Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-19 Board of Selectmen PacketTOWN OF READING, MA HO JS-\G - IAN Rev: November 6, 2006 PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE J~~l TOWN OF READING, MA -H0 ~ S XG AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rev: November 6, 2006 PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE y~Z INTRODUCTION This Housing Plan was submitted to the State in accordance with the Planned Production regulation promulgated by the Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) in December 2002. The plan must contain at least the following three sections: Section 1. Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment Section 2. Affordable Housing Goals and Strategies Section 3. Description of Use Restrictions Section 1. Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS While Reading overall is a middle to upper income town, low, moderate and middle ina~me households find it difficult to afford rents and mortgages in the Town. The senior and elderly population are particularly burdened and in light of the current waiting lists for subsidized units the need will likely increase in the future. Additional efforts are likely needed to meet their needs, along with the needs of all income groups. The waiting list and relative low supply of subsidized family units may indicate that Reading's single parent households and low to moderate income families face a daunting challenge affording housing in Reading. It is important to remember that Reading has made significant progress toward meeting the state's ten percent goal and, as we will see, has many assets in place to help the Town to meet current and future housing needs. The following table summarizes the potential out of two development scenarios for the year 2020: the "Current Trend" and the "Build-out". The horizon year 2020 assumed to be the point in time that Reading will need to meet the 10% affordability criterion as set forth by M.G.L. Chapter 40B. (Data from Figures 1 & 10 have been used in order to assemble this table.) Figure 17. Reading Build-Out Projection Current Trend Build-out 8,863 All units 2004 y` 8,863 9,085 All units, 2020 projection 9,634 222 New units built between 2004-2020 771 675 Affordable units in 2004 675 908 All Affordable units, 2020 projection, 988 necessary to comply with 10% criterion 233 Necessary new affordable units for 2020 338 233/222 > 100% 2020 : % of new affordable units within 338/ 771 = 43% all new units 2004 data extrapolated from Figure 1 There is a view shared among the Master Plan committee members that a more detailed analysis of the Reading Wetlands Map may actually decrease this number. q,~3, CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE The Town's overall infrastructure contains adequate capacity and capital facilities for existing build out and anticipated short term development. The Town also periodically reviews and assesses its 10 Year Capital Plan to insure that infrastructure will be maintained and sustained for projected growth. As part of the permitting processes for planned production outlined in the Housing Plan the Town expects to continue the policy and practice of requiring mitigation from developers, financial or otherwise, for the impacts of their proposed projects, including infrastructure improvements. Therefore, as needs are identified through staff level and consultant review of individual permitting applications, the Town expects to require -as conditions for approval- adequate improvements and upgrades to systems, resources and capacity to allow for development under this Housing Plan, while protecting and enhancing natural, cultural and historical assets consistent with the 2005 Master Plan. Section 2. Affordable Housing Goals and Strategies CONSISTENCY WITH EO 418 COMMUNITY PLAN AND 2005 MASTER PLAN The goals and objectives below are consistent with the Town of Reading's adopted EO 418 Community Plan and 2005 Master Plan. SHORT TERM (1-2 YEARS) Policies & StrateLyies Current institutions, Town administration and Boards (Selectmen and Planning) have limited resources to fully develop the housing policies that Reading needs, policies ranging from new projects to preservation and from zoning amendments to extended planned programs. Numerous advocacy, technical and consulting roles have to be assigned so that a pro-active position in housing can be manifest within the Town government, the Town administration and among the residents. Goal 1 Establish a stronLy public commitment to housing and develop proactive housing policies. Objectives: A. Strengthen existing housing non-profits in order to ensure potential programs and funding strategies in Reading. B. Pursue an increase in town involvement to improve on communicating the housing goals to residents. q dry INTERMEDIATE TERM (1-5 YEARS) Affordability Housing Affordability is one of the greatest challenges of the current generation. Housing supply has dwindled while demand has increased, driving prices ever higher. This dynamic creates a financial strain on even fully employed individuals, let alone young families with only 1 wage earner or the elderly with limited means. In addition to a critical social issue, the lack of affordability hampers recruitment of a skilled workforce for the local and regional economy, given lower costs of living in other competitive wage markets. The Town relies on civil servants to maintain quality of life; a diverse and affordable housing stock is needed to retain these individuals and insulate the elderly from substandard housing. As of early 2003, only a 9% of cities and towns in the Commonwealth met the 10% affordability criterion of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Reading, belonging to the vast majority of non-confoiming communities, needs to take steps to increase its affordable units and avoid the likelihood of having of its zoning regulations and Master Plan recommendations bypassed by developers. The impact that comprehensive permit developments have into the Town life can be illustrated in several layers: abrupt increases of density, alienated housing enclaves disconnected from the surrounding fabric, localized spikes in the Town's traffic flow, sudden changes in school population, unbalanced loads in resources and infrastructure. Goal 2 Increase affordable units Objectives: A. Encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing buildings for low and moderate-income multi-family housing. B. Encourage new developments consistent with Reading's character and identity and meeting state mandated affordable housing goals. TOTAL INTERMEDIATE PLANNED PRODUCTION PLANNED PRODUCTION ( I # of Affordable Units/yr ( I Total #of Units /yr Annual Units 1166-76 11218-338 LONG TERM (5-10 YEARS) Diversitv In a context larger than affordability, housing diversity is essential to building a strong community. The demographic changes occurring in the Region impose a wide range of housing needs and Reading will need to address these needs with Town-wide strategies. 4,~,~ 1 Though we may not cope with all the elements of social diversity at the same time, the least we can expect is for our parents and children to have a realistic option of staying in Town. In the early stages of Reading's development to a New England Township, diversity was evident in the size of households, housing types and in the mixing of uses within the neighborhoods. Today, diversity - a core element of Reading's character and identity - is being lost, a loss which deeply affects the future of the community, not only as built environment, but also as people. Goal 3 Promote a common understanding of the affordabilitv issue Objectives: A. Establish a comprehensive permit policy or guidelines adopted jointly by the Board of Selectmen, CPDC and Housing Partnership. B. Align town boards, committees and commissions to the goals set forth by the Housing Partnership. C. Housing partnership to work with developers from the initial (pre-site approval) meeting through the comprehensive permit process D. Housing partnership to establish a close working relationship with non-profit developers in the NSPC sub-region. E. Analyze the 2010 census as it relates to the MPAC demographic projections for Reading and the housing needs chapter of the 2005 Master Plan and adjust this Plan. Gc,al 4 Promote Diversitv in housin, tvnes & households Objectives: A. Avoid exclusionary zoning and mansionization by "spreading" diversity of housing types to all neighborhoods. B. Provide incentives for small scale age-focused housing (over 55, young couples, nursing homes, etc). To make elderly housing development realistic and attractive to a wide-range of incomes, establish communication channels with qualified developers for over-55 housing project developments which offer choices to a diverse group of citizens. C. Provide tax-relief for elderly homeowners who grant the Town a right of first refusal to purchase their home at a reduced price. 44--066 Goal 5 Promote NeiLyhborhood preservation Objectives: A. Establish the fundamental elements of Reading neighborhoods. Engage Town meeting members as weel as the broad public in forums about rading neighborhoods and conduct open-house events that present those elements. B. Associate historic preservation with Reading's character and engage the Realtor's association in the discussion about historic features. C. Establish general planning guidelines for new developments as part of CPDC's proactive planning incentives and in conjunction with Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan. D. Amend the mixed-use zoning article to allow for multi-family developments with an affordability share in those areas of the Downtown where single- family housing exists as a non-conforming use. E. Compete for housing and community development state funds in an effort to develop mechanisms aimed at retaining elderly Reading residents at their homes. Gc,al 6 Promote LonLy Term Solutions for Affordability A. Reduce limitations on the conversion of single-family units to two-family units. B. Encourage infill development particularly near commuter rail station. C. Simplify and streamline regulations and procedures and review zoning and subdivision bylaws to see if there are measures that add to the cost of housing that could be reasonably amended or eliminated, while allowing restricted development of nonconforming lots subject to linkage contributions for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. D. Take steps to retain expiring use properties as affordable housing. Establish an open/available to the public affordability tracking web page. E. Offer rehab loans and/or grants to low to moderate income persons with funds from the state CDBG, HOME consortium, or other sources. F. Accept donated or reduced-price property. G. Identify vacant and underutilized properties that may be suitable for housing. Setup a GIS system that does the following on a per precinct basis: Ll J H. Adopt mixed use at the Addison Wesley Site. If the proposed development introduces a number of jobs that impacts local and regional housing, specify appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., linkage, inclusionary zoning, provision of affordable housing). 1. Identify municipal facilities that will soon stop meeting state standards and target them as future municipal housing projects. Award those projects to developers that offer the best affordable housing use, rather than the highest purchase price. Section 3. Description of Use Restrictions STATEMENT ON USE RESTRICTIONS Affordable units must serve households with incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income in which the unit is located. Units are or will be subject town executed Regulatory Agreement between the developer and the subsidizing agency unless the subsidy program does not require such an agreement. The units have been, or will be marketed in a fair and open process consistent with state and federal fair housing laws. ~ i---s7 N TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 BACKGROUND . 6 Sub-Regional conditions . 7 Recent Population and Household Trends . 8 Figure 1. Population and Household Trends and Projections, Reading . 8 • Household Composition . 8 8 Figure 2. Breakdown of Household Type in Reading, 2000 . Figure 3. Reading's Age Groups - Trends and Projections 10 Figure 4. Number of Reading Residents in Each Age Group from 1990 to 2000 (table)..... 10 Housing Supply 11 • Quality and Characteristics of Reading's Housing 11 Figure 5. Change in Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, Reading 11 Figure 6. Type of Structure that Housing Units are Located In, Reading, 2000 11 Figure 7. Housing Tenure, Reading, Subregion, and Region, 2000 12 Figure 8. Year Housing Units Built in Reading, 2000 12 • Zoning Allowances 13 • Affordable Housing Stock in Reading 13 Figure 9. Subsidized Housing Gap in Reading, as of February 2003 14 • Housing Supply Findings 14 Figure 10. Future Housing Units Based on Build-Out Analysis, Reading 15 Based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than-single-family units, it can be expected that most of Reading's future housing production will be single family houses on half- acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly. Linking Supply, Demand & Affordability 15 Linking Supply, Demand & Affordability 15 • The Cost of Buying a Home 15 Figure 11. Median Home Sales Prices, Reading 16 Figure 12. Housing Affordability Gap in Reading 17 • The Cost of Renting 17 Figure 13. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Age Group, Reading, 2000 18 Figure 14. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Income Group, Reading, 2000 18 Incomes in Reading 18 Figure 15. Estimated Number of Households in Each Income Group in Reading, 2000..... 19 Figure 16. Median Household Income by Type of Household, Reading, 2000 20 • Current Affordable Housing Needs in Reading 20 Conclusions 20 Reading's Road Network 32 Reading Traffic Loads Chart 32 Transit in Reading 33 CONSISTENCY WITH EO 418 COMMUNITY PLAN AND 2005 MASTER PLAN 35 The goals and objectives below are consistent with the Town of Reading's adopted EO 418 Community Plan and 2005 Master Plan 35 Policies & Strategies 35 Goal 1 Establish a strong public commitment to housing and develop proactive housing policies. 35 Objectives: _ 35 Affordability 36 As of early 2003, only a 9% of cities and towns in the Commonwealth met the 10% affordabi lity criterion of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Reading, belonging to the vast majority of non-conforming communities, needs to take steps to increase its affordable units and avoid the likelihood of having of its zoning regulations and Master Plan recommendations bypassed by developers . y~l, The impact that comprehensive permit developments have into the Town life can be illustrated in several layers: abrupt increases of density, alienated housing enclaves disconnected from the surrounding fabric, localized spikes in the Town's traffic flow, sudden changes in school population, unbalanced loads in resources and infrastructure 37 INTERMEDIATE TERM (1-5 YEARS) 37 Goal 2 Increase affordable units 37 Objectives: 37 (Refer to Mixed-Use Opportunities Map) 37 Diversity 40 LONG TERM (5-10 YEARS) 40 Goal 4 Promote a common understanding of the affordability issue 40 Objectives: 40 Goal 5 Promote Diversity in housing types & households 41 Objectives: 41 Neighborhood Design ..................:.................................................................................................41 Goal 6 Promote Neighborhood preservation 41 Objectives: 41 HOUSING PLAN INTRODUCTION This Housing Plan was submitted to the State in accordance with the Planned Production regulation promulgated by the Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) in December 2002. Under these regulations an affordable housing plan is a plan that identifies the housing needs of the community and the strategies by which the municipality will make progress in facilitating the development of affordable housing. The plan inust contain at least the following three sections: Section 1. Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment Overall, the plan must establish a context for municipal action with regard to housing based on a comprehensive housing needs analysis that examines: 1. Community demographics including information on the racial/ ethnic composition and special needs of the community and HUD MSA region. 2. Existing housing stock characteristics; 3. Development conditions and constraints and the municipality's ability to mitigate those constraints; and 4. The capacity of municipal infrastructure, such as schools, water/sewer systems, roads, ixdlities, etc. to accommodate the current population as well as future growth. Section 2. Affordable Housing Goals and Strategies In this section, the plan must include: • A discussion of the mix of housing desired, consistent with identified needs and feasible within the housing market, including rental and ownership for families, individuals, persons with special needs, and the elderly; • A numerical goal for annual housing production that meets or exceeds the .75% threshold; • A timeframe or schedule for production of units; and • An explanation of the specific strategies the community will use to achieve its housing 4,,6~ / I r production goal, including identification of one or more of the following: 1. Geographic areas in which land use regulations will be modified to accomplish affordable housing production goals; 2. Specific sites on which comprehensive permit applications are to be encouraged; 3. Preferred characteristics of residential development, for example infill housing development, clustered houses, and compact development; and/or 4 Municipally owned parcels for which development proposals will be sought. A community's plan may also address other local actions to accomplish its housing goals. Section 3. Description of Use Restrictions This section of the plan must describe the long-term use restrictions that will be placed on the affordable housing units. Include details on the time period covered by the deed restriction and how the future sale or rent price will be calculated. In accordance with the regulation, cities and towns may: • Develop and adopt an affordable housing plan for approval by DHCD; and • Request certification of compliance with the approved plan by demonstrating an increase in units that are eligible to be counted on the state Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) within one calendar year of at least 3/a of one percent (.75%) of total year round housing units (based on the 2000 Census) pursuant to the plan. For information about which counts on the SHI, please visit: http://www.mass.gov/dhcd/ToolKit/EligSumm.doc. Ill a certified municipality, decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to deny or approve with conditions comprehensive permit applications will be deemed "consistent with local needs" under MGL Chapter 40B for a one year period following certification that it has produced .75% of total housing units or two years if it has produced 1.5% of total housing units pursuant to the approved plan. "Consistent with local needs" means that the decision will be upheld by the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). A challenge for Reading is whether the planned production standard of .75 of 1 % is realistic. On the one hand, if the Town relied entirely on new construction to provide more affordable housing units, the rate of production would have to increase significantly. Under this approach, new comprehensive permit units would overshadowing market-rate housing development. On the other hand, under existing housing market conditions, affordable housing unit production within the single family neighborhoods is extremely low and relies primarily on small scale private incentives. At this point, the town does not have a tracking mechanism to measure housing affordability improvements within the neighborhoods, an example of which. are accessory apart7ments. A combination of measures addressing both comprehensive and standard permits is a more pragmatic approach to resolve the affordable housing gap, executed in stages and involving all neighborhoods. The shortage of land for new development or redevelopment has been evident for many years in Reading. 5 q-~' 1-2, k BACKGROUND The history of Reading's housing stock spans several centuries, from early colonial farm buildings to contemporaiy, multi-family apartment buildings. The evolution of Reading's housing reminded fairly static through the 1940s, when the predominantly single-family dwellings were complimented with a variety of housing types. Subdivision tracts became common through the 1950s and 60s, and former farm properties were developed to accommodate the growing demand for suburban residential coinciding with the construction of Route 128, growing affluence and the middle class migration from the inner city. More recently in the 1970s, 80s and 90s larger condominium and apartment buildings were constructed in or adjacent to Reading's commercial corridors, which offered easy access to regional transportation such as Routes 128 and 93. While Reading continued to be a principally suburban commuter shed to Boston and the office development on Route 128 and Reading's increasingly white collar residents, the Town eventually became a focal point for large-scale commercial and residential development as growth expanded outward from Boston's inner metropolitan core. The period since the 1991 Master Plan has seen substantially development of subdivisions, rehabilitated single family housing and more dense, multi-family housing such affordable projects under the State mandated Chapter 40B statute. These developments have ranged from 2 lot subdivisions in well-established residential neighborhoods to substantial, 200+ unit condominium and rental developments on the periphery of Town. It's clear as housing demand increases for a variety of housing types in Reading due to its well regarded school system, proximity to commuter links and sustained property values, the Town will continue to see more intensive development on the dwindling supply of buildable land. 4,&/3 r Section 1 e Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment 1.