.
6
2.381
78.175
900,000 TO 1,499,900
24
.9.524
87.698-
1,500,000 TO 2,999,900
21'
8.333
96.032
.3,000,000 TO 4,999,900
2
0.794.
96.825
OVER 5,000,000
8
3.175
-100.00
TOTAL
252
TOTAL C/I VALUATION.
AVERAGE C/I VALUATION
MEDIAN VALUE
RANGE $1,000 TO $23,745,700
CA MEDIAN VALUE $454,350
@ -12.07 $5,484.00
$ 257,590,116
$' 1,050,077
$ 454,350
SINGLE FAMILY MEDIAN $424,300
@ 12.07 $5,121.3,9
-0-1-1-60 $-A-92-149 ,
INCREASE $2,739.74 MAXIMUM SAVINGS ,$� 99.42
.. ....... ........ .......... .. ........ . .
TO SAVE THE MEDIAN VALUED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER A
MAXIMUM OF $199.42 THE MEDIAN VALUEDCOMMERCIAL/INDUSTRJAL
OWNER WOULD HAVE TO PAY MORE THAN WOULD .OTHERWISE
BE PAID UNDER ONE TAX RATE.
IN
�bK�
Exhibit G.
Board of Selectmen Meeting
March 13, 2007
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that ineeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James
Bonazoli*, Secretary Stephen Goldy, Selectmen Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert,
Recreation Administrator John Feudo, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town
Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Paula Schena and the following list of interested
parties: Jennifer Miksen, David Tuttle, Michelle Hopkinson, Tony D'Arezzzo, Patricia Lloyd,
John McCracken, Lorraine Salter, Kate Kaminer, David Lautinan, Adam Pollock, Mike Sheedy,
Peter Coumonduros.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments — Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the
193/195 Interchange Meeting is March 21st at the Woburn High School. He also invited the
Selectmen to participate in the upcoming Coolidge Spelling Bee.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that the Addison-Wesley design charette is Thursday, March
22nd at the Senior Center. He has received inquiries from residents wanting to know when the
stop sign at Walnut Street and Old Farm Road is going up. He asked where the seasonal
Crossing Guard will be located.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoll indicated that he was not happy that the Finance Committee
removed the Nurse Advocate from the Warrant, and he feels that it was not their place to do that.
The Town Manager noted that the Finance Committee took it off because they hadn't seen the
FY 2008 Budget yet, not because they don't agree. Vice Chairman Bonazoli noted that he is also
disappointed with Town Meeting's vote on Johnson Woods.
Chainnan Ben Tafoya noted that the screening committee met tonight to review the Town
Planner resumes.
Personnel and Appointments
Community Planning and Development Commission — Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that -all of
the CPDC Associates were notified, and David Tuttle indicated that he was interested in
becoming a full member.
Schubert moved and Anthony seconded to place the following name into nomination for
one position on the Community Planning and Development Commission with a term
expiring June 30,2008: David Tuttle. Mr. Tuttle received five votes and was appointed.
�9
Board of Selectmen Meeting — March 13 2007 — Page 2
Ad Hoc Community Preservation Act Study Committee — The Board interviewed Patricia Lloyd
for one position on the Community Preservation Act Study Committee.
Anthony moved and Goldy seconded to place the following name into nomination for one
position on the Ad Hoc Community Preservation Act Study Committee with a term
expiring June 30,2007: Patricia Lloyd Ms. Lloyd received five votes and was appointed.
Discussion /Action Items
Hearing — Waiver of Driveway /Curb Regulations — 37 Pinevale Avenue - The Secretary read the
hearing notice.
The Town Manager noted that the owner paved the area in front of the wall malting it a larger
area than allowed. John McCracken is the owner and is requesting a waiver from the Town's
regulations. The Town Engineer stated that the area is being used for parking but is supposed to
be a sidewalk. The Town Manager also noted that Pinevale Avenue is in bad shape.
Mr. McCracken noted that he did not pave the area for parking - he did it for safety and
aesthetics. It was not his intention to go against the Town regulations. He also noted that it is a
5 foot by 30 foot pavement and if it is taken out, it will be a mess.
Selectman Richard Schubert asked if there are any sidewalks on Pinevale Avenue, and if curbing
will be put in. It was noted that there are no sidewalks or curbing.
Selectman Stephen Goldy asked Mr. McCracken if he consulted with the Conservation
Commission regarding putting this in. Mr. McCracken noted that he did speak with Fran Fink
and made changes that she recommended regarding drainage. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli
noted that the Conservation Commission only rules on garages and driveways.
The Town Manager noted that if the intent is a safe haven for pedestrians, then there should be
curbing. He also noted that curbing will also prevent the snow plow from digging up the edge.
He noted that the Town does allow residents to install sidewalks at their own expense according
to Town specifications. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that curbing would add to safety but
there is none on the rest of the street.
Mr. McCracken noted that lr, cannot afford curbing so he will have to tear up the pavement.
Jennifer Miksen of 41 Pinevale Avenue noted that the run off from his property has increased,
and it should be removed and made pervious. She also noted that when she purchased her house,
it was required to keep the land pervious for drainage. Mr. McCracken noted that Ms. Miksen
had mentioned that she always had water so he moved his downspouts.
Chairman Ben Tafoya asked if the driveway project was done according to Town standards, and
the Town Manab r indicated that it was.
N6k�
Board of Selectmen Meeting — March 13, 2007 — Page 3
A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldy that the driveway opening at 37 Pinevale Avenue
be limited to a maximum of 24 feet and that the asphalt in front of the retaining wall be
removed and replaced with grass or gravel to be completed by June 30, 2007 was approved
by a vote of 5 -0 -0.
Review Capital Program and Financing — Selectman Camille Anthony asked the Assistant Town
Manager Bob LeLacheur to review Page 7 of his Capital information. The Assistant Town
Manager noted that on Page 1, there is a net amount of $2,325,571 committed. On the last page,
everything above the boiler is committed, everything below is new /needed.
Chainnan Ben Tafoya asked what number we are trying to stay below, and the Town Manager
noted that in FY 2009, we can afford $1,024,000 in capital.
Selectman Camille Anthony asked if there is a policy on issuing debt. The Assistant Town
Manager noted that it is the Town's objective b not do debt but to do capital. Selectman
Anthony also asked if we add $77,000 in BAN'S to this year's budges; what would be the impact.
The Assistant Town Manager noted that there would be none because it is already in the budget
that has been submitted.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that the Finance Committee has set a policy for 5% for debt and
capital. The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Finance Committee policy also states that if
any new project is more than .25% of 5 %, then the Town should go for an override.
Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the Library needs more capital. The Assistant Town
Manager noted that the Library maintenance is in the Town line. The amount she is looking at is
for technology, etc. Selectman Anthony also noted that she would like to see the School capital
broken down by building.
Park Planning — Tennis Courts — Recreation Administrator John Feudo and Friends of Reading
Tennis representatives Lorraine Salter and Kate Kaminer were present.
Ms. Salter handed out brochures and noted that 250 people attended the Reading Tennis Open.
There are cracks in the courts that are in disrepair. Friends of Reading Tennis are researching
special needs grants.
Ms. Kaminer noted that they had private companies come and look at the courts. It will cost
$350,000 to rebuild six courts with lights. The lights alone are $90,000. Engineering also
recommends raising the pads approximately three feet to align with the field, and that will
alleviate drainage issues and handicap access. There is $200,000 earmarked from the Town and
that leaves $150,000 for the Friends of Reading Tennis to raise. They are applying for grants
and do house presentations. They have raised $30,000 since January.
Ms. Salter noted that two courts will meet ADA specifications. She reviewed the list of
programs that they plan on hosting.
40
Board of Selectmen Meeting — March 13, 2007 — Page 4
The Town Manager noted that the new lighting is definitely needed. The Superintendent of
Schools wants to put in for SBA funding.
Selectman Richard Schubert asked if there is ,
Summer. The Town Manager noted that there
condition, they will talce the courts out of use.
$12,000 to crack seal one court.
i opportunity to repair the courts for use this
was not and if there are any -issues with the
John Feudo noted that it costs approximately
Park Planning — Artificial Turf Field — David Lautman, Adam Pollock and Mike Sheedy
representing United Soccer, Lacrosee and Pop Warner Football were present.
Mr. Lautman noted that the lacrosse field at Coolidge doesn't hold grass. They have been filling
in the holes for years and it is a liability b the Town. He also noted that the Collins Field at
Parker is deteriorating and they have lost the tennis court field. The usage is increasing —
enrollment is up to over 500 children playing lacrosse. He noted that the Town has a $200,000
grant from the State that Representative Brad Jones got for them.
John Feudo reviewed the benefits of playing on artificial turf. He noted that Parker is the best
site for synthetic turf. He also noted that there are over 1000 players of soccer, over 700 in Pop
Warner and over') 00 in lacrosse.
Mr. Pollock noted that they had to make fields in hazardous areas; i.e., parking lots last year
when the fields were wet. The number of children playing is growing but the Town is not adding
more fields.
Mr. Sheedy noted that there are over 1000 kids playing soccer and if the first game of the day is
cancelled, then the whole day is cancelled.
John Feudo noted that the lifespan of artificial turf is 10-15 years. Maintenance is $5,000-
$10,000 versus $23,000 for grass. The total cost is $614,811 and the Town has received a grant
for $200,000. The athletic organizations will do fundraising.
Mr. Lautman noted that the three organizations have joined together and are donating $15,000.
The goal is to raise $75,000.
Selectman Camille Anthony asked about the lifespaq and the Town Manager noted that when
the field is replaced, it is not the full cost just replacing the top portion because the drainage, etc.
is already done.
Park Planning — Memorial Park — John Feudo noted that Peter Cournonduros and Michelle
Hopkinson were present.
The Town Manager noted that Mr. Cournonduros came forward with ideas/plan for Memorial
Park. He also noted that none of the plans are inconsistent with the current restrictions on the
park.
y64q
Board of Selectmen Meeting — March 13 2007.— Page 5
Mr. Coumonduros noted that this parking has huge potential and is underutilized. The skating
area will be resized to look like a pond. They will add trees and parking. There will be a
walking path around the facility, and the pathway from Salern Street will be redesigned. Friends
of Reading Recreation will raise funds and do the work in phases. He also noted that the parking
will also help the neighborhood.
The Town Manager noted that the meadow in the center will allow ball playing without
bothering the neighbors. DPW will do the skate rink and pathway. The bandstand will be
modified.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that they have created a vision that the Town has needed.
He also noted that he does not want an asphalt walkway— he would prefer some other material.
The Town Manager noted that we will be doing neighborhood outreach.
Park Planning — Birch Meadow— The Town Manager noted that there has been some confusion
regarding the roles and responsibilities related to park improvements. He also noted that the
Selectmen do not need to get involved with the day to day issues when there is a Master Plan.
The problem is we don't have one for the Birch Meadow area. He suggests a Selectmen liaison,
the Chairman of the Recreation Committee and staff to Aork out a policy for who does what.
Selectinan Camille Anthony noted that she would like to see a Master Plan for Birch Meadow
that does not include fences at Birch Meadow. She also noted that there is the problem of people
who do fundraising and the Town cannot fulfill their end.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that the Board has seen substantial changes to the Capital Plan
tonight from the presentations, and these did not include Imagination Station or the Northern
Area Greenway. The question is how to evaluate and how to set priorities. He also noted that
the Board could consider going to the community for a debt exclusion just for recreation
proj ects.
Selectman Richard Schubert suggests creating a Master Plan Group immediately for the Birch
Meadow and Parker areas. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli agreed with Selectman Schubert but
noted that the committee needs to know the Selectmen's desires.
The Town Manager indicated that he will put together a policy for an Ad Hoc Birch Meadow
Planning Committee.
Selectman Camille Anthony indicated that we will need someone with passive recreation
experience.
Discussion of Possible Regulations — Retail Hours of Operation (re: Bylaw Change) — The Town
Manager noted that Town Meeting approved the changes in the Hours of Operation bylaw. The
Selectmen need to think about broad concepts. Some issues would be:
• Earliest time to open
Allowing later than midnight
,�bso
Board of Selectmen Meeting — March 13, 2007 — Page 6
• Partially opened or entirely open
• Hours of delivery restrictions
• Outside speakers
• Address proximity of abutters
Selectman Richard Schubert noted that there needs to be a process for the permit that clarifies
when they will be required to come in before the Selectmen.
Tony D'Arezzo of 130 John Street * noted that he abuts the Industrial District. He recommends
that the Board be more on the stricter side in the beginning because it is harder to take away
something once it has been granted.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli indicated that he would like a list of the places that were opening
before 6:00 a.m.
Selectmen Camille Anthony and Stephen Goldy indicated that they will meet with the Police
Chief for his recommendations.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Goldy seconded by Anthony to approve the Minutes of February 27, 2007, as
amended, was approved by a vote of 3-0-2, with Bonazoli and Goldy abstaining.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthony to adjourn the meeting of March 13, 2007 at
11:00 p.m. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
4651
• On October 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. we will have the dedication of the
property at 1481 Main Street, and have invited our legislative delegation and
Nelson and Rita Burbank. James Bonazoli will be present for the Board and we
hope-that the rest of the Board members will be able to be present also.
o I have prepared a motion for the Board to refer the proposed Zoning
Bylaw amendment regarding accessory garages and buildings to CPDC for a
public hearing.
Bob will have additional supplemental information under the report.
2a) We received invitations to the First Baptist Church's 175`h Anniversary celebration.
James Bonazoli will be attending representing the Board.
2b) There are two Eagle Scout Awards. The ceremonies are the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Board representation will be needed. I will also try to be there since Alex Ortiz is a
neighbor.
3a) We have a vacancy as a regular member on the Community Planning and Development
Commission. This is for a term expiring ,Tune 30, 2010. The current Associate members
are not interested in becoming regular members. There are two applicants for the
position.
4a) Human Resources Administrator will be present to report highlights of the Human
Resource Division.
4b) The Ad Hoc Tax Classification Committee will be presenting its report to the Board. A
copy of the report is attached. There is also a minority report. In addition, through the
Chamber of Commerce there are a number of postcards that are copied which are in
opposition to the tax classification. The hearing on Tax Classification will be scheduled
in November (probably November 6). The presentation on October 9 is a report of the
committee. The formal hearing is the time at which the Board will determine whether or
not to implement tax classification.
4c) The Board received information on the environmental notification process for the Route
128/I93 Interchange. I've taken the liberty of drafting a letter for the Board to send. The
due date is October 10. The Conservation Administrator Fran Fink went to the scoping
hearing last week, and has comments that will be inserted into the Board of Selectmen's
letter. I would also suggest attaching your May 24, 2007 letter to Secretary Cohen as
well as the Conservation Commission's draft letter.
4G1
October 9, 2007
Ian Bowles, Secretary
Mass Executive Office of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116 -3969
Re: Town of Reading Comments on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange ENF
Dear Secretary Bowles:
The Reading Board of Selectmen has previously gone on record with Secretary Cohen in
a letter of May 24, 2007 (attached) with extensive comments on this project. This letter is
intended to focus those comments on the issues related to the Environmental Notification process
and to the Environmental Impact Statement.
Further development and study of the following components must be included in the
environmental phase:
A Transit and TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Components
1. Re -open the Mishawum passenger rail station;
2. Implement a fully online sign -up system for carpools in the area;
3. Increase utilization of the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (RTC) through the
following or other measures:
• Free commuter parking at Anderson RTC;
• Creation of a formal park- and -ride program at the Anderson RTC;
• Improve access to the Anderson RTC, including a pedestrian bridge from the west side
of the railroad tracks.
4. Expand ongoing marketing of transit services in the study area;
5. Expand ongoing outreach. and incentives for carpooling in the study area through
MassRIDES:
• A carpool incentive program;
• Expanded vanpool incentive program;
Additional marketing.
6. Expand peals- period "Route 128" shuttle service from Anderson RTC to Burlington,
Lexington, and Waltham, with connecting service to Reading Depot;
7. Add off -peals "Route 128" shuttle service;
qc2,
8. Establish a park- and -ride shuttle service from Peabody;
9. Explore cross - ticketing /fare payment arrangements on privately operated shuttle services;
10. Improve signage and traveler information to promote carpooling and transit:
Install static signage on I -93 and 1 -95 promoting carpooling and transit;
• Install electronic signs or Variable Message Signs (VMS) on I -93 and I -95 promoting
carpooling and transit;
Use real -time traffic, transit schedule, and parking information in signs, websites, cell
phones, or other media.
11. Increase MBTA reverse -peak and local bus service on Route 354 and extending Route 132
(currently serving Malden, Melrose and Stoneham) to serve the Reading commuter rail
station, the Anderson RTC, and nearby employers in Woburn;
12. Enhance MBTA commuter rail service on existing lines:
• Improve, headways on the Lowell Line between Anderson RTC and Boston to create a
shuttle -type service with peals period headways of 15 or 20 minutes;
• Add service north of the Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line and the Haverhill Line.
13. Encourage employers within the 128 region to allow flexible work hours.
B HighwU Components
1. Implement "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system as soon as possible:
Eliminate the lane drop on I -95 North at the Interchange — extend the additional lane
northbound to at least the 1- 95/129 intersection;
Add a southbound lane to I -95, beginning the 4`h lane from as far north as Walkers
Brook Drive;
• Incorporate noise barriers as part of the construction of this north bound and south bound
lane additions;
• Proceed with the project to modify the Washington Street ramp;
Improve traffic /speed enforcement;
• Enforce EXISTING state laws to minimize noise:
80db for motorcycle mufflers and exhaust pipes
Prohibited use of engine brakes on 18- wheelers (and post signage).
2. Work to lower the profile of all overhead ramps to the maximum extent possible;
3. Make an up -front commitment for inclusion of sound barriers as part of any project;
4. Implement the following construction mitigation to:
• Minimize cut - through traffic;
• Each component of the improvements should be analyzed for reduction in traffic
congestion and minimization, of cut through traffic during and following construction.
The results of the analysis should establish the phasing of components of construction to
minimize impacts of the surrounding communities during construction. Minimize
disruption — noise and otherwise — to abutting properties (noise and light from night time
construction);
y c-,3
Additional law enforcement funding needs to be provided to the communities to regulate
traffic during construction;
Major project construction cannot start before the following projects in Reading are
complete: West Street improvements (Project # 601705) and state projects; Main Street
Pavement Resurfacing (Project # 604804) and N. Reading/Reading Rte 28 bridge project
(Project # 603473). The reason for this request is to make sure that the local
infrastructure needed to. handle traffic diverted by construction is in place and is
adequate to accommodate this traffic;
• MHD needs to perform benefit analysis (environmental, traffic mitigation, noise etc.) of
daytime vs. nighttime construction;
Prior to construction, an upgrade in the traffic controllers and installation of a closed
loop system for traffic signals along Rte 28, Rte 129, Walkers Brook Drive, West Street,
Woburn Street and Summer Avenue in Reading is needed to regulate cut through traffic
during construction;
Provide to the Town of Reading adequate funding to hire a consultant to provide for an
independent evaluation of the proposed construction mitigation.
C Interchange Design Alternatives
Alternatives evaluated in the EIR process should:
• eliminate all property takings,
• minimize noise impacts, and
• minimize visual impacts
on properties in Reading. The Town believes that all of these impacts can be reduced or
eliminated through additional design work.
Our Conservation Administrator attended the Scoping Session the week of October 1 and
made comments at that time, and these are attached and are a part of the Town's comments with
regard to this matter.
Finally we understand that the EIR process will require a citizens committee and we would
suggest that the Task Force be used for that purpose. The Town of Reading stands ready to be an
integral part of this process.
Sincerely,
James Bonazoli, Chairman
Reading Board of Selectmen
cc: Representative Brad Jones
Representative Patrick Natale
Senator Richard Tisei
qc-.,
May 24, 2007
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Bernard Cohen
Secretary . of Transportation
Executive Office of'Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 3170
Boston, MA 02116
Ben Tafoya, Chairman
James E. Bonazoli, V. Chairman
Stephen A. Goldy, Secretary
Camille W. Anthony
Richard W. Schubert
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
1 (781) 942-9043
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Website: www.ci.reading.rna.us
Re: Town of Reading Position on Interstate Routes 95 and 93 Interchange Improvements
Dear Secretary Cohen:
The Town of Reading appreciates the hard work of the Interstate Route 95/93 Task
Force, and MM's staff and consultants. The process that was followed is much improved from
the s is important to the Town
previous process, and therefore the product is much improved. This rtan.
of Reading because Reading is the community most impacted by any scenario of improvement of
this interchange — the interchange itself and much of the ramp structures are in the Town of
Reading directly abutting a residential neighborhood.
The following statement represents the Town of Reading position on options presently before the
Task Force as this phase concludes. This position paper represents the formal vote of the Board
of Selectmen on May 22, 2007.
Early in the study, the Interchange Task Force (ITF) worked with the consult * ants to develop
goals and objectives. Selected objectives are listed'below. Of major importance were the
objectives to work within the existing right-of-way and avoid takings, particularly of residences.
1. Improve traffic flow in and around the 1-93/1-95 interchange;
2. Improve safety for motorists;
3. Maintain local access and improve traffic conditions on local streets;
4. Improve mobility through multi-modal and other transportation strategies;
5. Meet transportation goals without sacrificing quality of life. for area communities.
0 Minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences and other sensitive receptors;.
9 Relieve impacts of cut-through traffic on neighborhoods and business districts;
y<,.<'
• Design improvements within the existing right -of -way;
• Avoid residential and business property takings;
• Minimize negative economic effects to tax bases, and enhance local and regional
economic activity where possible;
• Minimize visual impacts on the communities and, enhance the visual environment where
possible;
• Maintain community and business district connections and access, including automobile,
truck, emergency vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access, and make improvements where
possible;
• Consider quality of life costs as well as financial costs.
6. Protect and enhance the natural and cultural environment;
7. Develop recommendations that can be implemented efficiently;
S. The study will continue to be conducted through an open and inclusive process;
9. Provide justification for any additional recommended actions over and above what analyses
show is necessary.
In order to meet these objectives the Town of Reading believes that the following actions are
necessary as a package of actions to be undertaken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Highway Department:
A. Transit and TDM (Transportation Demand Manaj4ement) Components
Further development and study of the following components must be included in the
environmental phase:
1. Re -open the Mishawum passenger rail station;.
2. Implement a fully online sign -up system for carpools in the area;
3. 'Increase utilization of the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (RTC) through the
following or other measures:
Free commuter parking at Anderson RTC;
Creation of a formal park -and -ride program at the Anderson RTC;
Improve .access to the Anderson RTC, including a pedestrian bridge from the west side
of the railroad tracks.
4. Expand ongoing marketing of transit services in the study area;
5. Expand ongoing outreach and incentives for carpooling in the study area through
MassRIDES:
A carpool incentive program;
Expanded vanpool incentive program;
Additional marketing:
6. Expand peak -period "Route 128" shuttle service from Anderson RTC to Burlington,
Lexington, and Waltham, with connecting service to Reading Depot;
7. Add off -peak "Route 128" shuttle service;
Uc(�
8. Establish a park -and -ride shuttle service from Peabody;
9. Explore cross - ticketing/fare payment arrangements on privately operated shuttle services;
10. Improve signage and traveler information to promote carpooling and'transit:
Install static signage on I -93 and I -95 promoting carpooling and transit; .
Install electronic signs or Variable Message Signs (VMS) on I -93 and I -95 promoting
carpooling and transit;
• . Use real -time traffic, transit schedule, and parking information in signs, websites, cell
phones, or other media.
11. Increase MBTA reverse -peak and local bus service on Route 354 and extending Route 132
(currently serving Malden, Melrose and Stoneham) to serve the Reading commuter rail
station, the Anderson RTC, and nearby employers in Woburn;
12. Enhance MBTA commuter rail service on existing fines:
Improve headways on the Lowell Line between Anderson RTC and Boston to create a
shuttle -type service with peak period headways of 15 or 20 minutes;
Add service north of the Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line and the Haverhill Line.
13. Encourage employers within the 128 region to allow flexible work hours.
B. Highway Components
1. Implement "easy fix" enhancements to the highway system as soon as possible:
Eliminate the lane drop on I -95 North at the Interchange — extend the additional lane
northbound to at least the I- 95/129 intersection;
Add a southbound lane to I -95, beginning the 4th lane from as far north as Walkers
Brook Drive;
Incorporate noise barriers as part of the construction of this north bound and south bound
lane additions;
Proceed with the project to modify the Washington Street ramp;
Improve traffic /speed enforcement;
Enforce EXISTING state laws to minimize noise:
80db for motorcycle mufflers and exhaust pipes
Prohibited use of engine brakes on 18- wheelers (and post signage).