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS Sub-ReLyional conditions Housing market conditions, housing needs and barriers affecting the production of low- and moderate-income housing originate in domains significantly larger than Reading. The Town is a member of the North Suburban Planning Council (NSPC), a voluntary aasociatiorn composed of eight towns and one city that aims to facilitate cooperative regional planning. The status of affordable housing in the NSPC sub-region is as shown in the following table: Community 2000 Census Year Percent SHI Shortfall Round Housing Units Units Burlington 8,395 11.2% I +100 Lynnfield 4,249 2.3% 1 -327 North Reading I 4,839 I 2.1% -382 Reading I 8,811 I 8.2% I -158 Stoneham 9,231 5.5% -415 Wakefield 9,914 5.7% -426 Wilmington 7,141 1 9.8% 1 -14 Winchester 7,860 1 1.8% I -645 Woburn 15,312 1 8.5% I 229 Source: DHCD Subsidized Housing Inventory, Ju ne 2006. Unlike other towns and cities where restrictive zoning regulations require homes to consume a large amount of land per dwelling unit (an acre or more), the great majority of single family zoned neighborhoods in Reading allows for lots of one-third to one-half 4'6-/1/ ( acre. From that perspective, the town contributes proportionally less to the regional affordability problem by allowing higher densities than other suburbs in the NSPC sub- re:gion. Recent Population and Household Trends Population trends are among the key factors driving housing demand. After experiencing a slight decline, Reading's population grew 5%, to 23,708 persons, from 1990 to 2000. This growth rate parallels the region's growth rate. However, based on projections, Reading's population can be expected to decline slightly over the next 20 years (see Figure 1). Meanwhile, the number of households in Reading, which increased 10% from 1990 to 2000, is expected to continue to increase over the next twenty years. This is not a unique trend - nationally, household size is shrinking, resulting in more households. Reading's household size shrunk from 2.84 persons per household in 1990 to 2.73 in 2000, representing a 4% decrease. As we will see, this increase in the population and the number of households led to declining vacancy rates and escalating housing costs. In 2000, Reading had 3.7 persons per square acre. Figure 1. Population and Household Trends and Projections, Reading. Population Households Year # % Change # % Change 1980 22,678 1990 22,539 -1% 7,932 2000 23,708 5% 8,688 10% Projected: 1 2010 ( 23,500 -1% 8,973 3% 2020 22,865 -3% 1 9,085 ( 1% Sources: U.S. Census and MAPC. • Household Composition Reading is primarily composed of family households - 74% of all households are family households.. By comparison, only 61% of the region's households are families. Conversely, 26% of the households in Reading are non-family. Non-family households include households with one person or room-mate situations - i.e., those in the household are not related. Figure 2. Breakdown of Household Type in Reading, 2000. % of Total Households Type of Household Reading ( Region Families 74% 61% Married-Couple Families 64% 47% Single-person Households 22% 30% Married & Single-Parent Households 38% 31% 8 Ll 6~ /S- With Children under 18 1 1 All Households with Persons Age 65+ 27% 1 24% Non-Family Households 26% 1 39% Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Five percent of Reading's households are headed by a single parent. Just over 150 Reading residents live in group quarters. Most of these persons live in nursing homes and a small percentage live in group quarters for persons with developmental disabilities. It is worth noting that 7% of those over age 65 live with a relative other than a spouse (o.g., with their adult children, with a sibling, etc.). Also, 25% of those over age 65 live alone, 80% of whom are women. Analyzing the age composition of residents helps to identify current and future housing ri!.eds. To show this relationship, we clustered age groups to relate them loosely to various stages in the housing market (Figure 3). For example, the age 20 to 34 age groups tend to form households for the first time and are likely to rent or to buy a smaller starter home. The trade-ups (age 35 to 54) have generally accumulated more wealth, may have a larger family, and often drive the demand for larger and more expensive homes in a community. The empty nesters (55-64) are called such because often their children are grown and have moved out, so they may be ready to downsize to smaller, easier to maintain units. Lastly, the early (65-74) and "wiser" (75+) seniors have special housing needs also. Some prefer to move back in with family, some may continue to live on their own, and some may find it necessary to move to assisted living facilities or a nursing home. If these various age groups can not find housing in Reading to meet their needs, they may have to leave the community. From 1990 to 2000, Reading saw: A A decrease in the household formation age group. Reading is not alone in this trend - this age group has decreased in the region also. > Large growth in the middle years (35 to 54), putting pressure on the trade-up market. ➢ Youth and the older population remained relatively stable from 1990 to 2000. Population projections indicate that Reading's household formation group could rebound by 2020 and that the trade-ups may decrease over that time period. A decrease in this latter group could open up more family housing units for younger families. The trade- ups, however, still would comprise the largest portion of Reading's age groups. The projections also indicate an increase in empty-nesters and early seniors. This could result in a need for smaller units. 9 4"~, / (X L* Figure 3. Reading's Age Groups -Trends and Projections. 9,000 8,000 7,000 6.000 5,000 17 1990 4,000 - - ❑ 2000 ■ 2010 3,000 - ❑ 2020 2,000 1,000 i v; Preschool (0-0) School Age (5-19) Household Trade-Up (35-54) Empty Nesters (55- Early Seniors (65- Wiser Seniors Formation (20-34) 64) 74) (75+) Nnte: AEe clrtvters me nut evenly divided. slur«n: U.S. Cm.-W hlAPC Project inns. Figure 4. Number of Reading Residents in Each Age Group from 1990 to 2000 (table) 1 1990 2000 Preschool (0-4) I 1,518 ( 1,701 School Age (5-19) I 4,253 I 4,904 Household Formation (20-34) I 5,072 3,501 Trade-Ups (35-54) 1 6,534 8,071 Empty Nesters (55-64) ( 2,266 I 2,162 Early Seniors (65-74) I 1,651 1,752 i Seniors (75+) I 1,245 1,617 Source: U.S. Census. FINDING Despite a possible drop in population, the trend toward increasingly smaller household sizes will continue to drive demand for housing units. Reading will likely remain a predominantly family community. This, combined with the large proportion of trade-ups, may contribute to the demand for larger family-size housing units. However, if the number of trade ups decreases, as projected, this demand could lessen somewhat. An increase in empty nesters and early seniors may fuel a need for smaller units that are easy to maintain, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. 10 ~4, Housing Sum& • Oualitv and Characteristics of ReadinLy'S Housing The number of housing units in Reading grew at a steady pace from 1980 to 2000, reaching 8,823 units in 2000. Reading's 9% increase in housing units from 1990 to 2000 outpaced the rate in the region, which was 5%. In 2000, only 1.5% of Reading's housing units were vacant; this rate is half of the region's rate. This low vacancy rate reflects the tight housing market that the region is experiencing. Figure 5. Change in Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, Reading. Hou sing Units Vacancy Rates Year # % Increase All Units Rentals Homeowner 1980 ( 7,486 ( ( 1990 8,104 8.3% 2.1% 3.5% 0.6% 2000 ( 8,823 8.9% 1.5% ( 3.1% 0.3% Source: U.S. Census. Three-quarters of Reading's housing units are single-family detached units. This proportion is substantially greater than the region; only 6% of Reading's housing units are located in two-family houses. From 1997 to 2002, building permits were issued for 12 multi-family units and 124 single-family units. Figure 6. Type of Structure that Housing Units are Located In, Reading, 2000. 20 to 49 Units, 10 to 19 units, 4% 5 to 9 units, 20/ 3 to 4 units, 30/ 2 units, 6% 1 unit attached, 3% 1 unit detached, 74% Source: U.S. Census Reading's housing units are 82% owner-occupied and 18% are rentals. These percentages have remained relatively unchanged since 1980. Reading's proportion of owner-occupied units is significantly greater than the region's rate of 57%. 11 q~qJ . Figure 7. Housing Tenure, Reading, Subregion, and Region, 2000. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 82% 18% 0% . Reading Source: U.S. Census 57% 76% 43% 24% Subregion MAPC ❑ Owner Occupied ❑ Renter Occupied In terms of age, Reading's housing stock is fairly diverse. One-third of the housing units were built prior to 1940. These houses, while adding to Reading's historical fabric, can mean a need for rehabilitation (including upgrades to meet current building codes), repairs, and lead paint removal. A large number of housing units were built from 1950 to 1970 and a fair number of units have been built since then. Figure 8. Year Housing Units Built in Reading, 2000. 1990 - March 2000 8% 1980-1989 10% 1939 or earlier 32% 1970-1979 10% I// \ r!!_ 1960-1969 13% 1940-1949 10% 1950-1959 Source: U.S.Census. 17% r 12 Zoning Allowances Reading is predominantly zoned for single-family houses with minimum lot sizes ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet. The current zoning bylaw does provide options for other types of housing developments. These options may present opportunities to address Reading's housing needs. Briefly, these options include: 1 Accessory apartments are allowed by special permit in single family districts and Business A, but only in dwelling units that existed prior to August 1, 1982. 2 Two family units are allowed in A-40 and Business A. Business A zones also allows apartments. 3 Nursing homes are allowed by special permit in the 5-20 district. 4 Residential uses, to some extent are allowed in the Planned Unit Development - Industrial Overlay Districts (PUD-I). Relief from certain dimensional and intensity requirements are allowed if the developer provides affordable units on or off site. 5 Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R) is another type of overlay zone which allows single family units, two family towl-diouses, apartments, and elderly housing, among other uses. Ten percent of the units must be affordable and up to half of these can be provided off site. 6 A Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay is allowed by special permit in the single family districts and A-80. There are two types of PRDs. General (PRD-G) requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet and encourages affordable units. Municipal (PRD-M), allowed on current or former municipally owned land of at least eight acres in size, requires the provision of affordable units. 7 Municipal Building Reuse District is an overlay district that allows the redevelopment or reuse of surplus municipal buildings. Ten percent of the units must be affordable. Affordable Housing Stock in Reading According to the state's Subsidized Housing Inventory, which officially keeps track of all housing that qualifies under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, 404 housing units in Reading are considered affordable - this equals 4.6% of the housing stock. (M.G.L. Chapter 40B, Sections 20-23 is a state statute that enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) to issue a single "comprehensive permit" for residential developments that include affordable housing, even if the proposal does not conform to local zoning requirements. The law, also known as the Comprehensive Permit or "Anti-Snob Zoning" Law, sets a goal of 10% low-to-moderate income housing in each community. If communities with less than 10% deny a comprehensive permit or set excessive conditions fur approval, the proponent may appeal to the state, which can order the ZBA to issue the permit. The purpose of this 1969 law is to address the shortage of affordable housing statewide by reducing unnecessary barriers erected by local zoning and other restrictions.) 13 Figure 9. Subsidized Housing Gap in Reading, as of February 2003 Total Year-Round Units 1 8,823 Subsidized Units (on DHCD list) 1 675 10% Goal 1 882 Deficit 1 207 Source: Mass. Dept. of Housing and Community Development, Feb. 2003. Affordable units in Reading include: 8. The Housing Authority owns 115 units - 73% are for elderly or handicapped persons, 20% are for families, and 8% are for special needs persons. 9 Another 290 units are privately owned. These range from assisted living facilities to other forms of elderly housing and family housing. In addition, a small number of group homes for persons with developmental disabilities are scattered throughout Reading, mostly in renovated houses. 10 The Town recently approved another 200 plus units under 40B. These are primarily two bedroom units, with some one and three bedroom units. This list does not yet include recently approved 40B projects, which would bring the total to approximately 650 affordable housing units (7%). As new market-rate units are created, the number of affordable units needed to reach and maintain the state's goal of 10% will increase. Another hindrance to maintaining 10% are the units with "expiring use restrictions." These are properties built under programs that require affordability only for a fixed number of years, after which owners may choose to sell or rent the units at market rate. As a result, 114 units will expire in 2010 and most of the remaining private units will expire between 2013 and 2046. While it is possible that some of these units will still be kept affordable, there is no guarantee. A community can take steps to keep these units affordable. Housing SuPP1v Findings In 2000, MAPC conducted Build-Out Analyses for communities in the region. A Build- Out Analysis estimates the amount of development and related impacts if all land in a community is developed according to the current zoning by-law. In Reading, the analysis indicated that an additional 770 single family units could be constructed in Residential Districts S-15, 5-20 and 5-40. The analysis equated this increase in units with an addition of 2,000 residents, 380 new students, and roughly 11 miles of new roads. This analysis was based on those uses allowed as of right in Reading's zoning districts - not those uses that require a special pen-nit nor the potential for overlay districts. 14 /_J _J, XI Figure 10. Future Housing Units Based. on Build-Out Analysis, Reading. Zone I Minimum Lot Size I Total New Units Residential District 5-15 1 15,000 sq. ft. 176 Residential District S-20 1 20,000 sq. ft. 531 Residential District 5-40 1 40,000 sq. ft. i 64 Total New Units 771 Source: MAPC and Reading Zoning Bylaw, March 2003. FINDING Reading is predominantly zoned for single-family houses with minimum lot sizes ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet. The current zoning by-laws do provide options for other types of housing developments, such as planned residential and unit developments, accessory apartments and mixed use. Although multi-family production has seen temporary increases with periodic real estate booms, based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than- single-family units, it can be expected that most of Reading's future housing stock will remain single family houses on average half-acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly. Based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than-single-family units, it can be expected that most of Reading's future housing production will be single family houses on half-acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly. Linking Supply, Demand & Affordability Linkinq Supplv, Demand & Affordability When housing prices increase at a faster pace than incomes, housing becomes less affordable for all income groups and can be particularly challenging for low and moderate income households. When people are spending too much for housing, it becomes difficult for employers to attract new workers, residents have fewer dollars to spend in the community, and some may ultimately leave the community. The Cost of Buving a Home Reading has seen its housing sales prices increase substantially from the late 1990s though the present. The median sales price for a single family house reached $362,000 and condominiums reached $237,000 in 2002. 15 Figure 11. Median Home-Sales Prices, Reading. $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 0) $250,000 in $200,000 $150,000 m $100,000 $50,000 p~1 4>~ 0~ 0^ p~ 7 pub OD 06 I~ 1 Family -a- Condo Source: The Warren Group; 2003. Another way to analyze affordability is to see how many households are paying 30% or more of their income toward a mortgage - this is considered the maximum percentage that a household can afford to pay. By this standard, the 2000 Census indicates that 20% of Reading's home owners can not afford their mortgage. We analyzed whether Reading's housing stock is affordable to households in the region that fit in the moderate or middle income categories. We focus on moderate and middle income since it can be assumed that housing needs for low income households can be met best by rental housing. A rile of thumb is that a household can afford a house that is no more than 2.5 times its annual household income. Data from 2002 indicate that moderate income household in the region (which calms up to $62,650) can afford a house priced up to $157,000. Reading's median sales price in 2002 was $362,000 for a one-family house - or $205,000 more than what the region's moderate income households could afford. The Town's median sales price for a condominium in 2002 was $237,000. While the median sales price for a condominium is more affordable than a single-family house, it is still at least $80,000 too much for moderate income households. Middle income households in the region (earning up to 150% of the median, or $121,200 in 2002) could afford a house priced up to $303,000. It appears that, in 2002, the median sales prices for Reading's single family units were at least $59,000 more than what a middle income household could afford. Condominiums in Reading, however, appear to be affordable for many middle income households. 16 i We also analyzed whether Reading's housing stock is affordable to Reading's residents. Figure 12 compares the median home value (as reported by home-owners in the census) to median household income. The gap between income and housing values increased from 1980 to 2000 - this chart shows that housing values were four times the median household income in 1990 and 2000 while in 1980, the median housing price was only 2.5 times the median income - i.e., affordable. $300,000 Figure 12. Housing Affordability Gap in Reading. $250,000 _ $206,500 $200,000 - $150,000 . $100,000 _..$.63,700 $271,600 $77,059 $50,000 $25,796 c $52,783 1980 1990 2000 Median Home Value --%-Median Household Income Source: U.S. Census The Cost of Renting The affordability of rental units is another important factor to evaluate. The census shows that median monthly rents in Reading were $340 in 1980, $706 in 1990, and $739 in 2000. These rents seem low - they are as reported by tenants in 1999 and they reflect rents paid by in-place tenants who may be long term and have rents that rise only incrementally from year to year. Newcomers seeking market rentals today most likely face considerably higher rents. The 30% affordability rule discussed above applies to renters also - a household should not be paying 30% or more of its income towards rent. According to the 2000 Census, 31 % of renters in Reading were paying too much. High housing costs have the most severe impacts on those on the lowest rung of the income ladder. Figures 13 and 14 show which age groups and income groups are paying too inuch for rent in Reading. It appears that a substantial percentage of all age groups are unable to afford their rent. Large percentages of households that earn less than $35,000 per year are also paying too much for rent in Reading. 4I-a~- Figure 13. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Age Group, Reading, 2000. 60% `o 50% 0 40% Q 30% 0 N o ~ (9 20% Q 10% 0 0% 15-34 25-34 35-44 45-54 Age Group 55-64 65-74 75+ Source: U.S. Census. Figure 14. Rent-Burdened Tenants by Income Group, Reading, 2000. 80% CO 70% m. E 60% W 50% o ° 40% (D m 30% E 6 20% 0 10% 5 0% . . . Less than $10,000- $20,000- $35,000- $10,000 $19,999 $34,999 $49,999 Income Group Source: U.S. Census I I $50,000- $75,000- $100,000+ $74,999 $99,999 • Incomes in Reading Reading's median household income in 2000 was $77,059. Figure 15 indicates that Reading is predominantly a middle to upper income town, with approximately one-third of the households middle income and one third upper income. Conversely, 31 % of Reading's households were considered low to moderate income in 2000. These figures have not been adjusted for family size. 18 S71 The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development also provides data on the number of persons that are low to moderate income. According to 2000 data, 21.5% of the Town's population is considered low to moderate income. It comes as no surprise that home-owners have a higher median income than renters. While homeowners in Reading had a median amiual income of $83,884 in 2000, renters had a median of $32,485 - less than half. The median income for those over age 75 was even less, at $25,104 (see Figure 16). Figure 15. Estimated Number of Households in Each Income Group in Reading, 2000 Low Income, Upper Income , 3114,36% 38, 19% Moderate Income , 1047, 12% Not adjusted for family size. Middle Income , Source: Estimates based on U.S. Census. 