2. Work to lower the profile of all overhead ramps to the maximum extent possible;
3. Make an up -front commitment for inclusion of sound barriers as part of any project;
4. Implement the following construction mitigation to:
Minimize cut - through traffic;
Each component of the improvements should be analyzed for reduction in traffic
congestion and minimization of cut through traffic during and following construction.
The results of the analysis should establish the phasing of components of construction to
minimize impacts of the surrounding communities during construction. Minimize
disruption — noise and otherwise — to abutting properties (noise and light from night time
construction);
q (-- 7
Additional law enforcement funding needs to be provided to the communities to regulate
traffic during construction;
Major project construction cannot start before the following projects in Reading are
complete: West Street improvements (Project # 601705) and state projects; Maui Street
Pavement Resurfacing (Project # 604804) and N. Reading/Reading Rte 28 bridge project
(Project # 603473). The reason for this request is to make sure that the local
infrastructure needed to handle traffic diverted by construction is in place and is
adequate. to accommodate this traffic;
MHD needs to perform benefit analysis (environmental, traffic mitigation, noise etc.) of
daytime vs. nighttime construction;
Prior to construction, an upgrade in the traffic controllers and installation of a closed
loop system for traffic signals along Rte 28, Rte 129, Walkers Brook Drive, West Street,
Woburn Street and Summer Avenue in Reading. is needed to regulate cut through traffic
during construction;
Provide to the Town of Reading adequate funding to hire a consultant to provide for an
independent evaluation of the proposed construction mitigation.
C. Interchanize Design Alternatives
The Town does not endorse either of the alternative plans because they do not meet the goals of
the study. Specifically these alternatives:
• do not eliminate all property takings,
• do not minimize noise impacts, and
® do not minimize visual impacts
on properties in Reading. The Town believes that all of these impacts can be, reduced or
eliminated through additional design work.
This position statement was approved by the Reading Board of Selectmen on May 22,
2007. , We appreciate your consideration of Iliese comments as this process moves forward into
the next phases of development.
Sincerel
n Tafoy " Chai an
Reading Board of S en
cc: Representative Brad Jones
Representative Patrick Natale
Senator Richard Tisei
Luisa Paiewonsky, Commissioner of Mass Highway
uG?
Page 1 of I
Paula
From: Fink, Fran
Sent: Friday, October O5.20O71i7PM
'-' �-------`-- ��� ' ~ � -
Kenney Mark Wetzel
(nkwetzo .com); Mark Wetzel work; Will Finch; William Hecht
Cc: Soheno'Pou|o; Zambounam'8eorga; Kowalski, Carol; Heohenb|eiknar' Peter; McIntire, Ted;
Cormier, Jim
Attachments: 193-195 improvements ENF.doc
| have drafted the attached comments on behalf of the Conservation Commission, and have concentrated on
wetlands and otormwaterimpacts. | understand that the Selectmen are also planning ho send comments, ondUhet
they will likely include local traffic, noise, light, eofet '|mndbaking.pub|ictronait.aconomic.|awenfoncemnnt.and
other considerations.
During the MEPA meeting on Tuesday, MEPA made it clear that an EIR.is mandatory, as is a federal EIS, that
they expect theTaakForuet000nUnueinociUzenreviawoopecity,andthottheyoxpectiheE|Rtuprovideo|nve|
of detail that will fully and adequately account for impacts, alternatives, and mitigation. - [horewiUbeopportunitios
to comment on the Draft and Final EIR's, so this is just the initial step of a long process.
| would like tu mail a final version of the attached draft this afternoon. Monday iem holiday and comments are due
on Wednesday. |f you have any serious concerns about the draft, please let me know ASAP.
Thanks,
Fran
Ll C119
10/5/2007
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867 -2683 CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Phone (781) 942 -6616 Fax (781) 942 -9071
�9 rNCORe °� ffink @ci.reading.ma.us
October 5, 2007
Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Mr. Nicholas Zavolas, MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Re: Environmental Notification Form , EOEA # 14098, I- 93/I -95 Interchange
'Transportation Improvements Project— Reading, Woburn, Stoneham, Wakefield
Dear Secretary Bowles:
Please accept the following comments for the record on the Environmental Notification Form
(ENF) for the I- 93/I -95 Interchange Project, EOEA #14098, filed by the Massachusetts
Executive. Office of Transportation (EOT) and Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD).
As the body responsible for administering the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act in the
town of Reading, the Reading Conservation Commission is most concerned about the proposed
wetlands impacts and stormwater management systems for the interchange project. Most of the
interchange and a significant portion of both highways lie within Reading. The stream that runs
through three quadrants of the interchange from northeast to southwest drains a large watershed
in Reading, and additional wetlands are located on both sides of the highways.
The Commission's first concern is that the MassGIS maps used in the ENF to identify wetlands
do not depict all of the wetlands known to exist in Reading, nor presumably in the other towns
where work is proposed. The Mass.GIS maps also do not show complete stream corridors and
do not depict all points where streams cross under the roadways in culverts. The Commission
�U�
strongly recommends that EOT /MHD consult with local Conservation Commissions in each
affected town, delineate wetlands and the culverts that connect them, and file Abbreviated
Notices of Resource Area Delineation in each town as early as possible in the review process to
assure that the analysis of wetlands impacts in the EIR is based on a complete and detailed .
understanding of existing resource areas. This will place EOT /MHD in the best position to avoid
and minimize wetlands impacts and to identify areas where mitigation can be provided.
Even with the limited depiction of wetlands on the maps in the ENF, it is obvious that the project
is likely to have significant wetland impacts. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should
include detailed analysis of impacts associated with each alternative and mitigation possible for
each impact. The EIR should describe impacts to Banks, Land Under Water, Bordering
Vegetated Wetlands, Land Subject to Flooding, and Riverfront Area. In addition to the direct
footprint of each proposed roadway lane, the EIR should describe the impacts of associated
structures such as noise barriers, guardrails, signposts, drainage systems, and the like. The EIR
should also discuss construction impacts and on -going operations impacts, such as impacts from
pumping groundwater and surface stormwater where depressed roadways are proposed. The EIR
should analyze daytime shadow impacts and nighttime lighting impacts, particularly on plant
species in the project area. The EIR should consider whether there are alternatives available that
would not require a variance from the Wetlands Protection Act.
The existing stormwater management systems in the project area were installed long before the
Massachusetts Department of Envirommental Protection (DEP) set forth their current Stormwater
Management Policy. Our knowledge of the existing systems is incomplete, but they primarily
consist of catch basins to drain the roadway surfaces, pipes and channels to convey runoff to
wetlands, and culverts to move water under roadways. The existing systems are limited in their
capacity to remove contaminants, recharge groundwater, and detain flood waters. The EIR
should consider opportunities for improving stormwater management within the existing
roadways, as well as how the project will meet the DEP Stormwater Management Policy for new
roadways.
The EIR should include a strong commitment to long -tern maintenance, including pavement
sweeping, alternatives to sodium chloride for deicing, litter collection, and cleaning drainage
structures per DEP standards. The EIR should also consider improvements available in the
operations of associated MHD maintenance facilities, such as the Causeway Road facility in
Reading where salt management, solid waste disposal, and petroleum product storage have
caused problems in the wetlands and aquifer.
The EIR should discuss impacts and mitigation plans for the prolonged construction period
including: erosion, dust, and sedimentation controls; temporary stormwater management
systems; phasing and timing; staging and stockpiling practices; traffic controls within the site
and on local roads; solid, hazardous, and sanitary waste controls; and noise, light, and air
pollution controls.
The EIR should consider whether there is an alternative location for the proposed temporary
Cedar Street ramp that would avoid direct wetlands impacts. The EIR should include restoration
for any wetlands temporarily altered, and should consider provisions that could be made during
construction to offset temporary impacts (e.g., where temporary fill is proposed in Land Subject
qc'l I
to Flooding, provide temporary compensatory flood storage areas to prevent downstream flood
increases).
The EIR should provide a strong, detailed commitment to public transportation improvements
that will reduce future traffic levels within the interchange and along both highway corridors.
Maps and plans provided with the EIR. should be drawn at a scale and with sufficient detail to
show existing and proposed conditions clearly.
This project presents a number of opportunities not only to avoid new environmental impacts,
but also to reduce current impacts. The Commission and, no doubt, other officials in Reading
will be available to meet with EOT /MHD and others at any time to contribute local knowledge
and information as appropriate during preparation of the EIR. Thank you for your consideration
of these comments. .
Sincerely,
Frances M. Fink
Conservation Administrator
cc: Mass. Highway Department, Attn: Mr. Bob Frey, 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150,
Boston, MA 02116 -3973
George Zambouras, Town Engineer
Carol Kowalski, Town Planner
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
Ted McIntire, Director of Public Works
Chief Jim Cormier, Police Department
Stoneham Conservation Commission, 35 Central Street, Stoneham, MA 02180
Woburn Conservation Commission, City Hall, 10 Common Street, Woburn, MA 01801
Wakefield Conservation Commission, 1 Lafayette Street, Wakefield, MA 01880
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, 10 Juniper Road, Belmont,
MA 02478
DEP/Northeast Regional Office, Attn: MEPA Coordinator, 205B Lowell Street,
Wilmington, MA 01887
Page 1 of I
Schena, Paula
From: VVMHECHT[bU .net]
Sent: Friday, October D5.2OO72:45PM
To; Fink, Fran; AnnikeScanlon; Barbara Stewart; Doug Greene; Jamie yWoughan; Leo Kenney;
mkmetze@yahoo.com; Mark Wetzel work; Will Finch; William Hecht
Co: Sohena.Pau|o; Zambouros.GeorQe Peter; McIntire, Ted; Cormier, Jim
Subject: Re:
Fran,
| would add that though the Conservation Commission members and those of other town boards are volunteers,
considerable staff resources from the Town will be expended and we hope that the state will somehow reimburse
or otherwise compensate the Town for these costs, n\nueweexpectthattheabsbawi||wmntaxampUonofrom|ocmi
filing fees.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fink, Fran
|o .
Mark Wetzel_work; Will Finch; William Hecht
Cc: Schena, Paula ; Zambouras, George ; Kowalski, Carol Hechenblei er, Peter; McIntire, Ted ; Cormier,
Jim
Sent: Friday, October 05.2UO71:0GPM
I have drafted the attached comments on behalf of the Conservation Commission, and have concentrated on
wetlands and stonnvvotorimpacts. | understand that the Selectmen are also planning to send comments, and
that they will likely include local traffic, noise, light, safety, land taking, public transit, economic, law
enforcement, and other considerations.
During the MEPA meeting on Tuesday, MEPA made it clear that an EIR is mandatory, as is a federal EIS, that
they expect the Task Force to continue in a citizen review capacity, and that they expect the EIR to provide a
level of detail that will fully and adequately auooVnt for impacts, o|ternobvea.and m�oaUon. There vvi||be
oppodunitiemtncomnnnnton the Draft and Final E|R'a.00 this io just the initial step ofo long process.
| would like to mail e final version nf the attached draft this afternoon. Monday ioa holiday and comments are
due onWednesday. |f you have any serious concerns about the draft, please let me know ASAP.
thanks,
|Fran
�����
^�~�,�
��
"
lU/5/2007
Page 1 of I
Schena,PauUa
From: James.Maughan@CH2M.com
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:16 PM
^ Fran; Bstewl 61@huo ;
Co: Gnheno' Paula; Zam bo rae. George; Kowa|oN, Caro; Hechenbleikner, Peter; McIntire, Tod;
Cormier, Jim
Subject: RE:
Two points I think should be added to the letter:
•There are Reading Town BvLaws that inmany cases impose more stringent restrictions onwetland
impacts than do state laws. The �egdinQByLavve must bo considered |nevauabnge|b�nuUvon.
• W1opelikely than not, nwahanoeof the Town or State wetland laws will berequired. |n order tobeeligible
for o variance itio imperative that alternatives beconsidered. The Reading Con Corn will be looking for o
rigorous and thorough evaluation of alternatives before they will consider granting a variance.