2850,33% 19 q 6~ -L l.0 Figure 16. Median Household Income by Type of Household, Reading, 2000. m $90,000 o $80,000 $70,000 -o $60,000 $50,000 m Y) $40,000 _ $30,000 $25,104 $32,485 $76,453 %RR RRd cam: $20,000 $10,000 5 75 Years & Older Renters All Ow ners (Ow ners & Renters) Source: U.S. Census. Current Affordable Housing Needs in Readin>; Waiting lists for subsidized units indicate present and future needs. Discussions with the Housing Authority and with some of the private providers indicate that elderly may have to wait one to two years for a subsidized unit, while a wait for a family unit can be three to five years. The Housing Authority has approximately 140 Section 8 applicants on its ,~A aiting list, 40 on an elderly and disabled waiting list, and 21 on a waiting list for family units. A small portion of those on the Authority's list are from Reading. The Section 8 and family waiting list are currently closed. It is important to keep in mind that waiting lists contain persons outside of Reading and that an individual can be on more than one waiting list. Regardless, there appears to be a gap between the need for elderly units and family units and available units in Reading. 11 Lower income households are paying too much for rent in Reading, and moderate and middle income households struggle to afford housing in Reading. 12 28% of Reading's households have incomes below the low and moderate income limits that are appropriate for subsidized housing. 13 A large percentage of all age groups can not afford their rent. There is a need for more rental units that meet the needs for various life stages. 14 Reading is at risk of losing over 100 affordable units by 2010, when they may "expire". 15 Reading has taken action to increase its affordable housing stock and meet housing needs. Conclusions While Reading overall is a middle to upper income town, low, moderate and-middle income households find it difficult to afford rents and mortgages in the Town. The senior and elderly population are particularly burdened and in light of the current waiting lists for subsidized units the need will likely increase in the future. Additional efforts are 20 q likely needed to meet their needs, along with the needs of all income groups. The waiting list and relative low supply of subsidized family units may indicate that Reading's single parent households and low to moderate income families face a daunting challenge affording housing in Reading. It is important to remember that Reading has made significant progress toward meeting the state's ten percent goal and, as we will see, has many assets in place to help the Town to meet current and future housing needs. The following table summarizes the potential outcome of two development scenarios for the year 2020: the "Current Trend" and the "Build-out". The horizon year 2020 assumed to be the point in time that Reading will need to meet the 10% affordability criterion as s ;t forth by M.G.L. Chapter 4013. (Data from Figures 1 & 10 have been used in order to a.~semble this table.) Figure 17. Reading Build-Out Projection Current Trend Build-out 8,863 All units 2004 * 8,863 9,085 All units, 2020 projection 9,634 222 New units built between 2004-2020 771 675 Affordable units in 2004 675 908 All Affordable units, 2020 projection, 988 necessary to comply with 10% criterion 233 Necessary new affordable units for 2020 338 233/222 > 100% 2020 : % of new affordable units within 338/ 771 = 43% all new units * 2004 data extrapolated from Figure 1 There is a view shared among the Master Plan committee members that a more detailed analysis of the Reading Wetlands Map may actually decrease this number. As noted in previous chapters, the vast majority of new housing units - based on current zoning and trends - will be single-family residences. This analysis does not account for the main route of introducing high densities with affordable units in Town, that is through comprehensive permits authorized under M.G.L. Chapter 4013, or other recent avenues l ke Chapter 40R, under evaluation. Transit opportunities and community character are th.e main prisms through which the Reading is evaluating the regulations of 40R smart growth districts. T.ie result of the first scenario is that, even if all the new units built between 2004 and 2020 are affordable, it will not be enough to meet the 10% criterion. In the second case, Reading will need to ensure a 43% of all new units between 2004 and 2020 as affordable in order to meet the 10% criterion. This is•a highly unlikely outcome under current and mid-term housing market conditions. Reading will need to secure the construction of affordable units through projects following zoning overlays or comprehensive permits. 21 q.,~ FINDING Town zoning allows medium density residential developments under PRD (overlay districts resembling Cluster zoning) and PUD-R (overlays for large parcels allowing a medium density), while the State encourages LIP for community involvement and some impact mitigation as an alternative to conventional comprehensive permits authorized under M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Other avenues such as Chapter 40R State permits or mixed use overlay districts are means to introduce affordable units in Town and should be investigated as to their applicability, flexibility and long-term impacts. Market forces and State directives necessitate the need for planning proactive housing policies and incentives to avoid abrupt changes in the Town's character. This inevitable process, which has started for Reading several years ago, will target appropriate locations that can support the inevitable higher residential densities that new developments bring. zz q a9 1.3 CAPACITY OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY OF BUILDINGS Reading has 16 major public facilities for administration and public services, public works, public safety, and education. 'Down Hall The Town Hall, facing the Common at Lowell, Salem, and Woburn Streets, consists originally of two buildings, the Municipal Building, built in 1917, and the Old Library, also built in 1917, both renovated and connected together in 1989. It houses the administrative offices of the Town Manager, Town. Clerk, Finance and Collections, Accounting, Assessors, Public Works, Human services, and Community Development. In addition it house one large meeting room, for major Boards and Commissions, and two smaller meeting rooms. It is adequate in size and condition to meet projected future needs. Public Library The Public Library, occupying the former Highland School, built in 1895 and renovated in 1984, is located at the corner of Middlesex Avenue and Deering and School Streets, in the older residential neighborhood west of downtown. It houses all public library fixnetions, principally reference, circulation, administration, adult and children's rooms, historical room, and two meeting rooms. It is adequate in size and condition for projected fiiture needs. Public Works Garage The Public Works Garage was built in 1987 on New Crossing Road, replacing an antiquated facility, now demolished, on Walkers Brook Drive. It houses all Public Works vehicles and vehicle-maintenance, as well as some associated administrative offices. It is of adequate size and condition to serve projected fiiture needs. 23 q ~,3 9 . Police Station The Police Station, on Union Street just east of Reading Square, was built in 1999. It houses all police functions as well as central dispatch for police and fire protection. The new station is a state of the art facility with expanded roll-call space, office space, locker and shower facilities for female officers, physical fitness equipment, contraband and evidence storage, equipment storage, general storage and a community meeting room. Central Fire Station The Central Fire Station, located on Main Street just north of the Common, was built in 1990 as a three-bay facility, housing Fire Department administration, one engine, one ladder truck, and one ambulance. For projected future needs it is. adequate in condition and in. size, provided that the West Side Fire Station is retained. The Town converted the previous Central Fire Station on Pleasant St. into a permanent Senior Citizens Center. West Side Fire Station The West Side Fire Station, on Woburn Street between Prospect and Berkeley Streets, was built in 1956, and houses one engine and one fire-alarm truck. It also houses the mechanic shop. While some renovation will be needed in the future, it is of adequate size to function as a satellite station. Senior Center The new Senior Center on Pleasant St. replaces the Old Police Station and contains several meeting rooms and a modern kitchen for ongoing senior activities. The Center is staffed entirely by elder volunteers who conduct activites coordinated and administered by the Town's Office of Elder Affairs contained in Town Hall. The Senior Center also serves as public hearing venue for various Board, Committee and Commission meetings. School Buildings Schools (with 1990 enrollment levels): 9) Joshua Eaton Elementary School, built in 1948 at the corner of Summer Avenue and Oak Street: 18 classrooms, 458 students. 10) Birch Meadow Elementary School, built in 1957 on Arthur B.Lord Drive between Birch Meadow Drive and Forest Street: 18 classrooms, 406 students. 11) Alice M. Barrows Elementary School, built in 1964 on Edgemont Avenue, off West Street: 15, classrooms, 324 students. 12) J. Warren Killam Elementary School, built in 1969 between Charles and Haverhill Sheets: 26 classrooms, 542 students. 13) Walter S. Parker Middle School, built in 1927 on Temple Street, off Woburn Street and Summer Avenue: 24 classrooms. 418 students. 14) Arthur W. Coolidge Middle School, built in 1961 on Birch Meadow Drive:'24 classrooms, 408 students. 15) Reading Memorial High School, on Oakland Road just south of Birch za y~3 Meadow Drive, built in 1954 and enlarged in 1971: it also houses the administrative offices of the school system: 91 classrooms, 974 students. This facility was undergoing renovations and new constriction as of 2005, including demolition of the 1954 portion. 16) Wood End Elementary School, on Sunset Rock Lane just off, Franklin St. New construction completed in 2005. The following school buildings have been closed and turned over to the care and custody of the Board of Selectmen and have been converted or slated to be converted to other purposes: 1) The Old High School, between Sanborn and Linden Streets, was sold to the private sector in 1986 and converted to residential condominiums. 2) The Prospect Street - and Lowell Street schools were demolished and the land sold for single-family house lots in 1980 amd 1977 respectively. 3) The Pearl Street School, on Pearl Street between Thorndike and Charles Streets, was built in 1939 and abandoned as a school in 1984. Consisting of 24 classrooms, the building was rented to a variety of commercial tenants, and in part used since 1988 as a temporary Senior citizens Center. The building was sold and after an addition was added it operates as an assisted living facility. In addition, the School Committee turned over to the Town the Batchelder Field property (37.14 acres) on Franklin Street which is now Wood End Cemetery. The School Committee site on Dividence Road (11.6 acres) and on Oakland Road (4.6 acres) are not projected to be needed for new school facilities. ADMINISTRATION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Director of Public Works - The direct control of the department is under the Director of Public Works. The policy, rules and regulations of the department of public works are established by the Board of Selectmen. The Town Manager is responsible for the overall supervision of the department. The Public Works Department is responsible for all public works activities: water supply and distribution; protection of natural resources; sewers and sewerage systems; streets and roads; parks and playgrounds; refuse collection, disposal and recycling; forestry services; and maintenance of all municipal buildings and grounds except those of the School Department and municipal light. 25 yea DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY This department is comprised of the police, fire, animal control and civil defense. All of these functions are under the policy direction of the Board of Selectmen and the administrative direction of the Town Manager. Police Department - the police station in Reading is located on Union Street. There is no jail as such but rather a lock up where persons are confined temporarily awaiting bail or arraigmnent before the Middlesex Court in Woburn. Reading has approximately 40 permanent police officers. These officers are hired and work under civil service regulations. Reading Police Department protects and serves the public through police ar.;tion. They provide services in several board areas: crime prevention and suppression, crime reduction, investigation of crimes and apprehension of offenders, movement and control of traffic, the maintenance of public order and public emergency services. F ',re Department - There are two fire stations in Reading. The central station is on Main Street, near the center of Town and additional station is on the west side of Town on Woburn Street. Firefighting and control and fire prevention are the main jobs of the fire department. The Fire Department also manages ambulance service for the Town and provides a high level of emergency care. Inspection of commercial and manufacturing properties, school, apartments, nursing homes and other buildings used by the public are an important part of the department's work. The department also checks fire alarm systems in new construction for proper location and tests for proper installation and operation and conducts a similar inspection for smoke detectors whenever private homes change ownership. The department's persormel, who are under civil service, number approximately 50. LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Board of Library Trustees - 6 members elected for overlapping 3 year terns, unpaid. The Board of Library Trustees controls the selection of library materials, has custody and management of the library and its property, and administers monies received as gifts or bequest. The actual maintenance of the library building and its grounds is the responsibility of the Town Manager. SCHOOL DEPARTMENT There are 8 public schools in Reading - 5 elementary, 2 middle, and 1 senior high school. The Reading school system has been the recipient of numerous state and national awards and staff members have also been highly recognized. In addition to strong academics, the school system also stresses a strong after school athletic program and an arts and music program. Superintendent of Schools - The superintendent is the chief architect of the educational program in the community and the chief administrator of the programs and policies 26 4 decided upon the School Committee. He attends all School Committee meetings and supervises the school curriculum, personnel and property. FINDING Before the Charter was adopted many of the officers and committees were independently elected, resulting in a lack of coordination and cohesiveness. The Charter provided for the appointment of most of these positions. However a few important boards continue to be elected, allowing voters to maintain direct control over them so that the boards can retain their independence. These boards include the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, the Library Trustees, the Municipal Light Board and the Board of Assessors. The administrative branch of government is organized into operating agencies each headed by a director. TOWN INFRASTR UCTURE Public Water - Until recently, the Town owned and operated a public water system, with approximately 100 miles of distribution mains and lines seining the entire Town. The water was drawn exclusively from groundwater through wells, in the Town Forest and the Revay Swamp (Ipswich River watershed). Eight wells are located within the 100- Acre Wellfield in the Town Forest, with a maximum combined pumping capacity of 7.55-mgd (million gallons per day); however, due to groundwater contamination traced to North Reading, one of the larger-producing wells was taken offline and aerated to oxidize p-Arochemical pollutants. There are two wells in the Revay Swamp, with a combined pumping capacity of 1.22-mgd; the smaller of these served as a back-up, while the larger had been out.of service due to salt contamination from Interstate Highway-93 and the near-by State Public Works highway maintenance and storage yard on Lowell Street. The two sources of recharge to the groundwater supply were permeability through the ground surface in the aquifer area, and subsurface infiltration from the Ipswich River and its minor tributaries. Average water consumption equaled 1.91-million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990; and throughout the period from 1980 to 1990 has fluctuated between a low of 1.70-mgd in 1982 and a high of 2.64mgd in both 1985 and 1986. Maximum water demand in 1990 was 3.81-mgd and has fluctuated between 2.84-mgd in 1989 and 4.34-mgd in 1983. Commercial and industrial enterprises account for 14% of the Town's water consumption. Average consumption is projected to equal 2.11-mgd in 2010, and maximum consumption is projected to equal 3.90-imgd in 2010, both within existing ranges. While voluntary water consumption reductions have been sporadically imposed during periods of excessive drought, there has generally not been a problem with meeting peal-, water demand 27 Z/ _,~--3 V As the Town was entirely dependent for potable water on groundwater sources, the safeguarding of the water quality and quantity of the aquifer and of the river water, which replenish the groundwater, was critical. The aquifer is vulnerable to reductions in iinpeivious surface caused by land development, to show-removal and ice-control practices of the state and municipalities, to the use of fertilizers and pesticides by property owners, to leachate through contaminated soils and from leaking underground fuel storage tanks, to erosion and contaminated surface runoff, and to sewage infiltration from faulty septic systems and sewer mains. The aquifer is protected by an Aquifer Protection overlay District, specified in the Zoning By-Laws. This district includes those parts of the Ipswich River watershed upgradient of Revay Swamp and the Town Forest Wellfield. It does not protect the groundwater sources of any wells which may be developed in Bare Meadow or Cedar Swamp. The largest unsewered area of the Town is partially located in the aquifer district, and several homes in that are with sewer availability still retain septic systems. 1 he Aquifer Protection District contains a commercial area, in which 3 gasoline stations and several commercial parking lots are located, posing potential, if not actual, dangers of contamination of groundwater from leaking underground tanks and from surface runoff. The Zoning By-Law restrictions relative to the Aquifer Protection District do not apply retroactively to preexisting land-uses, and they contain some ambiguity regarding the application of the 20%-maximum impervious lot area to the subdivision of existing lots. Furthermore, since the physical extent of the aquifer includes lands in North Reading and Wilmington, not subject to Reading's Zoning By-Laws, the protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater is subject to measures which can only be taken by other jurisdictions. Beginning in May 2006, the Town of Reading began to purchase up to 21 million gallons of supplemental drinking water from the MWRA. This was to occur annually from May through October. The supplemental use of MWRA water was solely intended to help reduce the stress on the Ipswich River. Drinking water was also to continue to be produced from the Reading Louanis Water Treatment Plant. The chronology of events leading to the supplemental use of MWRA water began as a recommendation of the 1999 Ad Hoc. Water Supply Committee and approval by Town Meeting in November of 2003. Filings and approvals were received from the Department of Environmental Protection, Water Resources Commission, Legislature, Governor, and final approval by the MWRA Board of Directors on November 16, 2005. Iii May of 2006, faced with increasing construction costs for a new treatment plant, environmental issues with the site for the new plant, and growing unease with the safety and viability of the water supply, Town Meeting voted to pursue buying all of its water from the MWRA and deconunissioning the Louanis Water Treatment Plant. The intent was to supply the Town with 100% MWRA within. 3 to 5 years pending the regulatory approval process. Reading will continue to apply and enforce town-wide progressive water conservation measures. 