Jamie
From: Fink, Fran [maiKo:fMnk@c. reading. ma. us]
Sant: Fridav, October 05, 2007 1:07 PM
To: AnnikaScanlon; Barbara Stewart; Doug Greene; Maughan,Janves/BOS> Leo Kenney; nokmetze@yaUoozom;
Mark Wetzel work; Will Finch; William Hecht
Cc: Schena,Pau|a; Zambouras, George; Kowalski, Carol; Hechenbleikner, Peter; McIntire, Ted; Cormier, Jim
| have drafted the attached comments on behalf of the Conservation Commission, and have concentrated on
wetlands and otormw/oterimpacts. | understand that the Selectmen are also planning to send comments, and that
they will likely include local traffic, noise, light, safety, |andbaking.pub|iotronnK'eoononnio.|ow enforcement, and
other considerations.
During the MBPA meeting on Tuesday, MEPA made it clear that anBRis mandatory, as isa federal EIS, that
they �th Task Force to continue ino citizen review capacity, and th they expect the BRtoprovide a level
of detail ihadviUfu||yandmdequotelyoccountforimpacts'o|ternadvee'andmiUgedion.
There will beopportunities
to comment on the Draft and Final E|R'o' so this io just the initial whap of long process.
| would like ho mail e final version of the attached draft this afternoon. Monday kau holiday and comments are due
on Wednesday. If you have any serious concerns about the draft, please let me know ASAP.
Thanks,
Fran
/4 61(Q^
lU/5/2007
Board of Selectmen Meeting
September 18, 2007
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts, Present were Chairman James Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Stephen
Goldy, Secretary Ben Tafoya, Selectman Richard Schubert, Town Manager Peter
Hechenbleilmer, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur, Paula Schena and
the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Steve Vittorioso, Gina Snyder, Tracy
Sopchak, Michele Benson, Ron D'Addario, Thomas and Christine McGrath, Florence Campbell,
Beverly Daly, Jennifer Cannon, Jean Hailey, Caroline Chapell, Anand Barde, Don Stroeble, Jack
and Mary Scott, E. K. Higgott, T. J. Ryan, Mary Ellen Stolecki, Matt Wilson, Karen Herrick,
Karen Flammia, Mark Wetzel, Patricia Lloyd, I,' Cristine and Brian Balkus, Liz Malinski, Davina
Shuman, Dan Ensminger, Ron O'Keefe.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments — Selectman Richard Schubert asked if the
Selectmen's expectation's regarding the alcohol signage at the Atlantic Market is clear now. The
Town Manager noted that he met with Arnold Rubin and it is clear now. Selectman Schubert
asked whether the Town Engineer or Conservation have any comments on the interchange
project. Selectman Ben Tafoya suggested including the letter that Selectman Richard Schubert
had previously written with the report.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that CPDC approved the plan for the Sanborn Street parking lot.
He also noted that they had a hearing on the 40R application for Addison-Wesley. Regarding the
affordable housing component, the developer wants 50% of the median income and 20%
affordable but the Town wants 80% of the median and 25% affordable, and that should be made
clear to the developer. He noted that the traffic reports and economic impact reports were
previously requested but were not available last night. Selectman Tafoya asked that the
Selectmen be informed of CPDC's schedule regarding Addison-Wesley.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that he attended the Library Board of Trustees Meeting regarding
capital planning and expenditures. He also noted that the Tax Classification Study is complete
and has been sent to the Board of Assessors for them to verify its accuracy before coming to the
Board of Selectmen.
Vice Chainnan Stephen Goldy noted that the Friends of Reading Recreation is hosting the
Second Annual Cross Country Road Race in the Town Forest and also a Wiffle Ball
Tournament. He also noted that the Selectmen are concerned regarding the status of the 40R
State reimbursements, and they need to be kept apprised of this. He attended the School
Committee Meeting regarding the Budget.
M
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18, 2007 — Page 2
Chairman James Bonazoli asked about baseline versus a level service budget, and the Assistant
Town Manager noted that the Finance Committee met, and they will make clear what they are
looking for at the Financial Forum. Chairman Bonazoli noted that he received a thank you note
from Sally Hoyt. He received a phone call from Meaghan Crook regarding early morning 18
wheeler trucks on John Street. The Town Manager noted that the Town had tried to get a Heavy
Vehicle Exclusion on John Street but the State would _not approve it. Chairman Bonazoli also
noted that the Stop & Shop Grand Opening is Thursday evening, and there will be a drawing to
benefit the Friends of Reading Recreation.
Town Manager's /Assistant Town Manager's Reports
The Town Manager gave the following report:
• 1 would like the Board of Selectmen to approve a motion formally referring the proposed
40R Zoning By -Law amendments to the CPDC for hearing.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to refer to the CPDC for hearing and
recommendation the proposed Gateway Smart Growth Zoning By -Law in
anticipation of a December 13, 2007 Special Town Meeting with the Warrant to close
on November 6, 2007 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
• Enclosed is the Town Treasurer's "Report on Investments" for, FY 2007. A copy has also
been given to the Finance Committee.
• Nurse Advocate Dianne Aurilio- Luther has been .hired and has started work. She is
working part time in that position, and will also be filling in part time as the Public Health
Nurse until we can fill that position. Dianne's resume is attached.
• Larry Raindin will start work on October 1st as our new Health Services Administrator.
Larry's resume is attached.
• Franklin Street sidewalks are done. Finish work including loam and seed have also been
done. I would like to have a "Ribbon Cutting" in October — combined with the dedication
of the Mattera Conservation Area.
• The next Household Hazardous Waste Collection is at the Wakefield High School on
September 22nd. This is a joint program with the Town of Wakefield, open to Reading and
Wakefield residents. There will be another collection in Reading in the Spring.
• The RCASA Annual Meeting is on September 26th at 7:00 p.m. at the Parker Middle
School. I would encourage all residents who are interested in the issue of Substance Abuse
to become involved. There is a need for many areas of expertise, if you have the time to
volunteer.
• DPW has filed a grant application for four things:
• Park recycling containers
• Shade trees for South Main Street
• Conversion of the Town's traffic signals from conventional sources to LED (much
more energy efficient plus better visibility)
• Recycling post cards to all households
• The temporary "Truck Exclusion" signs on a number of streets off of Lowell Street and
Main Street that were installed because of the RMHS construction have expired and will be
removed shortly.
15a-1,
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18, 2007 — Page 3
• On September 13, 2007, a meeting was held in the Community Room with over 30
neighbors of the Washington Street Park area. Also in attendance were the Police Chief
and Sergeants McKenna and Segalla. The neighbors voiced their concerns on the safety
and security of the park due to several recent incidents. The recent incidents involved
larcenies and assaults on young children by several High School students. Parents have
also witnessed incidents of bullying, fighting, fowl language, public urination, alcohol
consumption and drug use. The parents are extremely upset and do not want the issues to
become even more volatile. As a result, many families with young children are afraid to let
their children play at the park. As a result of this meeting, the Police Department will take
a very proactive approach to quelling the neighbors' concerns.
• The Board of Selectmen have received invitations to the MMA Fall Regional Forums.
• Enclosed is an invitation for the Board of Selectmen to participate in a World Cafe
Community conversations process.
• Eight of the 10 bike racks received under an MAPC grant have been installed by DPW.
The Police Station and RMLD racks will be installed shortly.
The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Data Center is complete and looks great. He
thanked the School Department and Facilities for all their hard work.
Discussion /Action Items
Cities for Climate Protection Pledge — Cities for Climate Protection Committee Members Gina
Snyder, Tracy Sopchak, Michele Benson and Ron D'Addario were present.
Gina Snyder noted that the Pledge is to reduce emissions by driving less, driving efficiently and
vehicle maintenance. She also noted that the Committee completed their first milestone. There
will be a "Conversation on Climate" on October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center and the
public is invited.
Selectman Richard Schubert asked about a potential tree bylaw. Gina Snyder noted that it is
more effective to look at the existing bylaws, and develop a program that makes it easy for
people who want to donate trees. She also noted that the Light Department is developing a
program to snatch the cost of planting trees on the south side of homes to cut back on air
conditioning.
Tracy Sopchak noted that she would like to have a tree layer on the GIS Map.
Review EDC "Peer. to Peer" and Market Study for Downtown — The Town Manager reviewed
Adam Baacke's reports on Economic Development and Downtown Revitalization. He noted that
the burnt building on Woburn Street will be in front of CPDC in October. The Wine Shop and
Venetian Moon are competitive and appropriate for Downtown but they need stucco work done
on the buildings. Chairman James Bonazoli suggested malting it a condition on their liquor
license.
sa3
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18, 2007 — Page 4
The Town Manager noted that the alleyway could use some lighting and perhaps a mural. The
dumpster in the parking lot should be relocated. The MF Charles building is a historical
building. The Mass Bank office building leaves gaps in the "spine" — it does not enliven
Downtown.
The Town Manager noted that Mass Highway has received the signed contracts from the
contractor for the Downtown project.
Hearing — Memorial Park Master Plan — The Secretary read the hearing notice.
The Town Manager noted that the handout has a revised plan and cost estimate. He also noted
that the Selectmen appointed a committee to recommend uses for the park. A cy pres petition
has been filed with the court to allow practices at the park. Friends of Reading Recreation
offered to do improvements. Reading Recreation got a volunteer landscape architect to draw up
a concept plan. The Selectmen suggested having final input. The Town Manager and John
Feudo held a meeting for abutters on May 17, 2007, and the plan has been modified to
accommodate comments received.
The Town Manager noted that there are two issues that need to be addressed: The construction
of a paved walkway and parking on Harrison Street frontage. He also noted that improvements
to the park include reshaping the ice rinks and adding lights to them, add bocce, horseshoes and
volleyball, pub parking between the trees and off the roadway, additional shade trees and
plantings (look for donations), redo the tennis court and basketball court. The cost is $740,000,
and we have a donor to do a vast majority of the work.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that a resident had asked if these improvements meet the
.rights of the Deed. The Town Manager noted that the basketball court and tennis courts are
already there, and they don't meet the restrictions due to the fence enclosures.
Kristine and Brian Ballms of 23 Harrison Street noted that the speed limit on Harrison Street is
not posted. Ms. Ballcus noted that they lost two small dogs and fear for their children. They want
the speed limit lowered and posted. The Town Manager indicated that the speed limit is 30 mph,
and the police do enforcement on Harrison Street and will continue to do so. He noted that the
sidewalks will add safety. Selectman Richard Schubert asked if there was an opportunity for
traffic calming measures, and the Town Manager noted that vehicles parked on the side of the
street is a traffic calming measure.
Chris McGrath of 39 Harrison Street noted that the neighbors suffer during the No Parking
season. She would like resident stickers. Traffic and parking is a huge problem. She also noted
that the Town wants to provide parking for people who don't live on the street but not for the
residents.
52a-14
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18, 2007 — Page 5
Liz Malinski of 26 Harrison Street noted that emergency vehicles could not get down that street.
Malting the jewel more attractive will bring more people. She suggests making the street one
way if the Town is going to follow through with the plans. She also noted that the land used to
be a swamp and the frost heaves are huge, and that is what ruined the tennis and basketball
courts.
Davina Shuman of 1 Charles Street noted that she had concerns about traffic and parking, and
she is against the asphalt paths. The Town Manager noted that the pathway needs to be a
walking path. Asphalt is the cheapest way to go, and it needs to be handicap accessible. He also
noted that a liner will be put under the pond area so homes don't get flooded out.
A resident of 24 Charles Street noted that traffic is an issue with little activity. She also noted
that she called the police several times regarding teenagers drinking and smoking pot in the park.
She noted that the park is already a jewel without organized activities.
Bill Brown of 28 Martin Road noted that there has been vandalism at that park since it was built.
He also noted that there were horseshoes there previously.
A resident from 57 Harrison Street asked that the Town not make it a destination park. He noted
that if there are not organized events, then angled parking is not needed. He would like the Deed
restriction left intact. He has no problem with fixing the ice rinks or with a paved sidewalk. He
does not want a one way street and does not want organized activities.
Tom McGrath of 39 Harrison Street noted that he is opposed to a parking lot with lines. He
suggests widening the street and adding curb.
Mary Scott of 48 Salem Street asked if the perimeter fence will be replaced. She noted that it is
rusted and trees are growing through it. It is not safe for the children who are climbing it. The
Town Manager indicated that the Recreation Department will maintain the park and he was not
aware of the fence.
Don Stroeble of 52 Salem Street noted that the Town has a history of poor maintenance.