28 However, no longer able to meet safe drinking water requirements the Town filed a Notice of Project Change with MEPA asking for an additional 610 million gallons, or 829 million gallons total based on the previously permitted 2.27 mgd (million gallons per day) demand. Under emergency consent order, on August 31, 2001 the water treatment plant stopped processing water and Town began to purchase 100% of it's water from the MWRA. The consent order requires approval of the project change by June of 2007. Public Sewer The sewer system is owned and operated by the Town and serves. approximately 87% of all properties within the Town. While some individual properties throughout the Town are not yet connected to available public sewer, the only major unsewered areas are in the vicinity of Mill and Short Streets and Main Street north of Mill street, and the westerly portion of Longwood Road. There are approximately 90 miles of sewer line within the Town, with 9 pump or lift stations, and with 5,971 local service connections. The system, through 2 outfalls, along the Abeijona River in the west, and along Summer Avenue in the south, and through a small collector in the Border Road/West Street area, discharges into the regional sewerage system operated by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), with principal treatment at Deer Island in Boston Harbor. Reading's water is pumped out of the Ipswich River basin and is discharged through the sewer system into Boston Harbor. This diversion deprives downstream communities in the Ipswich River basin of potential water flow, and causes riparian rights throughout the basin to be of increasing concern. A long-term program, with required participation by developers building new subdivisions, has largely been effective in eliminating inflow and infiltration of storinwater and groundwater'into the system. The operation of the sewer system, as well as the water system, is overseen by the Department of Public Works, and is on an enterprise basis, by which the full costs of operations is borne by the water and sewer users, and not through local property taxes. The Water and Sewer Advisory Board recommends all rate changes to the Board of Selectmen. The MWRA projects the installation of metering at the 2 outfalls to determine and charge the Town accurately for the sewer volume entering its system from Reading. Town policy has been to require new development to tie into the public sewer system and to require conversion to public sewer when residential septic systems fail. Still, there are still hundreds of septic systems in the Town, regulated and monitored by the Board of Health. Electrical (RMLD) In 1891, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law enabling cities and towns to operate their own gas and electric plants. This act marked the beginning of public power in the nation, planting the seed that eventually grew into Reading Municipal Light Department. On October 2, 1891, the citizens of Reading held a Special Town Meeting where the first of two required votes was taken to exercise the Town's authority under Chapter 370, Section 1, of the new state law. Those who attended the meeting unanimously voted to study the feasibility of operating a publicly owned power plant within the community. After several years of study, another Special Town Meeting to discuss the matter was held on May 21, 1894. On August 14 of that same year, voters agreed to appropriate 29 `p bonds totaling $50,000 to finance construction of a light plant. Reading's generating station began producing electricity for 47 streetlights and 1,000 incandescent lamps on S sptember 26, 1895. In 1908, Lymlfield residents applied to RMLD for electric service for their community. They were quickly joined by North Reading residents, some of whom were so eager to obtain electric service that they wired their homes in anticipation. Preliminary negotiations were already underway to furnish a minimum of 200 streetlights in Wilmington, with assurance that 100 customers would apply for, service. Special legislation was enacted on April 8, 1908, authorizing the Town of Reading to sell and distribute electricity to Lymlfield, North Reading and Wilmington. As a result, RMLD began delivering power to Lymlfeld Center on December 10, 1909; to North Reading in' 1910 and to Wilmington in 1912. As more customers were added, it became necessary for the plant to increase its capacity and update its generators. The demand for electricity had increased to such a degree that by 1925, the generation equipment was inadequate to carry the peals load. A portion of the current was purchased from Boston Edison Company, and by 1926, the Reading Municipal Light Board had entered into an agreement to purchase all required current from Boston Edison. There have been decades of advancement and achievement since those early days of electricity, but some things have remained constant. After more than 110 years, RMLD is still committed to reliable service at competitive rates, maintaining that commitment requires astute planning, innovative ideas and close attention to detail. The Gaw substation on Causeway Road in Reading, constructed in 1969-1970, marked a milestone in allowing RMLD to connect to the grid and purchase power from almost anywhere on the northeast power pool. Recent technological advances at RMLD include a fiber optic cable network that links all substations for state-of-the-art system monitoring and control. Computer systems are also state-of-the-art, and now include a sophisticated website. Even meter reading is modern and efficient, with an automatic system that uses radio transmitters for optimal accuracy and efficiency. In June 2000, construction was completed on a distribution substation connected to 115,000-volt transmission lines in North Reading, designed to accommodate growth and enhance the entire system's efficiency and reliability. Because reliability is key, RMLD has an ongoing preventive maintenance program aimed at solving problems before they occur. Today, RMLD selves more than 27,000 customers in its four-town service area. A professional staff of 80+ employees brings a broad scope of utility experience to RMLD's daily operation, including an up-to-date understanding of the evolving energy inarket. With its peak demand for electricity at more than 155 megawatts, RMLD purchases electricity from a number of different sources through long-and-short-term contracts. 30 3 9 RMLD supports in-lieu-of-tax payments, community development and energy education programs. This includes energy conservation programs, school safety projects, school-to- work partnerships, outreach to senior groups, community support and active memberships in local civic groups. Communication Infrastructure/Cable Advancements in technology have resulting in a changing landscape for many services offered directly to Town residents. Specific items include the prevalence of high-speed broadband, DSL and now laser technology access to the internet offered by companies such as Verizon, Comcast, and whole host of other competitors. The local phone service market has been opened up to competition with local number portability allowing consumers to keep their home phone number if the switch. Cable TV, once a market controlled by capital intensive cable operators is under fire from satellite TV companies ar well as telecommunication (phone) films that are poised to provide higher bandwidth access over improved networks. Cellular service has improved dramatically and federal law has allowed placement of cell phone towers in neighborhoods regardless of local zoning. Even the Town has improved its internal infrastructure, and much of the day to day Town business is conducted via email, with information posted regularly on the Town's website. The impact of this changing landscape has yet to be fiilly understood. One example may be in the area of Cable TV. As the current broadband service provider (Comcast) customer base is eroded by satellite and other competitors (Verizon), their commitment to the Town to support public service programming (RCTV) may become less attractive given the resulting landscape. The Town will have to understand these type of issues as it crafts policy and negotiates for license renewals with these organizations. FINDING The Town owns and operates a public water system, with approximately 100 miles of distribution mains and lines serving the entire Town. The operation of the sewer system, as well as the water system, is overseen by the Department of Public Works, and is on an enterprise basis, by which the full costs of operations is borne by the water and sewer users, and not through local property taxes. The sewer system is owned and operated by the Town and serves approximately 87% of all properties within the Town. RMLD serves more than 27,000 customers in its four-town service area. Recent technological advances at RMLD include a fiber optic cable network that links all substations for state-of-the-art system monitoring and control. Advancements in technology have resulting in a changing landscape for many services offered directly to town residents. Specific items include the prevalence of high-speed broadband, DSL and now laser technology access to the internet 31 q,~,k 3 Reading's Road Network reading has approximately 100 miles of streets and roads within its borders, aside from portions of Interstate Highway 95 (also known as state Highway 128), which is located on the south and southeast of the Town, and Interstate Highway 93 on the west. Highway network: There is one system interchange within Reading, the I-93/I-95 cloverleaf and four seivice interchanges, located adjacent to the Town's boundary: I- 93/Route 129 (Lowell street), I-95/Route 28 (Main street), I-95/Walkers Brook Drive, and I-95/Route 129 (Salem Street). Both interstate highways (I-93 and I-95) operate during weekday commuting peak hours above capacity that they are often subject to functional inadequacy, causing significant congestion overload on local Reading streets, particularly along streets, which parallel or connect between these highways. Currently, the Massachusetts Highway Department is conducting a planning study whose ultimate goal is to broadly define the problem of the interchange - its regional and local nature - and provide for a pool of potential short-term and long-term improvements. Reading's arterial streets, carrying large traffic volumes and serving as principal local routes as well as regional routes, include: 16 Main Street (Route 28), 17 Salem Street and 18 Lowell Street (Route 129). These three arterials intersect at the Common in the middle of Town, and are lined almost u.ninter7liptedly with commercial and densely developed residential uses. Minor arterial streets include: 19 Haverhill Street (residential), 20 Walkers Brook Drive (commercial and industrial), 21 Washington Street (residential), 22 Woburn Street (commercial through Downtown and otherwise residential) and 23 West Street (almost entirely residential). Collector streets, collecting traffic from neighborhood streets and feeding into the arterial streets in Town, are: 24 Franklin Street 29 High Street 25 Grove Street 30 Summer Avenue 26 Forest Street 31 South Street 27 Charles Street 32 HODkins Street 28 Washington Street 33 Willow Street According to Town records, recently documented average daily ti in the arterial/collector network are: FilZure 3. Reading Traffic Loads Chart Reading Traffic Loads Chart 1990 South Main street (Sta#S002) ( 22,200 Main street through Downtown I 16,200 •affie (ADT) volumes 2004 % change 31,800 143% 18,200 112% 32 y~3ti Main street at the North Reading line 1 14,500 1 n/a I n/a West street 1 7,000 1 8,800 ( 126% Lowell street 1 16,600 1 14,300 1 86% Salem street 1 14,600 1 19,400 I 133% Walkers Brook Drive 1 12,700 1 23,900 I 188% Woburn Street 1 9,400 1 8,800 I 94% Washington Street 1 9,100 1 12,400 ( 136% Haverhill street 1 8,700 1 n/a I n/a Source: Town Records and Master Plan Committee FINDING: Reading's streets and street network were established over a long period in the past, and the physical nature and layout of these streets contribute significantly to the character and visual amenity of the Town. These physical characteristics present many constraints to the smooth and efficient flow of traffic and contribute to congestion, frequent unsafe conditions for motorists and pedestrians and poor access to residential and commercial properties. Within both the physical character of the street network and the qualities that identify the character of the Town, there is a definite limit to the volume of traffic which can safely and sensibly be accommodated. Transit in Reading Since 1990, the number of vehicles in Reading has increased at a rate nearly four times faster than that of population (19% and 5% respectively). The use of public transit has somewhat increased given the improvements in the Commuter Rail system that the MBTA conducted in the 1990s. Commuting by Reading residents has remained scattered to a multitude of locations throughout the northern part of the Metropolitan area, with the single occupancy vehicle as the main mode of commuting to work. Commuter Rail: At present, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) operates twenty-one commuter trains each weekday in each direction between Reading and Boston (with an average travel time of 34 minutes); of these nine continue to and from Haverhill (with an average travel time of 65 minutes). During peak morning period (r,-9AM) there are six trains from Reading into Boston North Station and, similarly, during peak evening period (4-7PM) six outbound trains to Reading. One third of the peak trains to and from Boston does not continue to Haverhill but terminate in Reading. Cn weekend days and holidays six commuter trains operate in each direction to and from Boston,-all of which serve Haverhill. The local commuter rail stop is at the Depot, in the center of Town. Weekday boarding counts at Reading (Spring 2004) average 667 commuters, 85% of which are in the morning peak period. The 567 morning boarding passengers access the commuter rail in the following manner: 34 325 park in spaces for Reading residents (57%) 33 z~_~qol 35 110 park in spaces for Out-of-Town commuters (20%) 36 40 park in private lots and on the street (7%) 37 92 walk, bike or are dropped-off (16%) The 667 Reading boardings are the highest on the Haverhill Line (14%) and comparable to the 769 Woburn Anderson RTC boardings on the Lowell Line (within 87%). Bus Service: The MBTA operates two bus routes from the Depot only through the southeastern portion of the Town to Wakefield and to the Malden MBTA--Orange rapid transit (subway) line; the Merrimack Vallev Transit Authority operates two busses daily between Reading Depot and Andover and Lawrence. CONCLUSION: ADEOVACY OF INFRASTR UCTURE TO SUPPORT PLANNED PRODUCTION. The Town's overall infrastructure contains adequate capacity and capital facilities for existing build out and anticipated short term development. The Town also periodically reviews and assesses its 10 Year Capital Plan to insure that infrastructure will be maintained and sustained for projected growth. As part of the permitting processes for planned production outlined in the Housing Plan the Town expects to continue the policy and practice of requiring mitigation from developers, financial or otherwise, for the impacts of their proposed projects, including infrastructure improvements. Therefore, as needs are identified through staff level and consultant review of individual permitting applications, the Town expects to require -as conditions for approval- adequate improvements and upgrades to systems, resources and capacity to allow for development under this Housing Plan, while protecting and enhancing natural, cultural and historical assets consistent with the 2005 Master Plan. 34 y-&4/ Section 2. Affordable Housing Goals and Strategies CONSISTENCY WITH EO 418 COMMUNITY PLAN AND 2005 MASTER PLAN, The goals and objectives below are consistent with the Town of Reading's adopted EO 418 Community Plan and 2005 Master Plan. Policies & Strategies Current institutions, Town administration and Boards (Selectmen and Plaiming) have limited resources to fully develop the housing policies that Reading needs, policies ranging from new projects to preservation and from zoning amendments to extended planned programs. Numerous advocacy, technical and consulting roles have to be assigned so that a pro-active position in housing can be manifest within the Town government, the Town administration and among the residents. SHORT TERM (1-2 YEARS) Goal 1 Establish a strong public commitment to housin¢ and develop proactive housing policies. Objectives: A. Strengthen existing housing non-profits in order to ensure potential programs and funding strategies in Reading. Action Strategies: Create New Housing Partnership (HP) with the Objective to Coordinate Housing Related Action Strategies under the Master Plan. • Town Manager to recommend Charter for HP • Board of Selectmen appoints HP members 35 t/ 'J, q Pursue Additional Funding for Housing Using the Community Preservation Act (CPA) • Board of Selectmen appoints new CPA Committee to not only prepare the recommendation for implementing the CPA but also to identify the programs to be funded by it • Town Meeting considers CPA warrant article • If Town Meeting approves, ballot question to create and fiu1d CPA is placed on the ballot for Town election • Submit CPA funding request to State 3. Town to negotiate with developers for contributions (funds) toward the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as mitigations for various project impacts B. Pursue an increase in town involvement to improve on communicating the housing goals to residents. Action Strategies: 1. Establish a process between the Housing Partnership, the Board of Selectmen, the CPDC and the Housing Authority that sustains the communication and monitoring of the housing goals of the 2005 Master Plan and the importance of fulfilling theirs. Affordabilitv Housing Affordability is one of the greatest challenges of the current generation. Housing supply has dwindled while demand has increased, driving prices ever higher. This dynamic creates a financial strain on even fully employed individuals, let alone young families with only 1 wage earner or the elderly with limited means. In addition to a critical social issue, the lack of affordability hampers recruitment of a skilled workforce for the local and regional economy, given lower costs of living in other competitive wage markets. The Town relies on civil servants to maintain quality of life; a diverse and affordable housing stock is needed to retain these individuals and insulate the elderly from substandard housing. 36 qkC13 As of early 2003, only a 9% of cities and towns in the Commonwealth met the 10% affordability criterion of M.G.L. Chapter 40B. Reading, belonging to the vast majority of non-conforming communities, needs to take steps to increase its affordable units and avoid the likelihood of having of its zoning regulations and Master Plan recommendations bypassed by developers. The impact that comprehensive permit developments have into the Town life can be illustrated in several layers: abrupt increases of density, alienated housing enclaves disconnected from the surrounding fabric, localized spikes in the Town's traffic flow, sudden changes in school population, unbalanced loads in resources and infrastructure. INTERMEDIATE TERM 0-S YEARS) Goal 2 Increase affordable units Objectives: A. Encourage rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing buildings for low and moderate-income multi-family housing. B. Encourage new developments consistent with Reading's character and identity and meeting state mandated affordable housing goals. Action Strategies: 1. Monitor the state-level Building Code changes 2. Review existing residential Zoning By-Laws to determine opportunities for encouraging reuse of multifamily housing for affordable units 3. Review current Mixed Use Overlay Zoning against 40R/40S requirements and through Town meeting action in June 2007 amend to adopt 40R/40S Overlay District (?defer to Mixed-Use Opportunities Map) 37 PLANNED PRODUCTION Annual Certification 2007 2008 2009 2010 # of Affordable Units/yr 6 12 1 12 I Total #of Units /yr I 124 48 148 4. Amend section 4.9 of the Zoning By Laws to accelerate residential development of Johnson Woods, Phase 2 from current 7 to 5 years, while increasing affordable requirement to from 15% to 20%, allowing permitting in 2007. PLANNED PRODUCTION I # of Affordable Units/yr ( Total #of Units /yr Annual Certification 2007 112 160 1 2008 110 150 5. Prepare zoning article which would allow cluster development (PRD) in all S-15 and S-20 zoning districts provided one in eight units is affordable and $30,000/market unit is contributed to Housing Trust Fund for market units above/below eight • CPDC prepares zoning article • Town Meeting considers zoning article PLANNED PRODUCTION I # of Affordable Units/yr I Total #of Units /yr Annual Certification I 1 2007 14 132 2008 ( 4 1 32 2009 14 132 2010 14 P 1 32 6. Identify locations appropriate for BOS Sponsored LIP and 40B projects. (Refer to EO 418 MAP 4) PLANNED PRODUCTION I # of Affordable Units/yr I Total #of Units /yr Annual Certification 1 2007 125 1100 2008 1 25 1 100 12009 25 100 12010 25 100 38, 9L/st 7. Permit planned expansion of existing 40B development at Peter Sanborn Place PLANNED PRODUCTION Annual Certification 12007 2008 2009 2010 # of Affordable Units/yr 26 26 Total #of Units /yr 1 26 126 8. Modify Section 4.3.2.8 (Accessory Apartments) of the Zoning Bylaws to remove the restriction that an accessory apartment must be occupied prior to 1982 in all districts that allow residential use. • CPDC prepares zoning article • Town Meeting considers zoning article PLANNED PRODUCTION # of Affordable Units/yr Total #of Units /yr Annual Certification 2007 2008 2009 25 1 25 2010 1 25 1 25 TOTAL INTERMEDIATE PLANNED PRODUCTION PLANNED PRODUCTION I # of Affordable Units/yr ( I Total #of Units /yr Annual Units 1 1 66-76 11218-338 39 L .4 Diversitv In a context larger than affordability, housing diversity is essential to building a strong community. The demographic changes occurring in the Region impose a wide range of housing needs and Reading will need to address these needs with Town-wide strategies. Though we may not cope with all the elements of social diversity at the same time, the least we can expect is for, our parents and children to have a realistic option of staying in Town. In the early stages of Reading's development to a New England Township, diversity was evident in the size of households, housing types and in the mixing of uses within the neighborhoods. Today, diversity - a core element of Reading's character and identity - is being lost, a loss which deeply affects the fixture of the community, not only as built environment, but also as people. LONG TERM (5-10 YEARS) Goal 4 Promote a common understanding of the affordabilitv issue, Cbjectives: A. Establish a comprehensive permit policy or guidelines adopted jointly by the Board of Selectmen, CPDC and Housing Partnership. B. Align town boards, committees and commissions to the goals set forth by the Housing Partnership. C. Housing partnership to work with developers from the initial (pre-site approval) meeting through the comprehensive permit process D. Housing partnership to establish a close working relationship with non-profit developers in the NSPC sub-region. E. Analyze the 2010 census as it relates to the MPAC demographic projections for Reading and the housing needs chapter of the 2005 Master Plan and adjust this Plan. 40 qSq7- Goal 5 Promote Diversitv in housing tvpes & households Objectives: A. Avoid exclusionary zoning and mansionization by "spreading" diversity of housing types to all neighborhoods. A. Provide incentives for small scale age-focused housing (over 55, young couples, nursing homes, etc). To make elderly housing development realistic and attractive to a wide-range of incomes, establish communication channels with qualified developers for over-55 housing project developments which offer choices to a diverse group of citizens. B. Provide tax-relief for elderly homeowners who grant the Town a right of first refusal to purchase their home at a reduced price. Neighborhood Design Historically, the early settlements that developed to urban centers/villages in New England were laid out in a method known today as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND). TND in suburban communities is the basis for a balanced human experience of the built environment as part of a larger natural environment. On one hand, the size and diversity of buildings within the neighborhood "color" the experience of residency in R eading. On the other hand, the human scale of the neighborhood itself, the comfortable distance to the village center, the variety of land-uses and the uniqueness of the natural resources "color" the experience of the community of Reading. Goal 6 Promote Neighborhood preservation Objectives: A. Establish the fundamental elements of Reading neighborhoods. Engage Town meeting members as weel as the broad public in forums about rading neighborhoods and conduct open-house events that present those elements. B. Associate historic preservation with Reading's character and engage the Realtor's association in the discussion about historic features. 