A resident from 1 Charles Street noted that she did not want a paved path. Another resident from
1 Charles Street noted that the bush in bath of the condominium collects trash. They will also
lose their privacy with people walking on an asphalt pathway.
Bill Brown noted that he wants ADA compliance.
Florence Campbell of 55 Salem Street noted that she is still waiting for the brook to be cleaned
out.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to close the hearing on the Memorial Park Master
Plan was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18 2007 — Page 6
Chairman James Bonazoli noted that this is a plan to polish that jewel — it is an asset. He has no
problem with the bocce or horseshoes, and he feels that the pathway opens it up to everyone. He
also noted that these changes have nothing to do with the Deed restrictions.
Selectman Richard Schubert asked if the Town could establish a Perpetual Care Fund. He is in
favor of eliminating the angled parking and using paving and curbing.
Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that he agrees with the change in parking. He would like to see
how maintenance will be involved, and noted that the policy has to be clear on maintenance.
The Town also needs a policy on donations. He suggests having a paved pathway for the lower
part of the park and leave the rest as green space.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that he was also concerned about maintenance, and agreed
that a policy is needed. He also agrees with the parallel parking, and noted that there is an
absolute need for a pathway in the whole park that is ADA compliant.
The Town Manager noted that the changes being made will make maintenance easier.
Hearing,— Liquor License Fees — The Secretary read the hearing notice.
The Town Manager noted that the Selectmen already established fees for 2008 and usually set
theirs for three years. He also noted that surrounding towns were surveyed and recommended the
following fees: .
Liquor
Proposed 2009
Proposed 2010
Package Store
$2200
$2300
Restaurant
$3400
$3500
Beer and Wine Only
$2450
$2500
Club
$1050
$1100
One Day License
$50
$50
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to close the hearing setting the liquor license fees
was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Tafoya to approve the schedule for liquor license fees for
CY 2009 and CY 2010, as presented, was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Hearing — Pay and Classification Plan Amendment — Substance Abuse Professionals — The
Secretary read the hearing notice.
The Town Manager noted that the Town received a SAMSA Grant. We need to hire staff to
move forward. This is for 1' /2 FTE positions. He is requesting that the Selectmen add these two
positions and approve the grades.
S�
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 18 2007 — Page 7
Vice Chainnan Stephen Goldy asked if the grant is for all salary, and the Town Manager noted
that 85% is for salary and 15% is for expenses. Selectman Richard Schubert asked where these
people will be located, and the Town Manager indicated that they will be located at the Police
Station.
Bill Brown asked if the grant dries up, will the positions be eliminated. Selectman Richard
Schubert noted that if the position is not funded, then the position is not filled.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to close the hearing on the Pay and Classification
Plan for the Substance Abuse Professionals was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
A motion by Tafoya seconded by Goldy to approve the amendments to the 2008
Classification Plan for the Community Outreach Coordinator /Program Coordinator as a
Grade 8 and the Project Director as a Grade 13 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Bertucci's Plan for Outdoor Dining — This was rescheduled for September 25, 2007.
Report — Community Preservation Act Study Committee — Committee Members Mary Ellen
Stolecki, Matt Wilson, Karen Herrick, Karen Flammia, Mark Wetzel, Bill Brown, Patricia Lloyd
and Tom Ryan were present.
The Town Manager noted that the Selectmen created the Community Preservation Act Study
Committee, and the intent is to put the CPA on the Warrant for the Subsequent Town Meeting.
Mary Ellen Stolecki noted that the CPA was on the ballot in 2002 and lost by 75 votes. She also
noted that the CPA enables the Town to exercise control over local planning decisions. The
money can be used for acquisition and preservation of open space, create and support affordable
housing, and acquisition and preservation of historic buildings and landscapes.
Mary Ellen Stolecki noted that the surcharge cannot be more than 3 %, and Town Meeting can
vote to accept exemptions. If the CPA passes, then a Committee needs to be formed and they
would be responsible for disbursing monies. The disadvantages to the CPA are that it adds a
surcharge to the tax bill, and there is a five year commitment. The advantages are that the State
will match funds, the Town will attain and preserve affordable housing, and it will boost the
Town's eligibility for grants.
Mary Ellen Stolecki noted that the Connnittee voted to place the CPA before Town Meeting for
consideration, to recommend that the first $100,000 on residential properties be exempt, to
exempt low- income housing and low or moderate income senior housing, and to propose a 2%
surcharge.
Bill Brown noted that the North Main Street property could not have been purchased with CPA
funds because it sold for more than the assessed value.
Tom Ryan gave a presentation on why he is against the CPA.
s�*"7
Board of Selectmen Meeting= September 18, 2007 — Page 8
Dan Ensminger of 6 Oakland Road noted that this is not the right way to address problems. It's
nice to do but not essential. He noted that the Town's roads are falling apart. The Town already
has 7% of affordable housing, and there are other ways to get open space. He also noted that the
voters stepped up to the plate for the High School, and he feels that this is the wrong time to
bring this to the voters.
Ron O'Keefe noted that this is a tax and it should be called that.
Bill Brown noted that he is testifying tomorrow for making it mandatory to revisit after five
years.
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Goldy seconded by Sehubert to approve the Minutes of August 28, 2007 was
approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Tafoya to approve the Minutes of September 4,.2007 was
approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to p_o into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing litilZation and not to come back into Open Session was approved on a roll call
vote with all four members voting in the affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Board of Selectmen Meeting
September 25, 2007
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman James Bonazoli, Secretary Stephen Goldy,
Selectmen Camille Anthony and Richard Schubert, Town Counsel Ellen Doucette, Fire Chief
Greg Burns, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director
Bob LeLacheur, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties: Bill Brown, Paul
Guazzaloca, Clarence Enos, Steve Vittorioso, Mary Ellen Stolecki, Attorney Barry Gerstein,
James Rocco Lango, Attorney Brad Latham.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments — Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the Audit
Committee is meeting with the RMLD Audit Subcommittee tomorrow evening. She also noted
that "Your Community Connection" will no longer be mailed to households in Reading but will
be published online on the Town's webpage.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that the RCASA is having their annual meeting tomorrow
evening at 7:00 p.m. at the Parker Middle School and the public is invited. He thanked the
Friends of Reading Recreation for their Second Annual Road Race at the Town Forest. He also
noted that the Westside Fire Station has not been painted yet. He noted that when the trees on
Freemont Street were removed, a piece was dropped and dented the street. The street needs to be
repaired and residents were upset because they got stuck in their driveways due to no prior notice
of the work being done. Vice Chairman Goldy requested that in the future, the Secretary to the
Board of Selectmen respond for the Selectmen to resident inquiries instead of the Town
Manager.
Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he received phone calls from residents who were very
happy regarding the way Police handled the Washington Park situation. He thanked everyone
who made the new playground at Birch Meadow possible. Also, the Birch Meadow Area
Planning Committee has a survey on the website to be filled out, and they would like to have the
Town's GIS person at their next meeting to start mapping. He noted that there was a reverse 911
call on Friday night regarding a missing person. He feels that if the message is important enough
to be sent, then the Selectmen should also be notified. The Town Manager noted that the Police
did not send the original message — it was done by an outside agency. The Police Department
did send out the closing message.
Public Comment — Bill Brown noted that Ben Nichols is moving out of Town.
Board of Selectmen Meeting September 25, 2007 — Page 2
Town Manager's Report
The Town Manager gave the following report:
• I would like the Board of Selectmen to approve a motion formally referring the proposed
non -40R Zoning By -Law amendments for the AW/P site to the CPDC for hearing.
Vice. Chairman Stephen Goldy asked if "senior living" included "assisted living," and
noted that needs to be clarified for the 40R zoning.
A motion by Schubert seconded by Anthony to refer the "working draft of non -40R
zoning amendment" for the Business C Zoning District to the CPDC for hearing with
the aim of having a Special Town Meeting on this Zoning By -Law amendment at a
Special Town Meeting on December 13, 2007, with a Warrant for that Special Town
Meeting closing on November 6, 2007 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
• The RCASA Annual Meeting is on September 26th at 7:00 p.m. at the Parker Middle
School. I would encourage all residents who are interested in the issue of substance abuse
to become involved. There is a need for many areas of expertise, if you have the time to
volunteer.
• The Board of Selectmen has received invitations to the MMA Fall Regional Forums.
• Future of YCC — Electronic.
• Re: Communication with the Board of Selectmen concerning emergencies, I am suggesting
that Selectman Public Safety liaison Camille Anthony meet with Chiefs Greg Burns and
Jim Cormier and me to establish a process and protocol for this.
• Repair work on the Library elevator is scheduled to . begin Monday, October 1st. It is
expected to be somewhat noisy. The estimated time to complete the fix is two weeks from
Monday or October 15th.
• The remainder of Reading's earmarks from the State Budget have been approved through
the legislature's override of the Governor's Budget vetoes. This includes $50,000 each for
the Parking Feasibility Study for Downtown, stadium lights, tennis courts.
• You have received several invitations for community events in your reading material.
• The Reading Overseas Veterans has applied for a Change of Manager/New
Officer/Director that the Board needs to approve.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Anthony to approve the Chanize of Manager/New
Officer/Director for the Reading Overseas Veterans from Kevin Arsenault to Thomas
Fennelly was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Town will be asking for approval to purchase a new
fire truck. He is asking for approval to borrow internally for site work for the Birch Meadow
tennis courts, and money for the financial hardware and software system.
A motion by Schubert. seconded by Goldy to increase the amount of internal borrowing
allowed for the Financial hardware and software system to $1 million as authorized by
Annual Town Meeting on April 23, 2007, Article 19, pursuant to Chapter 44 s. 7 (28 and
29). The term of this internal borrowing is extended to June 30, 2008 was approved by a
vote of 4 -0 -0.
56z
Board of Selectmen Meeting Sgptember 25, 2007 — Page 3
A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldy to allow $15,000 in internal borrowing for
the Birch Meadow Tennis Courts as authorized by Annual Town Meeting on April 23,
2007, Article 21, pursuant to Chapter 44 s. 7 (28 and 29). The term of this internal
borrowing is extended to June 30, 2008 was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Proclamations /Certificates of Appreciation
Proclamation — Knights of Columbus — Paul Guazzaloca and Clarence Enos from the Knights of
Columbus were present to receive the Proclamation.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Anthony to approve the Proclamation for the Knights of
Columbus Tootsie Roll Drive from October 4 - October 7, 2007 was approved by a vote of
4 -0 -0.
Discussion/Action Items
Review Proposed Changes to LIP Regulations — Town Counsel — The Town Manager noted that
Town Counsel has provided the Board with a marked up version of the LIP Regulations.
Town Counsel Ellen Doucette noted that the Board of Selectmen adopted the ZBA regulations
that call for a parallel application. She also noted that this is beyond the scope of the Board. The
ZBA deals with profits, full plans, etc. so she condensed the regulations down to a review
process. The Selectmen can send a letter of support regarding the number of units and design
issues to the ZBA. She noted what is in place now is cumbersome and not necessary.
Town Counsel asked if anyone has gone through this process, and it was noted that Maplewood
Village, Habitat for Humanity and 95 Pleasant Street have gone through this process.
Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the 40B was a learning process, and everything depends
on the applicant and their intention. If the Selectmen are going to sign on, then they need to have
the whole picture, and they need to understand the financing and profits. He also noted that the
Selectmen adopted the regulations because they spent a lot of time going nowhere.
Town Counsel noted that the beginning of a 40B is preliminary, and what you see at the
beginning can end up different at the end. She also noted that the Board will not get a good
estimate of profits because there are too many variables.
Selectman Camille Anthony noted that if the Selectmen are giving approval, she is not interested
in giving up anything. She also noted that the ZBA looks at it with different eyes. She will look
at the old regulations and see what can be combined. She also wants a review fee.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that it looks like over regulation but the ZBA is not into
planning and design. He also noted that the Town has had good projects so far because of these
controls.
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 25, 2007 — Page 4
Town Counsel noted that the Board adopted the ZBA regulations, and the 45 day timeline is
mandatory to the ZBA but not the Board of Selectmen. She suggests that if the Board wants
something, they should put it in a letter of support. If the developer doesn't agree, then there is
no LIP. Selectmen Camille Anthony and Richard. Schubert will work with Town Counsel to
combine the regulations.
Town Counsel Update for the Board re: 1375 Main Street — Town Counsel noted that the Town
settled with 1375 Main Street for $18,000 and it was occasioned by fraud. She had met with the
Inspector General's Office who investigated this application. The trust sold to the partners and
the purchase and sales was inflated. She doesn't advise pursuing because fraud is a hard burden
of proof. Since that time, the State has changed their regulations but the regulations are not
retroactive. The State now recommends a bond, and DHCD will start monitoring applications
and fund audits.
Close Warrant for Subsequent Town Meeting — The Town Manager reviewed the Warrant for the
Subsequent Town Meeting.
The Town Manager noted that Article 3 is to amend the Capital Improvements Program for
FY08 — FY12. Article 4 is to amend the FY 2008 Budget. Article 5 is payment of prior year's
bills. Article 6 is to establish a stabilization fund. Article 7 is to accept Timothy Place. Article
8 is to rescind debt.
Article 10 is debt authorization for a new ladder truck. The Town Manager noted that the order
needs to be placed one year ahead of time. Selectman Camille Anthony asked if other pumpers
are needed. Fire Chief Greg Burns noted that we will be getting a new one in the Spring.
Chairman James Bonazoli suggested asking developers to contribute to purchasing new
equipment. Chief Burns noted that we are paying a significant amount on repairs to the fire
trucks because of their age. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that the Board needs to prioritize
in capital; i.e., tennis courts versus ladder truck. The Assistant Town Manager noted that the
Town will be paying every year in the CIP for fire trucks. The problem is that if we miss a
couple of years, then we need two trucks.
The Town Manager noted that Article 11 is for debt authorization for curbing and sidewalks. He
also noted that the Town spent $135,000 on curbing and sidewalks this year in essential places.
He suggests bringing this to the voters. Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that the Town
needs sidewalks, and he hopes it goes to the voters but he was concerned about Article 12.
Selectman Richard Schubert suggested putting it on the Warrant, and then the Selectmen can
decide whether or not to support.
Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he has received phone calls regarding the CPA against it,
and he feels that it needs to go to Town Meeting. Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that the
Selectmen as leaders determine the priorities and then bring to Town Meeting. He doesn't want
to give a menu of options. Selectman Camille Anthony noted that due diligence has not been
done on sidewalks to pinpoint a cost. She suggested deleting Article 11.
Shy
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 25, 2007 — Page 5
A motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert to remove Article 11 failed by a vote of 1 -3 -0
with Schubert, Bonazoli and Goldy voting against.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy asked if the Town Manager could have the information before
Town Meeting, and the Town Manager indicated that he will have the cost of sidewalks,
mapping and priorities for curbs and sidewalks. He noted that this will have to be done at the
Subsequent Town Meeting for the Spring Election.
Article 12 is accepting the Community Preservation Act. Article 13 is a Zoning By -Law
amendment for accessory structures and lot coverage. Article 14 is 'a release of a conservation
restriction at Peter Sanborn Place. Town Counsel noted that this is very unusual because there is
no conservation on this land to protect.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Goldy to close the Warrant for the Subsequent Town
Meeting consisting of 14 Articles to take place on November 13, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., 62
Oakland Road, Reading was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Hearing — Longhorn Steak House Liquor License — The Secretary read the hearing notice.
Attorney Barry Gerstein and James Rocco Lango from the Longhorn Steak House were present.
The Town Manager noted that this is an application for an all alcoholic liquor license. They
have received a full site plan approval.
Attorney Gerstein noted that Mr. Lango is the Regional Manager. They don't know who will be
the General Manager but they will be back when they do. He also noted that RARE Hospitality
is in the process of being purchased by Dartin (Red Lobster). They will come back for a change
of stock but nothing will change. He noted that the Town's liquor policy is consistent with
RARE Hospitality's. Staff is serve safe alcohol trained prior to employment.
Chairman James Bonazoli noted that the Town of Reading takes underage drinking 10 steps
above. He requested that if they shut someone off, that they alert the other establishments who
are nearby.
A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldy to close the hearing on the Longhorn Steak
House Liquor License was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
A motion by Schubert seconded by Goldy to approve the Restaurant License to Expose,
Keep for Sale, and to Sell All Kinds of Alcoholic Beverages to be Drunk on the Premises for
RARE Hospitality International, Inc. d/b /a Longhorn Steak House, 39 Walkers Brook
Drive, Reading, MA subiect to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with
all bylaws, rules and regulations of the Town of Reading and of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts was approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Bertucci's Restaurant Plan for Outdoor Dining — Attorney Brad Latham representing Bertucci's
Restaurant was present.
Sd-5--
Board of Selectmen Meeting — September 25, 2007 — Page 6
The Town Manager noted that Bertucci's has a new plan for the outdoor dining. Attorney
Latham noted that it will be a solid metal fence approximately 42" high. The gate will be
alarmed. There is a significant planting area and staff will be trained to be vigilant as to what is
going on in the patio.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy asked what type of plantings there will be, and it was noted that
they will be full evergreens.
The Board noted that the plantings need to be in before the patio is used.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Anthony to approve the plans for outdoor dining at
Bertucci's, 45 Walkers Brook Drive dated 09 -20 -2007 subject to a minor site plan
amendment by the Community Planning and Development Commission if required was
approved by a vote of 4 -0 -0.
Discussion re: Municipal Building Committee — Selectman Camille Anthony indicated that the
Board needs to discuss the community needs for space. She recommends a committee that looks
at the buildings to see how they are functioning. They can evaluate the existing stock and future
needs.
The Town Manager noted that the committee could look at whether we need a new Library or
Youth Center. Chairman James Bonazoli noted that this ties into the capital plan and includes all
Town buildings.
Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy noted that he will talk to the School Committee liaison to see if
they are interested.
Selectman Camille Anthony noted that she will see what other communities have done.
A motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert to go into Executive Session for the purpose of
labor negotiations, not to come back into Open Session was approved on a roll can vote
with all four members voting in the affirmative.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Sb�
THE COMMONWEALTH •
Number: 2007 -32
Fee: $50.00
TOWN OF READING
This is to certify that. J &D BROTHERS, INC. d /b /a CHINATOWN CAFE, 672
MAIN STREET, READING, MASS., seating 24 customers
IS HEREBY GRANTED A
COMMON VICTUALLER'S LICENSE
in said Reading, Massachusetts and at that place only and expires December 31,
2007, unless sooner suspended or, revoked for violation of the laws of the
Commonwealth respecting the licensing .of common victuallers. This license is.
issued in conformity with the authority. granted to the licensing authorities by
General Laws, Chapter: 140, and amendments thereto.
Pursuant to Section 3.6 of the Board of Selectmen's Policies, patrons are
not permitted to bring alcoholic beverages on the premises. for their own
consumption and licensees are not permitted to keep alcoholic beverages
on the premises except fora small quantity that is used in the preparation
of certain specialty cooked foods.
All signs shall conform with the sign regulations of the Town of Reading.
In Testimony' Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official
Date Issued: September 26, 2007
AT SEP 24, PH 3- 54
September 21, 2007
Ms. Ellen Kearns
Chairperson, Board of Commissioners
Reading Municipal Light Department
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Ms. Kearns,
L /C Sol
The RMLD Board of Commissioners is taking up the issue of whether the RMLD. should hire
MGLLC to perform a Strategic Planning study for the RMLD. According to the Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 164, Section 56A I want to officially disclose to the RMLD Board and the
Town of Reading that I had a former business partner, now deceased, whose niece was married to
Mark Goldsmith, owner of MGLLC. Therefore, I want the RMLD Board and the Town of Reading
to know the following.
The study project was subject to the Massachusetts competitive bidding laws.
The RMLD General Manager is responsible for signing this contract on behalf of the RMLD.
A copy of this letter is being sent to the Town Manager of Reading, Reading Town Clerk, RMLD
Board Commissioners, the General Manager of RMLD, and the Chairman of the Citizens Advisory
Board. If you have any questions, please contact me at 781-944-3189.
Light Board Commissioner
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner — Reading Town Manager
Cheryl Johnson - Reading Town Clerk
RMLD Board of Commissioners
Vincent Cameron — RMLD General Manager
Citizen's Advisory Board
September 24, 2007
Ms. Ellen Kearns
Chairperson, Board of Commissioners
Reading Municipal Light Department
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Ms. Kearns,
IM7 SEP 24 PM '3: 54
C ((9U
The RMLD Board of Commissioners is taking up the issue of whether the RMLD should hire
MGLLC to perform a Strategic Planning study for the RMLD. According to the Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 164, Section 56A I want to officially disclose to the RMLD Board and the
Town of Reading that my sister worked for Mark Goldsmith, owner of MGLLC, in 1980 at a
different company. Therefore, I want the RMLD Board and the Town of Reading to know the
following.
The study project was subject to the Massachusetts competitive bidding laws.
The RMLD General Manager is responsible for signing this contract on behalf of the RMLD.
A copy of this letter is being sent to the Town Manager of Reading, Reading Town Clerk, RMLD
Board Commissioners, the General Manager of RMLD, and the Chairman of the Citizens Advisory
Board.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Hahn
RMLD Light Board Commissioner
cc: Peter Hechenbleikner — Reading Town Manager
Cheryl Johnson - Reading Town Clerk
RMLD Board of Commissioners
Vincent Cameron — RMLD General Manager
Citizen's Advisory Board
6b
L I C �g as
September 16, 2007
®'
Directors: Dear Chief Elected Official:
Kevin Welch - President
Les Fog - Vice President
Joshua Degen The Municipal Coalition for Affordable Housing (MCAH) is a growing non - profit
organization of municipalities and officials of cities and towns in the
Commonwealth. Its purpose is the development of better methods for producing
Steering Committee: affordable housing in Massachusetts than currently are provided under MGL40B.
Judith Cutler, Esq.
Joshua utlen We would like to invite you or other members of your community interested in
Les Fox affordable housing to attend a seminar on October 26, 2007 at the National Grid
Richard Heaton
Daniel C. Hill, Esq. Center in Westborough. The program theme: Is 40B the solution? -- Positive
Al Murphy Alternatives for Affordable Housing. Details of the seminar are attached and copies
Barbara J. Saint Andre, are included for distribution within your community.
Esq.
Selina Shaw
Jonathan Silverstein, Esq. The members of MCAH believe that the responsibility for the production of
affordable housing should be returned to individual communities. Our primary
goal is to enable more effective participation by local communities in the definition
MCAH Communities and implementation of affordable- housing policy. We believe that the development
Athol
Blackstone of affordable housing should not be predicated on the assumption that communities
Boxborough can not or will not do the right thing without state oversight.
Cohasset
Conway If this message resonates within your municipality, then you may want to attend
Dunstable the MCAH Seminar on October 26, 2007 and join MCAH. To join, please have
Grafton
Groton the Chief Elected Official (CEO) send an email or letter to the Municipal Coalition
Harwich for Affordable Housing, PO Box 1084, Berlin, MA 01503 or email
Middleborough joinMCAH @MCAHinfo.or. Please provide the name of the CEO, address, email,
Newbury and telephone number.
North Andover
Salisbury
Spencer Join us in our effort to establish better methods to meet the housing needs of the
Templeton citizens of our communities.
Topsfield
Walpole
West Boylston
(As of September 16, 2007) Best Regards,
Dick Heato
Executive Director
gGt
ir
IS 40B THE SOLUTION.
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
October 26, 2007
at
National Grid
25 Research Drive
Westborough, MA
Sponsored by the
Municipal Coalition
for
Affordable Housing
(MCAH)
Putting the Community Back
in Affordable Housing
IS 4 0B THE SOLUTION.
POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The members of MCAH believe that the
responsibility, for the production of low-
cost housing should be returned to individ-
ual communities. Existing statutes, admin-
istrative regulations, and policies should be.
reformed to enable municipalities to imple-
ment a broader range of housing alterna-
tives, ensure consistency with long -range
planning, maintain historical preservation,
respect environmental protection, use ap-
propriate local preferences, and exercise
sensible oversight.
It is time for cities and towns to show lead -
ership on affordable housing, and develop
more efficient, effective and environmen-
tally-friendly housing policies_ that serve
our actual housing needs. It is also time for
meaningful reform of state housing policy
to enable cities and towns to show such
leadership
MCAH Strategies for
Affordable Housing
• Legislature should provide competitive
funds for affordable housing
0 Communities need a fair and impartial
outside review process
e The definition of what constitutes af-
fordable housing and who is eligible for
it should be expanded
• Communities need the tools and au-
thority to develop affordable housing
Seminar Agenda
930 am
Coffee and Networking
10:00 am
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Who is MCAH and why are we hem?