41 q,pff- C. Establish general planning guidelines for new developments as part of CPDC's proactive planning incentives and in- conjunction with Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan. D. Amend the mixed-use zoning article to allow for multi-family developments with an affordability share in those areas of the Downtown where single- family housing exists as a non-conforming use. E. Compete for housing and community development state funds in an effort to develop mechanisms aimed at retaining elderly Reading residents at their homes. Goal 7 Promote Loup, Term Solutions for Affordability, (Refer to EO 418 Map 4) A. Reduce limitations on the conversion of single-family units to two-family units. PLANNED PRODUCTION I # of Affordable Units/yr Total #of Units /yr Annual Units 150 1100 B. Encourage infill development particularly near commuter rail station. C. Simplify and streamline regulations and procedures and review zoning and subdivision bylaws to see if there are measures that add to the cost of housing that could be reasonably amended or eliminated, while allowing restricted development of nonconforming lots subject to linkage contributions for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. D. Take steps to retain expiring use properties as affordable housing. Establish an open/available to the public affordability tracking web page. E. Offer rehab loans and/or grants to low to moderate income persons with funds from the state CDBG, HOME consortium, or other sources. F. Accept donated or reduced-price property. G. Identify vacant and underutilized properties that may be suitable for housing. Setup a GIS system that does the following on a per precinct basis: evaluates infrastructure and its capacity tracks number of affordable units 42 tj~q q I - tracks potential developments This system can serve as a geographical overview of where the affordable units go and where not. H. Adopt mixed use at the Addison Wesley Site. If the proposed development introduces a number of jobs, that impacts local and regional housing, specify appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., linkage, inclusionary zoning, provision of affordable housing). 1. Identify municipal facilities that will soon stop meeting state standards and target them as future municipal housing projects. Award those projects to developers that offer the best affordable housing use, rather than the highest purchase price. TOTAL LONG TERM PLANNED PRODUCTION PLANNED PRODUCTION I I Minimum I I Maximum Annual Units 11100 1 1 200 43 Aso Section 3. Description of Use Restrictions STATEMENT ON USE RESTRICTIONS Affordable units must serve households with incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income in which the unit is located. Units must be subject to use restrictions or re-sale controls to preserve their affordability as follows: For new construction, a minimum of thirty years or longer from the date of subsidy approval or commencement of constriction. For rehabilitation, for a minimum of fifteen years or longer from the date of subsidy approval.or completion of the rehabilitation. Alternatively, a term of perpetuity is encouraged for both new construction and rehabilitation. Units are or will be subject to an executed Regulatory Agreement between the developer and the subsidizing agency unless the subsidy program does not require such an agreement. The units have been, or will be marketed in a fair and open process consistent with state and federal fair housing laws. 44 q 16~~l INDEX 40B 6, 11, 15, 37 Community Preservation Act ...............35, 35,41 CPDC .......................................22, 30, 32, 41 Demographics 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 31 Economic development .............................28 Education .............................................25, 25,26 Employment ...............................................26 Historical Commission .........................12, 12,23 Historical structures .............................35, 35,41 Housing 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38 Infrastructure 24 mixed-use 6, 13, 14, 15, 16 MPAC 6, 21, 33, 35, 37 Permitting 25, 26, 37 Public Safety 24,26 Region 26, 32, 37 Selectmen 22, 26, 35 Town Character 37,40 Town Departments 25,26 Town History 12,23 Town Meeting 35 Town Planner 22, 30, 32, 41 Town Services 35 Traffic 23,32 Transportation 30,32 ZBA13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 Zoning 13, 15, 28, 39 45 q j~,S-;z I GLOSSARY 40B A State housing program that allows developers to override local zoning if the community hasn't achieved a 10% affordable housing inventory 40R A State housing program that provides communities with financial incentives to encourage adoption of special overlay districts CPA The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a State tool to help communities preserve open space and historic sites, and create affordable housing and recreational facilities. PLANNED PRODUCTION CERTIFICATION DHCD determination of affordable units created in any calendar year identified in the Housing Plan. COOLING OFF PROVISION Period during which a ZBA can deny 40B applications if the Community has certified with DHCD their Housing Plan annual goal. "CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL NEEDS" Means the ZBA's decision will be upheld by the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). CPDC Reading Community Planning and Development Commission DHCD Massachusetts State Department of Housing and Community Development EO-418 Executive Order 418-State authorization of funding for planning activities such as community development plans HAC Housing Appeals Committee-State court that determines whether communities are approving or denying affordable housing consistent with local needs LIP Local Initiative Program-so called friendly 40B that allows communities to collaborate with developers on expedited comprehensive permit projects consistent with local needs MAPC Metropolitan Area Planning Council-the regional planning agency representing the Boston Metropolitan Area containing Reading M PAC Master Plan Advisory Committee-ad hoc committee formed by the selectmen to update the 1991 Master Plan PLANNED PRODUCTION Housing Plan adopted by the State PRD Planned Residential Development (Section 4.10 of Reading Zoning By-Laws) SHI Subsidized Housing Inventory (SKI); State certified affordable housing unit inventory used for purposes of 40B USE RESTRICTIONS Deed Restrictions that maintain unit affordability ZBA Reading Zoning Board of Appeals 46 y,g, - 3 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of Otte Town of Reading: Please take notice that the Board, of $eile.ctmen of th . Town of Reading will hold a -Public 'hearing at.their meeting on Tuesday,. December 19,'.20.0 , ..t 8:00 p:., "in- the Selectm. , :M.eeting. Room, 16 LA, 1. Street, Reading, Massachuse s in accordance with the. Bylaw, Article Retail Sales on a .request by Motiva Enterprises, :41-C, (Owner), and. Leigh . Enterprises .Ltd (Licensed Operator) that it, be granteojhe right: to continue, operating at ..,"the . Reading,.Shell Station locat- ed at 87 Walkers Brook. Drive,. Reading, twenty-four (24) hours per day, and specifically requests approval under said Bylaw to operate between the hours of 12:01. a:m. and 6;00 a.m. All interested parties may appear. in person, may submit written comments, or email comments to town' manaaer@ ci.readina.ma.us. By.orde. r:of Peter 1. Hechenbieikner Towny Manager 12112 4 c, j Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51601D 2460460000000030 BOSTON GAS COMPANY 201 RIVERMOOR ST BOSTON, MA 02132 2460460000000060 ARISTONICS CORPORATION 95 WALKERS BROOK DRIVE. READING, MA 01867 HD DEVELOPMENT HOME DEPOT USA INC 2455 PACES FERRY RD ATLANTA, GA 30339 See Instruction Sheet i jFeed Paper for Easy Peel Featurei 2460460000000040 TOWN OF READING 16 LOWELL ST READING, MA 01867 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC C/O EQUIVA SERVICES LLC PO BOX 4369 HOUSTON, TX 77201 JORDAN'S FURNITURE INC ATTN A/P DEPARTMENT 450 REVOLUTIONARY DRIVE E. TAUNTON, MA 02718 2460570000000270 BLACKSMITH ENTERPRISES If LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 88 WALKERS BROOK DR READING, MA 01867 2460570000000280 MCMANUS ROSE M OF WAKEFIELD ASSOC 98 WALKERS BROOK DRIVE READING, MA 01867 NAVERY05160 , TOWN OF READING CONSERVATION COMMISSION 16 LOWELL ST READING, MA 01867 BROOKVIEW INVESTMENTS LLC 15 THIRD AVE BURLINGTON, MA 01803 WALKERS BROOK CROSSING LLC 1266 FURNACE BROOK PKWY QUINCY, MA 02169 ~c z, Etiquettes faciles a peler A, Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 5160® Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY MARK A. GALLANT, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 462 BOSTON STREET SUITE 1, SECOND FLOOR v TOPSFn(1LD, MA 01983 (978) 887-0366 W LI( ENSED IN MA.SSACFIIISETTS AND NEW HAMPSH11M NEWBURYPORT, (978) 463.0220 PEABODY(978) 538-0066 E-H AIL: irgallant@nii.not FAX NCTMBER. (9781 887-0321 WE BSITE, WWW.gaUantlaw.corn REPLY TO TOPSFIELD OFFICE November 8, 2006 Ben Tafoya, Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Reading Town Hall Reading, MA, 01867 RE: 24 Hour Permit = - Reading Shell Station 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, MA 01867 '`a Dear Chairman Tafoya: My office represents Motiva Enterprises, LLC (owner) and Leigh Enterprises, Ltd (Licensed Operator), 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, Massachusetts on their application for a permit to operate twenty-four (24) hours per day at the Reading Shell Station; 87 Walkers Brook Drive. In accordance with the By-Law, Article 5.10.1, Retail Sales, Motiva Enterprises, LLC (as Station Owner) and Leigh Enterprises, Ltd (as Licensed Operator) hereby requests that they be granted the right to continue operating the above station located at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, twenty-four (24) hours per day, and specifically requests approval under the said By-Law to operate between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Kindly schedule the same for a hearing before the Board of Selectmen for the Board's meeting in Tuesday, December 19, 2006. Please advise my office of the date of the hearing. Also, kindly have the newspaper bill my Topsfield office directly for the cost of the legal notice for the hearing. - ` If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Thank you. Very truly yours, /,,/M*ar1,,A. Gallant MAG: ag Cc; Peter I. Ilechenbleikner, Town Manager Town. Clerk Robin Shea, Motiva Enterprises, LLC 00-171 pw y- c3 1-1 Hechenbleikner, Peter Page 1 of 1 \JV' From: Fink, Fran Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:20 PM To: Fiore, Jane; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Jackson, Paul; Reilly, Chris; Redmond, Glen Subject: Gas station 87 Walkers Brook Drive .Attachments: OOC 06-25 87 Walkers Brook.doc Hi all, This is just to let you know that the Shell Station folks finally came up with a drainage.design and the Cons Corn issued an Order of Conditions to them last night. Work includes the new canopy, a fence around the side and back of the parking lot, removing the sediments from the wetland next to the driveway, and installing a level spreader to stabilize that area and reduce the risk of future deposits. In the course of installing the canopy, they will be excavating and carting away all contaminated soils and groundwater. They will also be checking all the fuel distribution lines and repairing any that look bad. I am attaching the Conditions that we put on the permit, in case you are interested in the details. Thanks, Fran 12/14/2006 qcql Attachment to Order of Conditions 10 Jody Renouf, Motiva Enterprises, LLC 87 Walkers Brook Drive, DEP# 270-479, RGB# 2006-25 DOCUMENTS: The following documents are hereby incorporated into this Order. To the extent that the provisions and conditions in this Order differ from those in these documents, this Order shall control: 1. Notice of Intent for work at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Assessor's Map 46, Lot 7, submitted on July 28, 2006, revised November 8, 2006, with attachments, by Jody Renouf, Motiva Enterprises LLC, Applicant 2. Site Plan entitled "Reading, MA, 87 Walker (sic) Brook Drive, Proposed Canopy Elevations Alternate",.Sheet A-IA, dated October 3, 2006, revised through October 16, 2006, not stamped or signed, by Ayoub Engineering 3. Site Plan entitled "Reading, MA, 87 Walker (sic) Brook Drive, Site Plan", Sheet C- l, dated June 26, 2006, revised through December 4, 2006, stamped and signed by Alan J. Micale, R.P.E.# 40143, Ayoub Engineering 4. Site Plan entitled "NOI Construction Plan, 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, MA", Figure 2, dated August 29, 2006, not stamped or signed, by Corporate Environmental Advisers, Inc. 5. Site Plan entitled "Site Layout w/Proposed Excavation Areas, 87 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, MA", Figure-2, dated July 18, 2006, not stamped or signed, by Corporate Environmental Advisers, Inc. 6. Stormwater Report for Motiva Enterprises LLC, stamped and signed by Alan J. Micale, R.P.E.# 40143, Ayoub Engineering, dated December 5, 2006 7. Drainage Report for for Motiva Enterprises LLC, stamped and signed by Alan J. Micale, R.P.E.# 40143, Ayoub Engineering, dated November 17, 2006 8. Stormwater Management Form signed by Alan J. Micale, R.P.E.# 40143, Ayoub Engineering, dated November 7, 2006 9. Letter and Supplemental Information dated November 8, 2006, by Maureen Foley, Environmental Scientist, Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc. 10. Immediate Response Action Plan, 87 Walkers Brook Drive, RTN 3-26149, by Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc., dated October 4, 2006 11. Phase V Status and Remedial Monitoring Report, 87 Walkers Brook Drive, RTN 3- 2937, by Corporate Environmental Advisors, Inc., dated August 30, 2006 12. Order of Conditions, DEP 270-346, RGB 2001-3, issued by Reading Conservation Commission on April 12, 2001 for work at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, and Extension Permit issued March 25, 2004 13. Letter from Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, to Mark Gallant, Attorney, dated January 11, 2006 14. Decision of the Reading Zoning Board of Appeals, Case No. 06-22, dated September 21, 2006 1~ cs-/ Attachment to Order of Conditions 11 Jody Renouf, Motiva Enterprises, LLC 87 Walkers Brook Drive, DEP# 270-479, RGB# 2006-25 15. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Reading, Massachusetts, Community Panel Number 250211 0003 B, effective July 2, 1981 16. Reading Priority Habitats and Estimated Habitats Map, dated October 1, 2006, by MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 17. Figure 2, Town of Reading, MA, Zone II and Zone III Areas, dated July 8, 1996, by Weston and Sampson, showing Aquifer Protection District 18. Site visit report by Reading Conservation Commission dated December 10, 2006 19. Site visit report by Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator, dated November 14, 2006 20. Memoranda from George Zambouras, Town Engineer to Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator, dated August 16, November 15, November 29, and December 13, 2006 21. Memorandum from Fran Fink, Conservation Administrator, to Reading Conservation Commission dated August 16, 2006 FINDINGS: The site is a 27,350 square-foot lot containing a 4,018 square-foot commercial building used as a service station and convenience store. There are four underground fuel tanks, two pump islands, six fuel pumps, an enclosed dumpster, an underground heating oil tank, underground utilities, and other minor accessory structures. Most of the lot around the building is paved for driveways and parking lots. The pavement extends east, south, and west into the abutting commercial property at 95 Walkers Brook that shares driveways with the service station. The pavement slopes down from the service station building in all directions. Until several years ago, there was a canopy over the pump island. However, the canopy was damaged by tall trucks and was removed by the owner. 2. Walker's Brook, a perennial stream, runs roughly parallel to the northwest side of the site. The outer half of the Riverfront Area extends into the western side of the site, as shown on Docouments 3, 4, and 5. Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) extend from Walker's Brook to within a few feet of the edge of pavement on the northwestern boundary of the site in land owned by the gas company, as shown on Document 4. The BVW continues around the parking lot on the abutting commercial property to the southwest, southeast, and northeast. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding also encircles both properties. The 100-year flood elevation is given as 86.0 feet NGVD on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and is shown on Documents 4 and 5 as 191.65 feet, based on the Town of Reading Sewer Datum. Most of the site is also located within the Buffer Zone, as shown on Documents 3, 4, and 5. 3. The site has frontage on the right-of-way for Walkers Brook Drive, where the right- of-way is owned and maintained by the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). Two driveways enter the site over the right-of-way. There is a vegetated basin qc, 6? 1 Attachment to Order of Conditions 12 Jody Renouf, Motiva Enterprises, LLC 87 Walkers Brook Drive, DEN 270-479, RGB# 2006-25 between the driveways. Culverts set at the bottom of the basin connect the basin hydraulically to the BVW directly beyond the outer edge of each driveway, with flow possible into and out of both culverts. The basin is identified as part of the Zone A4 100-year floodplain on the FEMA map (Document 15) and has been observed to fill during flood events. Thus, the basin functions as a wetland resource area. A Zone B floodplain extends farther into the site, to an undesignated elevation. 4. Part of the concrete footing for the service station sign is located in the right-of-way and the basin. Two gaps in the inner curbs along the driveways direct runoff from the eastern and northeastern driveways and parking lot directly into the basin. The basin detains water during storms. Stone surfaces at the inlets prevent erosion in the basin. Another gap in the outer curb of the northern driveway allows runoff to enter the wetland and floodplain directly. The surface below this gap is eroded, and sediments have been deposited in the wetland on the abutting lot. Maintenance of the basin, culverts, and discharge areas in the right-of-way is typically the responsibility of MHD. 5. The western part of the parking lot discharges off the edge of pavement into the BVW with no detention or water quality treatment. The southern parking lot discharges into the parking lot on the abutting property, where it enters catch basins and then is piped to the BVW. 6. The site has been the subject of several response actions under M.G.L. Chapter 21E. One incident began in August, 2000, and is still not resolved (Document 11, RTN 3- 2937). A new incident was discovered and reported this year (Document 10, RTN 3- 26149). Soils and groundwater under the pavement are contaminated with petroleum constituents. The site contains a number of soil and groundwater monitoring devices (Documents 5, 10, and 11). Groundwater elevations monitored in recent years have typically ranged from 2 feet to 6 feet below the surface, depending upon the season. The owner has carried out remedial actions over the past five years in accordance with Chapter 21E and will continue such actions until a Completion Statement is approved by DEP. These actions have been carried out under an Order of Conditions (Document 12) and other permits issued by the Commission in recent years. 7. The proposed work includes: construction of a new 50-foot by 50-foot canopy over the pump islands (Document 3); removal of a guard rail and construction of a chain link fence along the northwestern edge of the parking lot (Document 4); and repairing any components of the fuel distribution and pumping systems found to need repair during excavation for the canopy. 8. The proposed work also includes drainage improvements, as shown on Document 3. Runoff from the roof of the canopy will be collected and piped to a new discharge point within the basin in the MHD right-of-way. Rip-rap stone will be placed at the discharge point to prevent erosion. To correct the erosion and sedimentation problems below the curb on the northern side of the driveway, the applicant proposes: qc 71 Board of Selectmen Meetina - December 6. 