What are our objectives?
Les Fox,
Boxborough Selectman
10.30 am
CurtentAffordable Housing Policy
PanelDiscussion
What is the impact of wrrentpolicyi'
How well are we doings?
11:15 am
Break
11:30 am
Interim Reforms /Tools for
Housing
PanelDiscussion:
What can communities do today under
the existing policiess' what aspects of
MGL o4OB should be immediately
cormaeds?
1215 pm
Break
12:30pm
Ideas for Future Strategy
PanelDiscussion
What strategies should we adopt to
betterprovide affordable housing in the
futures? Should MGL 40B be revoked
or revised?
115 pm Closing Remarks and Discussion
Les Fox;
Boxborough Selectman
Discusrion. and feedback from the audi-
ence will be invited.
Panelists will include representatives from
Massachusetts municipalities. Audience
participation will be encouraged.
MCAH
P. O. Box 1084
Berlin, MA.01503
Email: MCAHinfbkMCAHinfo.org
I
Registration Form
o. MCAH Member $20.00
o Elected or Appointed $20.00
Official .
0 Non -MCAH Member $40.00
Registrations at the conference accepted.
Method of Payment
O Check o Cash
Cash or check only
Directions to National Grid
From I-495: Take I-495 to Exit 23B (Rte 9
W). Take first exit (Research Dr. /Computer
Dr.). At top of ramp, take left onto Computer
Dr. then beat left crossing. over Rte 9. Take
next left onto Research Dr. National Grid is
located at the second driveway on right.
From the West on Rte 9: Take Research Dr.
Exit, bear left to traffic light. Take left onto
Research Dr. National Grid is located at the
second driveway on right.
The Municipal Coalition for Affordable
Housing (MCAH) is a non -profit organiza-
tion of elected and appointed officials
whose primary goal is to enable more ef-
fective participation by local communities
in the definition and implementation of
affordable- housing policy. We believe that
the development of affordable housing
should not be predicated on the assump-
tion that communities cannot or will not
do the right thing without extensive state
oversight.
Our intention is to augment the efforts of
individual communities. and persons to
improve the Commonwealth's approach to
providing housing to citizens with a wide
rage of incomes._ In particular, we believe
that a thorough review of the Common-
wealth's housing policies and specifically
MGL c4OB is urgently needed. We are con-
vinced that such an examination will pro-
duce much better methods for providing
low -cost. housing to meet the needs of our
communities.
If these goals are consistent with your ob-
jectives, we encourage you to. attend the
seminar.
Join MCAH
If you are an elected or appointed official
of a Massachusetts municipality, you are
invited to join MCAH as an individual, or
you are welcome to sign up your commu-
nity as a member of MCAH.
Go to www.MCAHinfo.o for more
information or send an email to.
joinMCAH@MCAHinfo.org.
_W6,.4t6w t 2
7054
�20'h MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING
STATE REPRESENTATIVE LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON
TEL. (617) 722-2100
MINORITY LEADER Rep. Brad leyJones@hou.state. ma. us
www.bradjonesonline.com
September 24, 2007
P-a
E3
11
Mr. James Bonazoli, Chairman C-j C=
Reading Board of Selectman
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01 7
Reading, MA 01 7 Z5
Mr.
Dear Mr. �B
Thank c
hank you contacting my office to express the Board of Selectman's opposition to
Senate nd e
H.196% S.1151 Senate Docket 2309. 1 share in the Board's concerns.
As you may know, both H. 1969 and S.1151 were referred to the Joint Committee on
Municipalities and Regional Government where they received a public hearing earlier
this year. No further action has been taken on these bills; and Senate Docket 2309 is yet
to receive a bill number. Given the Board's opposition, you might find some degree of
comfort knowing that these items are not expected to move forward anytime soon, if at
all.
Again, thank you for getting in touch. Should you have further questions or concerns
on this or any other matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Jr.
C, �
FAX: (781) 942 - 5441
October 1, 2007
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867 -2685
Dear Neighbors of Memorial Park,
Llc-- 13 0S
RECREATION DIVISION: (781) 942 - 9075
We are writing to you in response to a petition we received signed by you regarding amendments to
the deed for Memorial Park.
At the Board of Selectmen's meeting on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 a public hearing was held
regarding the proposed Master Plan for Memorial Park. One of the areas that was not addressed at
that hearing was the topic of modifications to the deed for the park, because that is not a Master
Plan issue.
We would like an opportunity to meet with interested parties to discuss the issue of modifications to
the deed. As you know, a petition requesting modifications to the terms of the original deed to the
park has been brought before a probate court via the Attorney General's Office at the request of the
Town. This petition followed an extensive review by an ad hoc Town committee, review by the
Board of Selectmen, and action by Town Meeting.
We would like to extend an invitation you to meet with us to discuss the single topic of
modifications to the deed to Memorial Park on October 24th at 7:00 PM at the Senior Center. The
major concern as we understand the petition is the issue of the use of portions of the park for youth
sports practices.
If you are unable to attend this meeting, you are encouraged to submit any comments via email
(ifeudo @,ci.reading ma.us) or letter to us. If you know of any other neighbors that might like to
attend this meeting, please pass along the information as only those on the petition are receiving this
notice.
We look forward to meeting with you and sharing ideas.
Sincerely,
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
John A. Feudo
Recreation Administrator
1 4% 5 -,
000
September 29, 2007
Reading Board of Selectmen
Attached find a copy of a recent court ruling concerning the Community Preservation Act
Associate Justice Bruce R. Henry ruled that the use of CPA funds for improvements to
two parks violated the law, the judge ruled that CPA funds may only be used " for those
recreational lands which were original acquired or created with CPA funds " .
The ruling brings to question many of the projects proposed by recreation for use of CPA
funds. the log cabin on North Main St., development of the Northern Area Greenway on
land not acquired with CPA funds , development of the water treatment site , the Birch
Meadow complex.
The ruling also begs the question on the use of funds for the other two required sections
of the act, historic and housing . C
William C. Brown
28 Martin Rd.
Reading, Ma. 01867
781 944 2807
/C 90
8
a
n
�o
gF I
k tEWT0N
CIO
,. ; .
ty;+opart�tsi itlie' ]n ianhiriineaghbdrhood:Tl ernling,>� Odmdonft is
the first of its kind on the controversial law, which allows cities and
towns to impose a surcharge on residential propertytax bMs and use the
money on housing, open space, recreational enhancement, and historic
preservation. The state matches the tax, dollar for dollar. Agroup of 10
Newton residents opposed the city's plan to spend $765;000 on Stearns
.and Pellegriripasks; saying it.violated the law. Associate Justice Bruce R
Henryagreed, rulingthatthe CPAfunds may orlybe used "forthose
recreational lands which were originally acquired or createdwith CPA
funds:' Jeremy Solomon, a spokesman for Mayor David B. Cohen, said
city officials were considering an.appeal.
gFv
W OCT —21 AN 10: 08
Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr.
Regional Director
Public Affairs
October 1, 2007
Peter I. Hechenbleiker
Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA, 01867
Dear Mr. Hechenbleiker:
Veriz.00
Verizon Communications
451 Main Street
Wakefield, MA 01880
Phone 781.224.2005
Fax 781.246.2268
I'm writing to inform you and your community of recent changes within Verizon's
Massachusetts External Affairs group. As of October 1, 2007, 1 have assumed
responsibilities for representing Verizon within your community. As one of the state's
largest private sector employers, we know there will be, from time to time, issues of
importance .,within the telecommunications industry which may impact you locally.
�• j • ev
C el— V
As Regional Director, I am responsible for external communication with local and state
elected officials, media outlets and customers within your community. My background in
the, industry spans more than 15 years with various assignments in public service,
. I , f
community relations and corporate communications. I am excited about taking on this
assignment and working with, you,and,the'. People of Reading to keep you informed of
what's happerling,Within Verizon and the industry.
As one of the fifty-seven Massachusetts ,communities to hold Verizon cable franchise,
we also have assigned foRe'ading'a franchise operations manager to serve your video
needs. , My. colleague Jill Reddish is responsible for ensuring compliance with the
provisions of the video franchise agreement between municipalities and Verizon. The
m
franchise operations manager also serves as the community's point of contact on all
video and Public, Education and Government channel matters.] will be your contact for
all other Verizon community and customer matters.
Sin erely,:,.
Stanley J., Vspvicz-,,,tr.
September 28, 2007
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Comcast Cable
55 Concord Street
North Reading, MA 01864
www.comcast.com
c. �;,4,
v
CD
tv
Dear Members of the Board:
Comcast is pleased to announce that it will continue to make available high -speed Internet sere to
schools and the library in the Town of Reading free of charge again this academic year, continu� the
company's tradition of putting its advanced fiber network to work for the communities we serve.
Comcast has offered free high -speed Internet service to schools, libraries and Boys & Girls Clubs across
Massachusetts since its arrival in the state in 2003. Comcast also uses its advanced fiber -rich network to
deliver free cable television service to schools and other public buildings in the Town of Reading. The
company's broadband contribution in the Town of Reading alone has an annual value of more than
$17,280.
Comcast is focused on delivering the best in innovation, information and entertainment to our
customers in the Town 'of Reading and across Massachusetts. We are committed to using our resources
to make meaningful investments in communities where our customers and employees live and work.
Comcast is pleased to help make a difference in the schools and library of the Town of Reading by
providing fast and reliable video and high -speed Internet connections.
We have attached a list of the locations in the Town of Reading where courtesy service is provided,
according to our database. If your school department or library is not taking full advantage of our
offerings, or if you see discrepancies, please contact me at (978) 927 -5700, ext. 4409 or
Jane—Lyman@cable.comcast.com.
As always, it has been a pleasure working with your community and we look forward to continuing our
support of the Town of Reading for years to come.
Sincerely yours,
Jane M. Lyman
Senior Manager, Government and
Comcast —Metro Boston Region
cc: School Superintendents
School Principals
Library Directors
gA I
Comalimentary Services from Comcast
LIBRARY,READING
SCHOOL MIDDLE,COOLIDGE
SCHOOL MIDDLE,PARKER
SCHOOL,AUSTIN PREP
SCHOOL,BARROWS
SCHOOL, BIRCHMEADOW
SCHOOL,COOLIDGE I
SCHOOL,J EATON L
SCHOOL,KILLAM
SCHOOL,MEMORIAL
SCHOOL,PARKER I
SCHOOLS,SUNSET ROCK
64 MIDDLESEX AVE
Yes
89 BIRCH MEADOW DR
Yes
45 TEMPLE ST
Yes
101 WILLOW ST
Yes
16 EDGEMONT AVE
Yes
27 ARTHUR B LORD DR
Yes
89 BIRCH MEADOW DR
Yes
365 SUMMER AVE
Yes
333 CHARLES ST
Yes
62 OAKLAND RD
Yes
45 TEMPLE ST
Yes
85 SUNSET ROCK LN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
�k2'
/Ce.,
TRACKING OF LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2008
milm
9/21/2007
Monthly
Hours
I
Month
Monthl
Monthl
Hours
Cumulative
Available
Monthly
Monthly
Cumulative
Available
Hours
Hours
Used vs
+/-
Remainder
$
1
Cost
Remainder
Allocated
Used
Allocated
of 1/2 year
Allocated
Used
Year
July
49.0
70.3
21.30
21.30
223.70
$6,667
$9,522
$9,522
$30,480
August
49.0
20.9
(28.10)
(6.80)
202.80
$6,667
$2,885
$12,407
$27,595
September
49.0
$6,667
October
49.0
$6,667
November
49.0
$6,667
December
49.0
$6,667
294.00
91.2
0.00
$40,002
$12,407
$0
$0
January
49.0
$6,667
February
49.0
$6,667
March
49.0
$6,667
April
49.0
$6,667
May
49.0
$6,667
June
49.0
$6,667
Subtotal
294
0
$40,002
$0
Total
588.00
91.2
-6.8
$80,004
$12,407
1
$67,597
milm
9/21/2007
Street condition
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: RobUlard.Soot [Scott.RobUlard@FMRI%}K]
Sent Fridoy, 21.20074:23PIVI
To: Anthony, Camille
Co: Reoding - Gelenbnen; Hechenbleikner, Pater
Subject: RE: Street condition
Page lofl
l- ��
00-11F--.------1�11 VC10
Thank you for your attention tothis. The street was paved a few weeks ago and looks great. It has made on
incredib|edUfenanmaintheneighborhood - ee 'a|ly for the kids. Barrows Road thanks all ofyou. Have ogreat
weekend. Scott
From: Camille Anthony [OlaUho: net
Sent: Monday, April 23 20074:35RM
To: RobillardSmtt
Cc: aelectmen@d.reoding.mo.us
Subject: RE: Street condition
Scott:
What ie your street address? | will bring this issue upto the B{]G tomorrow night. VVedo have e pavement
study of road conditions being conducted presently. |t will be interesting to see where your street ieinthe
program. r
Regards,
Camille Anthony
|Oa|
Fromm: Kob||urd, Scott [naiKo:Scott.FkobUlard@FMR.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 23,20072:58PM
To: cvvo . reading. ma. us
Subject: Street condition
Good afternoon, I'm a Reading resident and the street I live on wants to petition the Town to look
at our Street for getting paved. The street is in very poor condition and parts of it are worn down to
dirt. Five families, including my family, have children age 5 years and younger and we believe the
poor condition is becoming a safety issue for our children. This is the fourth year in a row I will
have to have a strip of 40 feet.of pavement cleaned up because it is breaking away from the
street. Some of my neighbors have the same problem.
\ know this kaa busy time for the Town. Could you tell me where ( can best direct our petition and
photographs of the street.
Thank you,
Scott Robillard
4?5'
Page of}
q x� ���� �- �� «�~�
Schena'Paula
From: Hechnntdaiknmr, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, September 2O.2UU71:23PW1
To; Reading- Selectmen
Cc; Sohena.Pou|o
From: Kowalski, Carol
Sent: Wednesday, September 26,200712:18Hq
To:Hechenble|knmr Pater
Cc: Soh|oth, Mike
Subject: RE: CPDC Schedule for /YWP
Peter
The schedule fonAVVP at present is:
October 1, 7:30pm Selectmen's Meeting Room Zoning Workshop for the 40R and non-40R zoning changes at
Addison Wesley
October 22.7:30pm1st public hearing on proposed bylaw amendments
November 5.7:3Opm 2nd public heahng'on proposed bylaw amendments
December 13 Special Town Meeting on 40R and non-40R Zoning Changes at Addison Wesley Pearson site
Carol
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Kowalski' Carol
Subject: CPDC Schedule for AVVP
Can you send me a copy of the schedule of meetings and hearings so I can pass that along to the Board of
Selectmen.
Pete
t1ow
9/27/2007
Addison Wesley traffic study
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:24 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Kowalski, Carol
Cc: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Addison Wesley traffic study
FYI
I/c Board of Selectmen
From: Scott Weiss [mailto:SWeiss @natdev.Com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:10 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Cc: Kowalski, Carol
Subject: Addison Wesley traffic study
Pete,
Page 1 of 1
yC 6bs
Sorry for the delay in confirming the delivery date for the traffic study. I spoke to VHB and confirmed that they will deliver
the study by Friday. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Scott Weiss
National Development
Notice: This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information and is intended only for the use of the
intended addressee(s). Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited except.by
or on behalf of the intended addressee(s). Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this transmittal
in error and delete it from your computer system. We accept no liability for any loss or damage that arises as a result of this
transmission; each addressee is responsible for checking this transmission for the presence of viruses.. Nothing in this
message is intended to constitute an electronic signature or to otherwise satisfy the requirements for a contract unless an
express statement to the contrary is included in this message.
YL
9/27/2007 '
LIC Ots
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:40 PM
To: 'Maggie Cahill'
Cc: Schena, Paula
Subject: RE: A copy of letter foe public meeting 9/26/2007
Dear Maggie:
Thank you for sending an email to the Board of Selectmen. The board has adopted a policy
of not sending substantive responses to emails in order to try to stay in compliance with
the Commonwealth's open meeting law which prohibits policy discussions by the Board
outside of an open public meeting. Please understand that the Board values your input on
issues and your correspondence will be included in the materials circulated to the Board
prior to its next meeting and it is available as part of the public record. The Board
members will have a chance to comment during an upcoming public meeting.
If you want to have a personal discussion of the issue with a member of the Board, we hold
"office" hours in Reading Town Hall before the first regularly scheduled meeting of each
month at 6:30 PM in the first floor conference room.
Thank you again for contacting the Board of Selectmen.
Ben Tafoya
Secretary
Reading Board of Selectmen
1/c Board of Selectmen
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Maggie Cahill [mailto:cahimagg@nspinfo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:41 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: A copy of letter foe public meeting 9/26/2007
14 Morgan Park
Reading, MA 0186.7
781-944-2911
September 26, 2007
Town of Reading:
This is in reference to the notification to abutters regarding the construction of
the artificial turf at Parker Middle School. I am not able to attend the meeting due to a
work conflict•. I have spoken to the Town Engineer George Zanbouras and Fran Fink from the
Conservation Department. It is my understanding that this project will elevate the soccer
field. Our property is between I to 2 feet below the field level now and has flooding
whenever there is any substantial rainstorm. Fran mentioned that part of Morgan Park is
within FEMA flood maps from the 19801s. I believe that adding any grade to this field
will cause even more runoff to our property. We have had to remove a shed in our back
yard due to the flooding. The shed was on concrete blocks and the water level rose enough
to rot out the floorboards of the structure.
I have other concerns about this project that I have not been able to have answered. I
spoke to Ryan in the Engineering office who told me the reason for the field is because of
its (gmack ?) rating to prevent concussions. How.many reported concussions have there
been in the past 5 or 10 years directly related to the Parker Middle school field?
I tried to contact John Fuedo but he is out until after this meeting. What is the purpose
of this artificial field? Is it worth spending $650,000.00 for an synthetic field? I
have observed the field being mowed and it takes about an hour to complete. How many
years would it take to make this profitable? What is the future plans that warrant
spending $650,000.00? Is the parking situation being considered? I have contacted John
in the past about the soccer/ lacrosse players and coaches climbing the fence between my
property and the school. I am concerned about liability. John said he would put up signs
but never has. At times it is unsafe for us to sit in the backyard during practices due
to the soccer balls flying into our yard. The latch on our gate has been broken along
with plants and scrubs being hit or destroyed.
I explained to both Fran Fink and George Zambouras that on July 12, 2006 the Public Works
Department flushed the irrigation system at Parker and it flooded my basement with 20 of
sludge through the drain in the back part of my basement. I have a sump pump near the
front right corner of my house but this sludge came up through the drain system in the
back left corner of my house. I called Jim Richardson at Public works and explained that
it was related because we have never had any water problems in the back end of our
basement and this sludge came up through the drain on the day the irrigation system was
being flushed. This is just another concern I have with the sub drain system in the
field. I have asked Jim to call me next time they plan to flush the irrigation system in
the field to prevent further damage to my property.
I understand this meeting may have a continuation date and I would like to be notified so
that I can make plans to attend. Please contact me with the outcome of the meeting. (I
have photos of my yard being flooded but was unable to locate them on short notice.)
Nelson
Sincerely, Maggie Cahill and Angie
gknz �
Page 1 of 1
Z/c &D-S-
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:26 AM
To: Iron ron'
Cc: Schena, Paula
Subject: RE: just a thought and a big savings to the town of reading
Dear Ron:
Thank you for sending an email to the Board of Selectmen. The board has adopted a policy of not
sending substantive responses to emails in order to try to stay in compliance with the Commonwealth's
open meeting law which prohibits policy discussions by the Board outside of an open public meeting.
Please understand that the Board values your input on issues and your correspondence will be included
in the materials circulated to the Board prior to its next meeting and it is available as part of the public
record. The Board members will have a chance to comment during an upcoming public meeting.
If you want to have a personal discussion of the issue with a member of the Board, we hold "office"
hours in Reading Town Hall before the first regularly scheduled meeting of each month at 6:30 PM in
the first floor conference room.
Thank you again for contacting the Board of Selectmen.
Ben Tafoya
Secretary
Reading Board of Selectmen
1/c Board of Selectmen
From: ron ron [ma ilto: land lord42003@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 5 :34 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: just a thought and a big savings to the town of reading
we tryed to have one person overseer both police and fire. to maybe save some money. but think about
this . suppose we get rid of the whole polce dept. that way there we dont spend money on police
vehicles, police officers police cheif or anything eles. and also then we dont have police officers
harrassing tax payers or trying to have grudges on different tax payers by locking them up or trying to
put theirs in jail. but this is what we do we let the state police patrol reading they take over the police
station. there paid by the state there vehicles are state and they take the vehicles home with them so dont
have to worry about housing the vehicles right now we have state police that live in the town of reading
and i know they drive around reading. so that would be a great savings to the town of reading.
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and snore!
M WAI
9/28/2007
L (C - 12) 0"-S
John Feudo
Recreation Division N
16 Lowell Street v
Reading, MA 01867
t
Re: Open Space and Recreation Plan w
Dear Mr. Feudo:
Fn
Thank you for submitting the draft Open Space and Recreation Plan for Reading to this offfee for
review and compliance with the current Open Space and Recreation Plan Requirements. This planas
particularly thorough and has been conditionally approved through September 2012. Conditional
approval will allow the town to participate in DCS grant rounds through September 2012, and a grant
award may be offered to the town. However, no final grant payments will be made until the plan is
completed.
Once the following items are addressed, your plan will receive final approval:
1. Population Characteristics — please include information on population density, employment
trends, and industries.
2. Long -term Development Patterns — please discuss maximum build -out and its ecological
impacts.
3. Water Resources — information on aquifer recharge areas and watershed(s) is needed.
4. Vegetation — a listing of the town's rare, threatened, and endangered species is missing.
5. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments — please include information on any unusual
geologic features.
6. Section S — the matrix of open space is well done. Two more columns are needed, however.
One on management agency and one on condition. Also, please list any CRs and APRs in
town.
7. Analysis of Needs — the Community Needs should include information on the SCORP
(www. mass. gov /envir /dcs /global /publications.htm).
8. Five -Year Action Plan — funding sources must be included.
9. Letter of Review from the Chief Municipal Officer, Regional Planning Agency, and Planning
Board are needed.
2hie Commonwealth of ,Massachusetts
_
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental"Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
s> °�
Boston, MA 02114
Deval Patrick
GOVERNOR
Timothy Murray
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Tel: (617) 626 -1000
Ian Bowles
Fax: (617) 626 -1181
SECRETARY
September 27, 2007
John Feudo
Recreation Division N
16 Lowell Street v
Reading, MA 01867
t
Re: Open Space and Recreation Plan w
Dear Mr. Feudo:
Fn
Thank you for submitting the draft Open Space and Recreation Plan for Reading to this offfee for
review and compliance with the current Open Space and Recreation Plan Requirements. This planas
particularly thorough and has been conditionally approved through September 2012. Conditional
approval will allow the town to participate in DCS grant rounds through September 2012, and a grant
award may be offered to the town. However, no final grant payments will be made until the plan is
completed.
Once the following items are addressed, your plan will receive final approval:
1. Population Characteristics — please include information on population density, employment
trends, and industries.
2. Long -term Development Patterns — please discuss maximum build -out and its ecological
impacts.
3. Water Resources — information on aquifer recharge areas and watershed(s) is needed.
4. Vegetation — a listing of the town's rare, threatened, and endangered species is missing.
5. Scenic Resources and Unique Environments — please include information on any unusual
geologic features.
6. Section S — the matrix of open space is well done. Two more columns are needed, however.
One on management agency and one on condition. Also, please list any CRs and APRs in
town.
7. Analysis of Needs — the Community Needs should include information on the SCORP
(www. mass. gov /envir /dcs /global /publications.htm).
8. Five -Year Action Plan — funding sources must be included.
9. Letter of Review from the Chief Municipal Officer, Regional Planning Agency, and Planning
Board are needed.
Congratulations on a great draft plan! Please contact me at (617) 626 -1171 or
melissa.cryan @state.ma.us if you have any questions or concerns, and I look forward to reviewing your
final plan.
Sincerely,
'--Otzt-� 0-�/-
Melissa Cryan
Grants Manager
cc: Board of Selectmen
Conservation Commission
Recreation Department
�bv