2005 - Pase 3 Vice Chairman Richard Schubert indicated that- he wanted to revisit PAYT, and Ted McIntire noted that the SWAC studied that two times and it was a very long process. Vice Chairman Richard Schubert asked if the materials from the last presentation could be distributed to the Selectmen. Chairman Camille Anthony noted that she will call the members of the SWAG regarding the ad hoc committee. r _ . Hearing - 24 Hour Operation of WBD Shell Station - The Secretary read hearing notice. Attorney Mark Gallant, Rick Russo, Robin Shea and Danielle Robinson was present. The Town Manager noted that this is a request for a renewal of a 24 hour operation. There is a memo from the Conservation Administrator in the packet. Attorney Mark Gallant noted that Motiva (previously Texaco) is seeking renewal. They will be open 24 hours per day and supply gas cans. There is no impact on residential abutters and the company is involved with the community. Danielle Robinson noted that waste clean up has been done on the site since 1989. They are trying a different type of remediation but it is not an exact science. Chairman Camille Anthony asked about the drainage basin sediments. Ms. Robinson noted that the basin in the State's right of way and the sediment is coming from the street. Chairman Anthony noted that conservation approval is needed to do work in the wetlands. Ms. Robinson noted that Conservation Administrator Fran Fink should go through David Weeks as the contact. A motion by Duffv seconded by Tafova to close the hearing on the 24 hour operation of the Walkers Brook Drive Shell Station was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Schubert seconded by Duffv to approve an application for 24 hour sales by Motiva Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Reading Shell Station at 87 Walkers Brook Drive, upon a finding that, in accordance with Section 5.10.1 of the General Bvlaws, the Board determines that: ♦ It is in the interest of the public health. safety and welfare to permit such operation. and ♦ There is no detrimental effect of such operation on the Town or the immediately abutting neighbors: e Subiect to the following conditions: 1. This approval expires at midnight. December 31.2006: 2. All signs shall conform with the Zoning By-Laws of the Town of Reading- 3. The gasoline service station shall, in fact, be open 24 hours a dav. seven davs a week: 4. The operator will ensure that there is a supply of gasoline available at the station during all hours that the station is open: 5. The operator will provide gas cans for motorists who run out of gasoline on the road: Y c g Board of Selectmen Meeting - December 6. 2005 - Pa--e 4 6. The operator will prepare and post a list of local towine and repair shops that are open 24 hours a day for those who need it: 7. Restroom facilities shall be open 24 hours a dav, seven davs a week: 8. The environmental concerns in Fran Fink's memo. Paraeraph #3 are dealt with by Mav 1.2006. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Avvroval of Modification of Easement - RMLD - The Town Manager noted that this gives the developer of Inwood Park the right to access the property through an RMLD easement. The Court decided that if the roadway or buildings need to be moved, the developer has to pay the RMLD $150,000 and the Town of Reading $245,000 for traffic mitigation. The motion states that the agreement will be executed when the Town receives the check. A motion by Schubert seconded by Bonaz6li to approve the agreement between the Town of ReadinLy, the Reading Municipal.Lii!ht Department and Avalon Bav Communities, Inc. and will execute the agreement upon receipt of a check for $245,000 to the Town of Readine. which pavment is reouired by their MEPA approval and will be used by the Town for traffic mitigation purposes was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Follow ub Addison-Weslev - Chairman Camille Anthony noted that Pearson had applied for rezoning for a hotel and office park. Now they want to be rezoned for retail to develop a Lifestyle Center. She noted that the Board of Selectmen are concerned regarding the access to this site. The Town hired John Diaz as a traffic consultant. Town Counsel Gary Brackett is present to review the options for the Selectmen. Selectman Ben Tafoya asked what the process needs to be, and Gary Brackett noted that the applicant presents the application for a zoning amendment, then the Board of Selectmen refer it to CPDC within 14 days, they will hold a hearing within 65 days, and then it goes to Town Meeting for approval. Selectman Ben Tafoya asked if CPDC can decline, and Gary Brackett indicated that they need to prepare a report and recommendations including any amendments, for presentation to Town Meeting. The CPDC can recommend against approval. The Board of Selectmen can make a formal recommendation to CPDC as part of the public hearing process. The Selectmen can also take a position on the amendment at Town Meeting. The Selectmen do not make the decision on curb cuts, etc. until after Town Meeting approves a rezoning. Gary Brackett noted that Town Meeting has the authority to adopt, reject or amend and adopt as long as any amendments are within the scope of the article. Selectman Ben Tafoya asked what the traffic process is, and Gary Bracket noted that CPDC will consider the general purposes of the zoning bylaw and any adverse impact on the community from traffic or the project in general. The project will need MEPA approval. The Town Manager noted that there has already been MEPA approval for a hotel, and the developer would have to reapply for a change or new application. q c9, LEATHERS ASSOCIATES UNIQUE PLAYGROUNDS, IMAGINED BY CHILDREN. BUILT BY COMMUNITY. November 15, 2006 John Feudo, Recreation Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 IMAGINATION STATION PLAYGROUND Safety Audit & Maintenance Inspection,. November 4, 2006 Barry Segal, C.P.S.I., Leathers & Associates Dear John, COPY Having performed a thorough audit, we can now offer you our recommendations and discuss with you your options. If you decide (a) to hire Leathers to manage and directly supervise a renovation, or alternatively (b) to close the playground permanently, we will not prepare a comprehensive report, and will not, ther6fore, charge you the balance of $800. If you choose the former approach, we will work with you to develop a plan and send you a proposal for any further design and/or consultation fees. On the other hand, if you prefer, we will prepare the complete report, itemizing all our findings and solutions, and charge you the remaining $800. Communities have found our reports quite adequate to develop for themselves a list of materials and a work plan. General observations The playground is presently closed. This playground is expansive, and has remarkable play value. It appears that the playground has received heavy use, and that maintenance has lapsed. Significant portions of both the decking and the handrails have deteriorated, from both weathering and normal wear and tear. The ground safety surfacing is depleted, leaving a hardpan surface. This is a Priority 1 hazard. See Appendix: Hazard Priority Rating System. Please note that a list of all found. Priority 1 hazards found during the inspection is attached to this letter. Structurally, the playground posts and framing are largely sound, although a few handrails are not sufficiently attached. (These are Priority 1 or 2 hazards.) The balusters, trim, framing and appliqu6 are generally in good shape, with some minor checking. 99 Eastlake Road Ithaca NY 14850 TO,LFREE' 877 564-6464 FAX 607-277-1433 www.leathersassociates.com 4 Some playground equipment has been removed, is broken, and/or has missing parts. This includes the ring bridge, cable bridge, suspension bridge, climbing chains; pull tunnel, and the vertical tire tunnel, and swings. (Priority 1 and 2) The slides (bumpy, circular, tot, mini, and tunnel) have gaps and/or cracks in side rails, connections to platforms; and also entanglement issues at the entrance,platforms. (These are Priority 1 hazards.) There are a small number of other entrapment, protrusion, and entanglement hazards (Priority 1 and 2). Some use zones are less than required by current guidelines. (Priority 2 and 3.) OPTION ONE Renovations and Reuairs with Modifications We recommend that you retain us to guide you through the following work. • Apparatus including ring bridges, chain climber, suspension bridge, swings, pull tunnel should all be repaired, which will involve some design modifications. This will require new chain, hose and hardware. • The metal slides should all be replaced with plastic slides, with the exception of the tunnel slide which can be modified to meet current standards. • A majority of the decking should be either replaced or covered with a wood-plastic composite product, such as Trex. • Selected handrails should also be replaced with a wood-plastic composite product. • Balusters, trim. tower tans. bench backs. selected annliau6. and framine can be power washed, then sanded as necessary, and an opaque stain or sealer can be applied. Stain can have a coating applied once it is dried to prevent splintering. • Poles show minor signs of rotting at the tops. Rotted pole tops can be trimmed off or filled with recommended epoxy filler. The poles can be sanded as needed, then stained and coated or sealed. • Replace Qroundcover: A geotextile fabric material needs to be installed and shredded rubber surfacing put in. Engineered wood fiber can be used, but could cause rodents to nest because of the proximity to the creek. • Sandbox should be re-filled with sand. • Sieht-lines for supervision should be improved by replacing some wood balusters with pipe balusters. • Fence perimeter should be adjusted adjacent to the swings to provide an adequate use zone. • Accessible equipment (low rings and low ladder) should be relocated off the platform and over a safety surface. • Entanglement, entrapment, and protrusion safety hazards should be resolved by additional placement of boards, replacing "S" hooks with clevis clamps, replacing steering wheels with ones that meet current guidelines and covering bolts that create protrusions. Page 2 / Leathers & Associates, Inc. 4 99 Eastlake Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 4 Phone: 607-277-1650 • Toll Free: 877-564-6464 * Fax: 607-277-1433 ' .dZ t The majority of the costs to repair Imagination Station are in purchasing materials for: -1. new groundcover; 2. replacing of the slides; and 3. covering of the decks with a composite material. These repairs can be accomplished over the course of an extended weekend using a volunteer effort with our guidance or some combination of maintenance workers and community volunteers working with and.without our presence. These repairs would give the playground a minimum of ten years of useful life if properly maintained. The cost of these repairs and replacements would be approximately $35,000 to $60,000, depending on the type of groundcover used. • Trex, wood sealer, stain: $5,000 to $10;000 m 4 new slides, various hardware: $5,000 to $7,000 • Groundcover (approx. 16,000 sq.ft.) if using engineered wood fiber: approximately $16,000, $40,000 if using shredded rubber. • Leather and Associates fees for design services, project management, and for on-site consultation would be approximately $10,000 to $15,000. OPTION TWO Removal and' RelDlaeement This would entail a.removal of all existing equipment and replacing it with a new playground by Leathers & Associates using the same volunteer system. ° The cost of removal is perhaps $5,000. • Replacement with an equivalent structure usina structural elastic and composite materials (no wood) to limit maintenance would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000. • Replacing it with a smaller playground using selected structural plastic and composite material could be as low as $70,000 to $100,000. A combination of these options could be considered. Some sections of the play structure could be removed, adding totally new structures in their place, and other sections could be left intact and repaired and renovated. , Page 3 Leathers & Associates, Inc. 4 99 Eastlake Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 4 Phone: 607-277-1650 • Toll Free: 877-564-6464 0 Fax: 607-277-1433 Lld 3 Assessing the needs of the community would most likely reveal that this playground is still a much needed component. During the brief period of time on the site I was approached by parents and children attempting to play on the playground and I also did a visual survey of the surrounding streets to find many kids living in the immediate neighborhoods and a very active school, park and YMCA adjacent to the structure. Additionally, precedents for renovation and rehabilitation have been set in your community by the rather large addition and renovation happening at the Reading Memorial School. A commercial type playground, such as the one on Bancroft Street, would not serve the community well and would be a big disappointment. We would be happy to talk with you further about options for the playground. If you have any questions or problems understanding the enclosed details, instructions, or specifications, please don't hesitate to call our office. Respectfully, .I ~ J Barry Segal Page 4 / Leathers & Associates, Inc. 0 99 Eastlake Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 4 Phone: 607-277-1650 • Toll Free: 877-564-6464 • Fax: 607-277-1433 e HAZARD PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM, We us a Priority rating system based on the seriousness of the.situation relating to the level of injury it could cause. Although all problems should be addressed in a timely manner, this rating system provides a way of prioritizing the work that needs to be completed. Priorities 1- 3 are based on current standards and guidelines. Priority 4 is based on our professional judgment. Priority 1 hazards must be remedied immediately. If the recommended corrective measures cannot be done, the item should be removed or disabled until they can. Then Priorities 2 and 3 should be completed. Priority 1 A hazard that can cause a. life-threatening injury, or severe or permanent disability. Priority 2 A hazard that can cause a serious injury resulting in temporary disability. Priority 3 A hazard that can cause a temporary and minor, non-disabling, injury. Priority 4 A situation that does not break national safety guidelines or standards. Page 5 Leathers & Associates, Inc. • 99 Eastlake Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850 Phone: 607-277-1650 4 Toll Free: 877-564-6464 • Fax: 607-277-1433 / , Imagination Station Playground, Reading, MA Inspected by Barry Segal, C.P.S.I., Leathers & Associates 11/4/Q6 Priority 1 ,Hazards Descriptions and Recommendations A Priority 1 hazard is any situation that is life threatening.or could cause severe or permanent disability. . Any Priority 1's must be completed immediately. If the recommended corrective measures cannot be done, the item should be removed or disabled until they can. The following is a list of the Priority 1 hazards found on your playground and how to eliminate them. Page 1 of 3 (p Item Apparatus Description of Condition I Grid Location 1 Throughout Lack of ground cover in most areas (ASTM 13.2.1, 13.2.2, CPSC Throughout section 4, 6.1, 7.2) Surface is mostly hardpan 2 Circular Slide Entanglement hazards caused by gaps between slide sections, 14T between deck boards, and spaces between balusters (ASTM 8.5.6.2, CPSC 9.4) 3 Wave Slide, Entanglement hazards caused by gaps between slide rails and 4NP Tot Slides slide bed, between deck boards, and spaces between balusters 27HJ Mini-tot Slide (ASTM 8.5.6.2, CPSC 9.4) 18HJ 4 Tunnel Slides Entanglement hazards caused by gaps between slide sections, 35LM between deck boards, and spaces between balusters (ASTM 8.5.6.2, CPSC 9.4) 5 Ring bridges Open "S" hooks on hanging equipment present entanglement 18LM,15G, Trolley, hazards; this includes all swings, rings, vertical tire tunnel and 26P,, Swings, hanging tire. 25U,28C, Tire Bronco (ASTM 6.4.5, CPSC 8.2, 12.6.1) 22E, 6 Head Opening between post,and pole presents head entrapment 23GH entrapment (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) between post Opening between balusters on wall adjacent to pull tunnel tire 23JK and pole, connection presents head entrapment entrapment (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) adjacent to pull tunnel, Opening between pole and balusters presents head entrapment 9ST,1413,10M, entrapment (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC.9.6.1) between pole and.baluster, Opening between diagonal balusters presents head entrapment 6NP entrapment (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) between suspension Opening between horizontal boards presents head entrapment 7NP bridge (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) balusters, entrapment in Opening between pickets presents head entrapment (ASTM All fence horizontal 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) pickets opening in space tunnel, entrapment Opening between tires connections presents head entrapment 7RS between fence (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1) pickets Tire cubes, Opening between spokes of wheel presents head entrapment 10M, 20B Steering (ASTM 6.1.1, CPSC 9.6.1). wheels Page 2 of 3 tad 7' Item Description of Recommendation 1 Replenish with appropriate ground cover to 12" depth under and directly adjacent and within the use zone of all play events. 2 Within 21" of the slide entrance: • remove and replace decking so there is no space between deck boards; • close the gaps between balusters by adding 2x6 boards behind them, between the bottom of the handrails and the (new) decking. Caulk all gaps between the slide entrance section and between slide sections. Caulk gaps between boards with Duramix (call office for information) or silicone caulk In the future, you may consider replacing this slide with a new plastic slide. (Call our office for cost and other details.) Within 21" of the slide entrance: • remove and replace decking so there is no space between deck boards; • close the gaps between balusters by adding 2x6 boards behind them, between the bottom of the handrails and the (new) decking. Caulk any gaps where the side rails meet the slide bed, and at the top of the slide where it meets the deck. Caulk gaps between boards with Duramix (call office for information) or silicone caulk Remove the tot slide and close of rail area. In the future, you may consider replacing this slide with a new plastic, slide. (Call our office for cost and other details.) 4 Consider replacing this slide with a new plastic slide. Call our office for cost and other details. If you choose to replace the slide, remove the existing slide and block off the resulting opening per detail drawing # 63. If you choose to keep the slide: Within 21" of the slide entrance: • remove and replace decking so there is no space between deck boards; • close the gaps between balusters by adding 2x6 boards behind them, between the bottom of the handrails and the (new) decking. Caulk any gaps where the side rails meet the slide bed, and at the top'of the slide where it meets the deck. Caulk gaps between boards with Duramix (call office for information) or silicone caulk The spaces between all the 2x4s used to build this slide cause entanglement hazards. Therefore, for the length of the slide, sheath the interior with 2x6s, or 2x4s or 5/4 Trex boards, with no gaps. Refer to the attached photos for guidance. 5 Close "S" hooks using an "S" hook closure or appropriate tool or remove all "S" hooks, Close so gap to within the thickness of a dime a or replace with clevis clamps ( call office to purchase clevis clamps) 6 To all spaces noted add or laminate a baluster or a 2x4 to space to narrow opening to under 3'/z inches Remove tire cubes and steering wheels, replace tire cube with deck and handrail and replace steering wheel with new steering wheels, call our office for details. Add a picket between two pickets to narrow spacing to under 3'/z inches Page 3 of 3 qd J OC 7 , 51993 d B Y - Report on the Findings of the 1993 Tax Classification Task Force Reading, Massachusetts October 26, 1993 Respectfully submitted: Steven L. Cool, Chairman Elizabeth Klepeis, Secretary µe1 Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 2 of 11 Task Force Report INDEX Section 1 Conclusions of the Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 2 Task Force formation and meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3 Task Force members and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 4 Previous considerations of tax classification in Reading 5 Section 5 Tax classification in other communities . . . . . . . . . . 6 Section 6 Effects of tax classification on other communities . . . . 6 Section 7 Possible effects of tax classification on Reading . . . . . 7 Section 8 Determining the property tax rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 9 Short range impact of tax classification on Reading 10 Section 10 Long range impact of tax classification on Reading . . . . 11 Appendix• A Statements and submissions of individual Task Force members Appendix B Charge to the Task Force Appendix C Records of the Task Force Appendix D Benefits received for property tax paid Appendix E Background - Reading Appendix F Background - General information Appendix G Bibliography Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 5 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 4 Previous considerations of tax classification in Reading The Board of Selectmen conducts a public hearing and considers the issue of tax classification annually in October or November before setting the real estate tax rate for the current fiscal year. The Town of Reading has never adopted the tax classification option and has always applied a single tax rate to both residential and commercial property. A draft copy of the minutes of the November 4, 1992 Board of Selectmen meeting (provided by Bill Burditt) reporting on their deliberation is included in Appendix E. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 6 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 5 Tax classification in other communities Tax classification has been adopted by approximately 30% of the cities and towns throughout Massachusetts. The shifts noted by the Task Force ranged from a low of 5% in Chelmsford to highs of 50% in Wakefield and 70% in Lexington. Lexington is an exceptional case. (See Appendix E.) See Appendices F and G for information and data regarding the values of residential and commercial properties, 'tax rates for each type and other information for the cities and towns of Massachusetts. SECTION 6. Effects of tax classification on other communities The Task Force found no objective study of the effect on property values; business activity, tax revenues and such in communities which have adopted tax classification. Information and reports seem to be largely anecdotal and subjective, and are apt to be biased by the views and interests of persons and organizations expressing opinions. The Task Force cannot identify significant direct cause-and-effect cases in the experience of other cities and towns which have adopted tax classification in recent years. It appears that the general economic climate, availability of real estate and office space and other factors would seriously complicate such a study. q e qJ. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 7 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 7 Possible effects of tax classification on Reading The total amount of property tax collected by Reading (the tax levy) is limited by Proposition 2 1/2, and is unaffected by whether or.not Reading adopts tai: classification. Adopting tax classification only affects the share of the totai tax paid by residential and commercial taxpayers. Just over 90% of property value in Reading is residential - less than 10% is` commercial: Value of residential properties: $1,240,608,666 = 90.18 % Value of commercial properties: 135,029,934 = 9.82 % Total property value: $1,375,638,600 Total Town of Reading tax levy to be paid by residential and commercial property owners: $ 20,689,604 Thus, under tax classification, each $1 property tax saving for a residential property owner.would cost the owner of a commercial property of the same value approximately $9.20 in additional property tax. Further, since the approximate average value of a residential property in Reading is $160,000 and that of a commercial property is $630,000, each $1 saving for the owner of an average-value residential property would cost the owner of.an average-value commercial property approximately $36. Under tax classification, the greatest possible tax rate reduction for Reading residential property would be 82 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, which would cost an additional $7.52 per thousand for commercial property. By adopting the maximum allowable shift of taxes from residential to commercial property under tax classification, example savings and costs would be as follows: Property tax Property tax Effect at current under tax under tax rate ($15.04) classification classification (Maximum shift) (Max. shift) A residential property valued at $160,000: $2,406 $ 2,275 $ 131 less A commercial property valued at $160,000: 2,406 3,610 1,204 more A 'commercial property valued at $630,000: 9,475 14,213 4,738 more (Continued...) Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 3 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 1 Conclusions of the Task Force It is the majority view of the Tax Classification Task Force that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading should not adopt classification in setting property tax rates, and should retain a single tax rate for both residential and CIP (commercial, industrial and personal) property. Reasons underlying this conclusion have been outlined by individual Task Force members in this report in individual statements (see Appendix A), but generally include issues of practicality and fairness. It is the view of the Task Force.that the greatest possible benefit to Reading in the foreseeable future will result from selling certain Town-owned properties. Their sale would both provide substantial revenue to the Town in the near term and would provide growth in Reading's tax base, increasing its available.tax levy under Proposition 2 1/2, and thus providing greater tax revenues without necessarily increasing tax payments for existing residential and commercial property owners. All financial data and calculations used and presented in this report are based upon fiscal year 1993 (July, 1992 - June, 1993) of the Town of Reading.. SECTION 2 Task Force formation and meetings The Tax Classification Task Force was formed by Reading Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner in early September, 1993, pursuant to the wishes of the Board of Selectmen. (See Appendix B, "Charge to the Task Force". The Task Force conducted meetings which were open to the public on Sept. 2, Sept. 9,',Sept. 27, Oct. 7 and Oct. 26, 1993. q-p-G - Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 4 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 3 Task Force members and participants Task Force Chairman: Steven Cool Task Force Secretary: Elizabeth Klepeis Members: Bill Burditt Richard Coco Steven Cool William Goodrich David Hurley Elizabeth Klepeis Michael Linnane Robert Nordstrand Participants: Vincent Gatto Brad Latham Mollie Ziegler Administrative support: David Billard Member, Reading Board of Selectmen Chairman, Reading Finance Committee Chairman, Reading Taxpayers Association Member, Reading Community Planning and Development Commission Member, Middlesex Board of Realtors Finance Director, Town of Reading Vice President, Reading Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Reading Board of Assessors Member, Reading Chamber of Commerce Member, Reading Chamber of Commerce Secretary, Reading Board of Assessors (Representing Mr. Nordstrand at first and second Task Force meetings) Assessor; Town of Reading Z~X 7 Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 8 of 11 Task Force Report An important practical consideration regarding tax classification is the damaging effect which it could have on the Town's efforts to sell certain Town-owned properties to developers, including: - Reading Business Park (the former landfill) - Bear Hill - Pearl Street School - Nike site This property may also become available to the Town of Reading in the next few years: - Camp Curtis Guild Another consideration is the effect which a higher commercial tax rate would have on the willingness of current property owners to improve and/or expand current developments and structures. (See Section 8 and Appendix E.) h Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 9 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 8 Determining the property tax rate The tax rate per thousand dollars of assessed value is computed by dividing the total tax levy for.a class of property by the total value of that class: $20,689,604 = $15.04 per $1000 of assess property value 1,375,638,600 at Reading's current single rate Under tax classification, the property tax rates would be as follows for various shift factors from the minimum (0%, the present state) to the maximum (150%, the maximum allowed): Share of property tax ........paid by........ .........Rate t Shift Residential Commercial Residential Commercial 100 % 90.18 % 9.82 % $15.04 $15.04 110 89.20 10.80 14.88 16.54 120 88.22 11.78 14.71 18.05 130 87.24 1.2.76 14.55 19.55 140 86.26 13.74 14.39 21.06 150 85.28 14.72 14.22 22.56 For example, to compute the property tax rate for a 150% shift under tax classification: Commercial share: 14.72% = 9.82% x 150% (approx.) Residential share: 100% - 14.72% = 85.28% Commercial rate calculation: 14.72% x $20;689,604 = $ 3,045,510 to be paid by commercial properties 3,045,510 = $22:55 per $1000 (approx.) 135,, 029, 934 Residential rate calculation: 85.28% x $20,689,604 = $17,644,094 to be paid by residential properties 17, 644, 094 = $14.22 per $1000 (approx.) 1,240,608,666 y e9 Reading 1993 Tax Classification, October 26, 1993 Page 10 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 9 Short range impact of tax classification on Reading It is the opinion of the Task Force that in the short term - the next 2 to 3 years - that adoption of tax classification and separate tax rates could have the following effects: - Impose undue hardship upon small businesses. - Complicate and delay the sale of Town-owned property. - Inhibit investment by current commercial property owners in rebuilding, expanding and improving current properties and premises. - Cause businesses which are unprofitable or only borderline profitable to decide to close in Reading. - Increase turnover in business property usage and occupancy. - Benefit residential property owners only slightly. - Increase the number of appeals by commercial rate taxpayers for abatements, which would require the Town to expend funds to address those appeals. The Task Force noted that two-thirds of Reading businesses are assessed at less than $1,000,000, and that the average value of those businesses is approximately $240,000. Reading.1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page 11 of 11 Task Force Report SECTION 10 Long range impact of tax classification on Reading It is the opinion of the Task Force that the effect of tax classification on Reading in the long term - beyond 2 to 3 years - would be substantially the same as the short-term effect unless a significant change in the composition, of residential and commercial property occurs (e.g., due to development of presently idle property). Should Reading consider adopting tax classification in the future, it should be noted that a new state law (Section 112, Chapter 59, amended by Section 52) allows a city or town to exempt up to 10% of the value of each commercial property employing an average of no more than ten persons. Exercising this privilege would allow Reading to ameliorate the effects of a tax rate shift for the smallest businesses in Reading. A key component of this law - its certification provisions - prevent its application before fiscal year 1995 (July, 1994 - June, 1995). Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-1 of 15 Task Force Report Appendix A Statements and submissions of individual Task Force members Each Task Force member and participant was requested to submit any or all of the following for inclusion in this report: - A statement of his or her personal observations and/or position on the issue of tax classification; - A statement of the observations and/or position of the group or organization which he or she represented; - Any other information which he/she felt would benefit this report. Each person was asked to state explicitly if his or her position differed from that of the group or organization which he or she represented. Such submissions appear either in this appendix or, appropriately identified, elsewhere in this report. Submissions in this section appear in alphabetical order by member or participant's name. q-el 7, t Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-2 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Richard Coco To: S. Cool, Chairman, Tax Classification Task Force From: R. Coco, Chairman, Reading Finance Committee and Member, Tax Classification Task Force Subject: Input to Task Force Report to the Reading Assessors Date: 17 September 1993. References: (1) Memo: Tax Classification Task Force - P. Hechenbleikner dated 1 September 1993. (2) Municipal Financial Data 23rd Edition, Massachusetts Taxpayers Association. (3) FY 1993 Survey of Communities Surrounding Reading Compiled by David Billard, Reading Assessors Office. As the Reading Finance Committee representative to the Tax Classification Task Force, I submit the following letter for inclusion in the Appendix to the Task Force report to the Reading Board of Assessors. The Task Force was formed in early September 1993 to review and recommend to the Reading Assessors whether Reading should continue to tax both Residential and Commercial, Industrial, Personal (CIP) properties at the same rate or adopt, under the provisions of Massachusetts G. L. Chapter 40, Sections 55 and G.L.Chapter 59, Section 5.5C a Classified,Tax Structure, different tax rates for Residential and Commercial (CIP) properties. The charge to the committee is stated on the first page of Reference (1). Historically Reading has never differentiated between Residential and Commercial properties in its property tax rate. The tax rate imposed has always been the same for either type property. The primary question that needs to be answered by the Task Force is what impact either positive or negative would Tax Classification have on Reading residential and commercial properties. The effect of Tax Classification is to shift a percentage of the cost of operating town government from residential property owners to owners of commercial and industrial properties. An average magnitude of the tax shift can be calculated by using the average cost of a Reading residential or commercial property assessed at $175,000. (Continued...) qx131-1 Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-3 of 15 Task Force Report (Submission: Richard Coco, continued) From the data presented to the Task Force through Reference 1, the tax bill for a residential property assessed for an average of $175,000 would have an annual tax payment reduction that ranged from $32.00 for a 10% shift to $159.00 for a 50% shift between residential and CIP properties. A 50% shift is the maximum allowed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts statue. For a corresponding commercial property assessed at the same average value of $175,000, the additional taxes would range from $292.00 for a 10% shift to $1,465.00 for the shift. Both these calculations are based on Reading's FY 1993 Tax Rate of $15.04 per thousand. While the effect of such a tax shift is difficult to measure, the common argument that has been raised in opposition to Tax Classification is its potential impact on the development of Reading's business district and the merchants who operate these businesses. The Reading business district is clustered in two areas; Main Street from the center of Town south to Route 128 and Haven Street from Main Street to the Railroad Station. The businesses in these areas are primarily small operations which cater primarily to resident of the Town. Due to the proximity of major malls, retail outlets and other commercial/industrial properties in adjourning towns, the make-up of the Reading business district has not markedly changed for several decades and will most likely not change in the foreseeable future. The trend in fact in recent years has been toward establishments that provide quick services such as convenience marts, fuel, fast food and clothes cleaning rather than labor and capital intensive operations. What effect would Tax Classification have on these business districts? We need to look at surrounding communities to try to gain this insight. The tax rate data compiled by David Billard of the Reading Assessors office (Reference (3)) for surrounding Towns showed that 30 percent of these municipalities have two different tax rates for residential and commercial. The list includes towns such as Stoneham and Lexington which apply Tax Classification and Lynnfield, North Reading and Winchester which do not use Tax Classification. All of these towns have approximately the same ratio (10/1) of residential to commercial property as Reading. For any of these surrounding towns, the difference in the higher commercial tax rate has not resulted in a negative impact on business. Stoneham which applies tax classification is developing into the regions commercial center with several large new commercial outlets and malls. While Winchester, which does not use tax classification, has developed a very attractive down town business area. Tax rate alone has not been the only driving force in the business development that has occurred in either of these cases. (Continued...) qzlqo. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-4 of 15 Task Force Report (Submission: Richard Coco, continued) While of limited scope this data does suggest that whether the tax rate imposed on commercial properties in Reading remains set at the same rate as residential or is increased by the adoption of Tax Classification, little if any measurable change to the current make-up of the Reading business district is anticipated to occur. For the residential property owner, adoption of Tax Classification will have a much important effect, a reduction in real estate taxes. Again using the average $175,000 Reading residence as an example there is a potential saving of $159.00 annually on a residential tax bill if the statutory maximum Tax Classification percentage is adopted. While from a monetary perspective this amount can"be considered small, the physiologically effect could be much greater. Savings of $100 to $200 annually would be viewed by Reading taxpayers as a positive signal that the elected members of Reading's tax setting boards (Assessors, Selectmen) are sincere in their efforts to minimize the tax burden on-homeowners. With Reading homeowners already paying higher real estate taxes than surrounding Towns, such a reduction in residential taxes because of tax classification would at a minimum be viewed as a positive action to more equitably distribute the costs of operating Reading government between residential and commercial properties. In light of the recent approval by Reading voters of a 2 1/2 override to provide an infusion of much needed additional income to Reading, such a tax reduction could be interpreted as a way of balancing out the tax increase caused by the override. This can only work to improve the relationship between the town's residents and its elected boards. Finally, Reference 3, provides details of the tax rates for over 300 Cities and Towns of Massachusetts. The data showed that approximately 30 percent of these communities also apply different tax rates for residential and commercial properties; a percentage close to that for communities surrounding Reading. For these reasons I believe that the Reading Board of Assessors should recommend adoption of Tax Classification by the Reading Selectmen. In so doing, Reading would join approximately 100 other communities in Massachusetts which have adopted the Tax Classification provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws cited earlier. It is left to the Board of Assessors to recommend what tax rate difference between residential and commercial property should be imposed. I urge the other members of this Task Force to support this position. In my opinion the negatives if any, are overshadowed by the positive message that will be sent to the resident and taxpayers of Reading in adopting a different tax rate for residential and commercial properties. A message that will not be lost if and when their support :is again sought for an positive override vote to provide the necessary funds to effectively operate Reading town government. Lf -0/ S- Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-5 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Steven Cool It is my conclusion that the Town of Reading should retain its single tax rate for residential and commercial properties. I view this as both an issue of fairness and equity and one of practical and pragmatic importance to Reading. Having carefully examined the benefits which businesses and homeowners in Reading receive for the taxes which they pay, it is clear that in at least two cases - schools and trash pickup - homeowners receive far more in return for their taxes than do businesses. It would be clearly discriminatory and unfair to ask commercial property owners to pay an even greater proportion of the tax levy. In practical terms, the efforts to sell several Town-owned properties for development are enhanced by Reading's current commercial tax rate of $15.04, which is well below the average commercial rate, about $17.70, of eleven other communities which the flask Force selected to examine. Those communities are Chelmsford, Lexington, Lynnfield, Needham, North Andover, North Reading, Stoneham, Wakefield, Woburn, Wilmington and Winchester. The market value of any property reflects the costs of ownership, and clearly property taxes are a significant factor in a potential buyer's determination of the worth of any property. The Town should not hamper its ability to sell its properties nor lower the values of those properties to prospective buyers by adopting higher commercial property tax rates. Similarly, the Town should not discourage current property owners from rebuilding, expanding, remodelling or otherwise increasing the value of their commercial property, which actually increases Reading's tax base and raises the limit on Reading's tax levy. While Reading's single tax rate of $15.04 is slightly above the average residential tax rate of $14.55 of the eleven other communities mentioned, if Reading were to adopt tax classification with a shift of 130% (for example) in order to lower its residential rate to that $14.55 average it would thereby push the commercial rate to $19.55, which would then be among the highest of those eleven communities. I urge the Board of Assessors and Selectmen to retain the current single tax rate. (These points reflect my views alone and do not reflect the official position of the Reading Taxpayers' Association.). q.e/(o - Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-6 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Reading Taxpayers' Association (Prepared by Steven Cool) The RTA officially declines to take a position on the issue of Tax Classification for the Town of Reading at this time. The RTA reiterates that its principal concern remains the high level of taxation in the Town of Reading in general., coupled with a lack of discernible significant effort by the Town to reduce or curb the rise of expenditures. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-7 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Vincent Gatto Personal Response - Vincent Gatto, Member of Chamber of Commerce and Business owner (Reading Physical Therapy). I was asked to help represent the interest of business owners in the Town with others in the Reading Chamber of Commerce (Michael Linnane and Leslie McGonagle). While I have little experience in town fiscal matters and have not had time to truly study these issues I do have definite impressions and opinions. Having recently expanded my business and invested in commercial property in Reading I am not very enthused at payinga marked increase in taxes above what I have planned. It will take several years to "grow into" my new space. Further expenses could seriously strain the financial viability of my business. I also ask myself "to whose benefit should I shoulder this added bill?" Answer: "to the taxpayers of Reading". Well I have an allegiance to the Reading.taxpayers who are large part of my client base. However, when push comes to shove in terms of financial survival, what choice would I have but to increase my fee for services to these same people. Presently I am not at the maximum allowed rate and would rather keep these rates where they are. Business owners who rent space in Reading have the anxiety that their rent will escalate with increasing taxes. How much of a strain will this be to businesses? Certainly there is already vacant commercial property in town. Would this continue or will further costs be passed on to consumers. How do we assess the outcome of such a scenario resulting from tax changes? Certainly the business climate today is far less dynamic from the 801s. Is the town willing to burden its relatively small sector of its taxpaying commercial base (10%) at the risk of stunting business viability and thwarting an influx of a larger "CIP" base which ultimately would lighten the residential burden? Looking at other towns on 1993 Task force Survey Sheet, Winchester and Lynnfield have one tax rate and both are lower than Reading's. North Andover and Needham have dual rates, both lower than Reading's. Towns with the greatest difference in tax rates are Lexington, Wakefield, Wilmington,and Woburn. Of these the 90/10 tax base which is Reading's composition is matched only by Lexington. Business in the commercial/retail center in Lexington however, is highly inviting to the consumer. Reading and Main Street businesses do not seem to receive the same benefits. In other words, what benefit would business receive by paying more in taxes? In closing, 1) as, a business owner, I view this as a substantial increase in my expenses without any real benefit to myself and residential taxpayers. 2) I hope that the Task Force does not create a dichotomy in the Town between Business Interests and Residential Interests. Both Sectors are interested in the Town's overall well being and certainly are interdependent. q -,e i E. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-8 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: William Goodrich POTENTIAL IMPACT OF INCREASED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TAXES ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The non-residential tax base in Reading has steadily declined over the last 10 years. In 1982, 13% of the real estate tax base was commercial, industrial, and personal property. In 1990, it was 11%. Most recently,'in fiscal year 1993, it was 10%. The potential short term impact of raising the commercial, industrial, and personal property (CIP) tax rate will be on existing businesses in the Central Business District and South Main Street. The majority of these businesses are local retail, small professional office, fast food or local restaurant establishments, or automotive service businesses. A significant increase in taxes would most likely cause some of these businesses to close and further contribute to the declining non-residential tax'base trend of the last ten years. The Community Planning and Development Commission through the Master Plan adopted in October, 1991 has proposed increasing the CIP tax base through economic development of the following areas: 1. Central Business District 2. South Main Street Redevelopment 3. Industrial District 4. Camp Curtis Guild 5. Longwood Farm Central•Business District's economic vitality can be enhanced by encouraging and promoting economic restructuring through the Main Street Program. A business recruitment effort would attract a more regionally appropriate and complementary mix of businesses. Existing building owners would also be encouraged to develop suitable multiple uses of business, office, and residential through rezoning. A primary goal of this recruitment effort would also be to attain a more diverse retail mixture than presently exists. South Main Street Redevelopment planning is directed towards increasing regional market-oriented retail and office businesses. Developable land in this area can be increased by rezoning isolated residential properties along South Main Street to business. Potential added tax revenue is $600,000 based on 35 acres of commercial development and current tax rates. Potential long term impacts of raising the CIP tax rate may be additional time to realize development or less intensive development of undeveloped parcels in the Industrial District, Camp Curtis Guild, and other areas such as Longwood Farm. (Continued...) y ,e / 7 0. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A~9 of 15 Task Force Report (Submission: William Goodrich, continued) The Industrial District currently is significantly underdeveloped with current tax revenues of $535,000. Town Meeting has recently expanded the Planned Unit Development (PUD)'bylaw to the remainder of the Industrial District including the proposed Reading Business Park development. The total development potential in this zoning district is $3.9 million at current tax rates (approximately 8 times the existing). Camp Curtis Guild is comprised of 195 acres of developable uplands, but is currently State-owned and utilized as Massachusetts National Guard Headquarters. Town of Reading currently receives Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes from the State on an annual basis. Existing zoning is 5-40 Residential. If the PUD zoning overlay was approved for this parcel and full potential ' development was realized, the estimated tax revenues are $5.7 million. In addition, other large land areas in close proximity to I-93 and I-95 could be developed by regionally oriented commercial businesses. As an example, Longwood.Farm is currently zoned as S-20 Residential, and consists of 40 acres of developable uplands. With future access available to I-93 via the proposed Industriplex Interchange, this land parcel if developed to its full potential under the PUD zoning bylaw would yield $1.7 million in tax revenues at the current rate. In summary, the non-residential tax base is currently too small and vulnerable to realize increased tax revenue via.a higher CIP tax rate. An improved mix of regionally oriented businesses in the Central Business District and South Main Street coupled with long term economic development of underutilized parcels in the Industrial District, Camp Curtis Guild, and areas such as Longwood Farm would increase the CIP tax base percentage to a level which may, at a future time, be appropriate to consider raising the tax rate. X 2,01 Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-10 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: David Hurley Regarding previous considerations of tax classification in Reading: I do not believe past deliberations are well-documented enough to have a bearing on this report. Regarding the status of tax classification in other communities: Status of tax classification in other communities should be included, but with a general warning about possible mistakes. The % other than 100-110, 125-150 shift although accurate mathematically, should be omitted since they don't appear to agree with the law and it indicates some figures may be incorrect. Regarding the effects of tax classification on other communities: No strong information has been available on this subject. Certainly, Reading itself has a higher residential tax rate than many adjacent communities. Regarding the short range impact of tax classification on Reading (2-3 years): Short Range Impact: 100% No impact. 110% No impact on residential or commercial values, small businesses. Possible negative impact on sale of town owned property. 125% Possible negative impact on commercial values, small businesses and sale of town owned property. 150% Most definite impact on commercial values, small businesses and sale of town-owned property. Regarding the long range impact of tax classification on Reading (beyond 2-3 years): I believe that in the long term a 110% shift would offer some tax relief to the homeowners and still not negatively impact the business and commercial community. I believe a higher increase would be unfair to the large number of small commercial tax payers who use less of town services and contribute substantially to the Town in many other ways. (Continued...) Y-eOIJ. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-11 of 15 Task Force Report (Submission: David Hurley, continued) Regarding the possible effects of tax classification on Reading: As a marketing agent, I would consider it critical to give Reading's Selectmen every tool and opportunity to market town owned property for the highest possible value by bringing in large capital improvements in place of smaller investments. The relatively attractive commercial rate we now, offer could in fact be a carrot the Selectmen can use. I believe that the opportunity to market this property is more important than any possible benefit of tax classification at this time. Regarding the conclusions of the task force: In my opinion, the classification should probably remain as it is at least until a large percentage of town owned property is sold. If a shift were to be voted now'or in the future, it is my opinion that the'110% shift best represents the fairness issue to the commercial community, while still offering some benefit to the residential homeowners. q-jez~-, Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-12 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Elizabeth Klepeis and David Billard DRAFT: Information regarding tax classification in Reading PREPARED BY: Finance Department Historically, the tax classification has been considered as a benefit and burden issue. As you shift the taxes bourne by the reidential class to the commercial, industrial and personal property classes, the shift ultimately eliminate some tax burden to the residential property owners while creating more of a burden for commercial, industrial property owners. The town is presently trying very hard to develop and expand the commercial tax base. The issue of classification is not just distribution, but also the need to create a tax environment that would be most attractive to commercial developers. Though classification insights can be gained in comparing Reading's real estate makeup with that of similar communities, it has to be emphasized that the option to classify'is a vote by the Selectmen-in each municipality. Many other factors may enter into the vote. In some towns, political questions and not practical questions are the overriding considerations. Using FY1993 data, the classification scenarios can be plotted as follows: CIP TAX RATE $22.561 * $21.061 $19.551 $18.051 $16.541 $15.041 150 140 130 120 110 100 SHIFT I I I I 1 1 $14.22 $14.39 $14.55 $14.71 $14.88 $15.04 RES RATE For every increment of shift equalling 10%, the residential tax decreases 1.09% A maximum shift of 50% would equate to a 5.45% reduction in the residential rate. The issue of classification not only shifts the burden of the real estate tax, but also increases the personal property tax accordingly. This tax on personal property is paid by commercial and industrial businesses in the town. Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-13 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Leslie McGonagle, O. Bradley Latham and Michael Linnane READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P. 0. BOX 771 READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 September 27, 1993 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ma 01867 Re: Tax Classification Dear Board Members, The Reading Chamber of Commerce opposes the establishment of different real estate tax rates between commercial and residential property. No increase in revenue would result to the Town from different tax rates. Some of the reasons for the Chamber's position are as follows: 1. Fairness: Based upon the figures that we have seen, having different tax rates would result in a very slight real estate tax reduction for residential property, but would have a significant, negative impact on business property taxes. There are already serious problems with vacancies in commercial property. An enlarged tax burden would further increase the negative cash flow in many properties and would cause mortgage defaults in others. Imposing a greater tax upon the Reading business community at this time is inequitable. The tax benefits to the Town from commercial real estate currently exceeds the cost of Town services to those properties. Commercial properties do not utilize the Reading school system or trash removal services. The small businesses located in Reading are having trouble surviving. Imposing upon them such a tax increase would be devastating and could prove fatal to some businesses., Many commercial landlords have the right to pass real estate tax increases onto the tenants. In such cases, the burden of the tax increases will filter down onto the small business tenant. 2. Town Land Sale: Establishing different tax rates would negatively impact the Town's efforts to sell town-owned commercial land. John Sanguinet of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue had observed that "businesses tend to stay away from municipalities with split rates." It is not by oversight that more than two-thirds of Massachusetts municipalities do not have different tax rates for various types of property. They recognize the issues of fairness and the inappropriateness of such varying rates. (Continued...) Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-14 of 15 Task Force Report (Submission: L. McGonagle, O. B. Latham and M. Linnane, continued) Based upon the foregoing, we request that the Selectmen not establish different classifications/tax rates between residential and commercial property. Very truly yours, READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE /s/ Leslie McGonagle Leslie McGonagle President cc: Tax Classification Task Force q_.e;0 Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page A-15 of 15 Task Force Report Submission: Mollie Ziegler Tax Rates Value % Comp- Resi- Town (10001s) Residential osite dential CIP Shift Winchester 1,896,117 91.3341 13.86 Lynnfield 936,768 90.5407 13.72 Reading 1,375,639 90.1842 15.04 Lexington 3,035,262 90.0000 15.61 13.64 26.95 170 Stoneham 1,304,334 88.0000 14.55 14.26 16.30 112 North Reading 851,254 82.0300 15.60 North Andover 1,626,108 79.0000 12.62 12.39 13.63 108 Chelmsford 2,174,033 75.0000 16.26 16.00 17.08 105 Needham 2,870,383 74.8000 13.14 12.65 14.85 113 Woburn 2,550;476 70.0000 13.35 9.34 19.39 Wakefield 1,626,596 67.7697 15.04 12.98 22.05 150 Wilmington 1,566,397 45.0000 14.56 10.62 21.12 145 Notes: "Composite" Tax Rate: The single rate imposed by a town or, in the case of towns with dual rates, the single rate which would apply if dual rates were not used. * : Lexington is understood to be grandfathered for a higher shift. 1~ -e ~-6? Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page B-1 of 19 Task Force Report Appendix B Charge to the Task Force The following memorandum and accompanying information and materials were prepared and presented to Task Force members by Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner at the first meeting of the Task Force on September 9, 1993. 9.r2 027 ( OFRFq~f~c Town of Reading y . 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 639' 1NCOR'O~P . FAX: (617) 942-9070 MEMORANDUM TO: -Tax Classification Task Fame FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner , DATE: September 1, 1993 RE: Review of Issues - Tax Classification 1993 TCTF Report Page B-2 of 19 TOWN MANAGER (617) 942-9043 During the Prop 2 1/2 Override discussion, it was suggested that a detailed review of the issue of tax classification should be made prior to the Selectmen's hearing on this issue in late Oc- tober. With the blessings of the Board of Selectmen, I am hereby estab- lishing a Task Force to do this review. In determining the people to be on the Task Force, I have tried to think of all who might have interest'or concern in,this issue. The following are appointed as the members of the Task Force: 1. Board of Selectmen member - Bill Burditt 2. Chamber of Commerce member - 3. Member of the Tax Payers Association - Steven Cool 4. Board of Assessors member - Bob Nordstrand 5. Finance Committee member - Dick Coco 6. Finance Director - Beth Klepeis 7. CPDC member - Bill Goodrich 8. Middlesex Board of Realtors member - David HVrley The charge to the committee will be: to review the issue of tax classification; to thoroughly understand the short and long range impacts of tax classification; to understand what other communities of comparable size and economic make up are doing with regard to tax class- ification; and - to make a report to the Board of Assessors which will then be presented with the Assessor's report to the Board of Selectmen. The Task Force work needs to be done no later than October 15 in order to be considered as part of the required hearing process that the Board of Selectmen will have on the issue of tax clas- sification. David Bi.llard, the Appraiser, will provide staff support to the Task Force. n p a 1993 TCTF Report Page B 3 of 1 - . TAB +>ChASSIFICATION ' T ASIA--FORCE - - - Name- Addres Phone # Fax # - Bill- Burditt .35 . Holly Road 944-615911 vs- 508-858-9837f" w ;tG7 -g83b ~ Steven Cool JAYI Prospect St. 944-7595 942-759) Dick Coco 4 Fremont St. 944-2591Y1 258-4656 IV?NGC 11 25%-~76 Beth Klepeis 68 Tennyson Rd. 944-6332 90 -L /yt~f ~~D - -1 y ya vj !i• Bil3. Goodrich 38 Terrace Park 944-8961 David HArley S /VIA+rf ST 944-7820 g Y - ((v © Bob Nordstrand`??? Dave Billard q-,e ;0 j t J 1993 TCTF Report 1 Page B-4 of 19 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER G.L. 40. SECTION 55 AND G.L. CHAP. '59, 5.5C as it aoolies to towns The Commissioner of Revenue shall certify as to whether the Board of Assessors is) assessing property at full and fair'cash value. The Selectmen must annually conduct a public hearing on the issue of allocating the local property tax levy among the four classes of- real property and personal property. In determining these percentages, the Selectmen must first adopt a residential factor. The residential. factor adopted mush be an amount not less than. the minimum residential factor calculated by the Commissioner. IA residential factor of "i" will resu~t'in the taxation of all property at the same rate. A residential factor of .less than "1" will result in residential property owners being taxed 'at a proportionally lower share of the tax levy (lower tax rate). if the residential factor adopted is greater than 100 percent, the commercial industrial and personal property tax rates will be lower than-•the residential rate. When adopting the residential factor, the Selectmen may -select a percentage for•Class Two (open space) that may not be less than 75% of its ~ull and fair cash value.percentage. The residential class alone absorbs the discount. However, since the assessors have classified no property as open space, the Selectmen.do not have to address this issue. The third issue is the residential exemption. The Selectmen may'vote an exemption of no more than 20. percent of the average assessed value of all class one, residential parcels which are the principal residences of the property taxpayer. This exemption has the effect of shifting taxes from lower value owner-occupied homes and condominiums to higher value homes since the shift in taxes is-within class one.- The classes of properties are: i Class one Residential Class Two Open Space Class Three Commercial Class Four Industrial Class Five Personal Property qjo 1993 TCTF Report Page B-5 of 19 TASKS FOR SELECTMEN IN CLASSIFICATION HEARING. (See Legal Summary) (1) Set Residential Factor (See Pages.1 thru 9 ) (2) Set Open'Space Discount (See page 10) (3) Decide Whether to have a Residential Exemption (See'Page 11 thru 14). (4) Commercial Exemption (See Page 15). 1993 TCTF Report Page B-6 of 19 I SET RESIDENTIAL FACTOR INFORMATION TO DETE~MINE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FACTOR Summary of Information Contained on Page 3: (1) 90.18% of Reading's property is residential CIO ;2) 9.82% of Reading's property is commercial, industrial, and 1 personal property (CIP) (3)' Most personal property bills (402) are paid by small businesses. (4) . In Fiscal Year 1993, Reading can raise a maximum of $20,689,604 on the tax levy, using-a tax rate of 15.04. (5) The maximum share which can be apportioned to CI -P (Commercial, industrial, and personal property) is 14..7237%.J- (.6) Therefore, the minimum share of the $20,689,604 tax levy which can be apportioned to residential is 85.276316. (7) The minimum residential factor is the minimum residential share divided by'thi~ total % of residential property: 85.2763 = 94.5579 90.1842 2 LI-e -3 1, Ralctp ~,~$a2°~ TL _ 52$5 fl,. 010 7 Up,TtMA •43 4.g4~3l0 v.. ~,p,SS 24®, $1,2ao s4$'~° $'~g 4$3.42 $2,a34,85A'~5 0.4040°1° a pas so 7 25.. 14 $~8. 604;44 Rest( en8at VA 400 ` $24'630' pp8t►s~'~ $15•'i~ x'135'434, 20,6$g•6~'4fl Cetctal g,12ti3'g tti~at 7, g,1,375638'640 P't F`op ,638,64cs--' $1$?5 r Le RAT'~1O L~ LtM~. L~ • MUM SSE Mt~tMt3M s~ ACTOR . M REgtp~N"~' F Mt~1MU - AV 6gg,$Oa AV 15•~ _ . 2fl.695•~ 5,83? ~4.7237,85.2763 ` " 94•`9 W to n Q ~o K 1993 TCTF Report Page B-8 of 19 FORMULAE FOR TAX RATES Summary of Information Contained in Page 5: (1) Column 1 shows the tax rate and amount of taxes to be raised if residential and CIP tax rates are the same (ie. 1000 . The Department of Revenue refers to this as a residential factor of n1a(2) Column 2 shows a 10°s shift from residential to CIP (or 110°x) (3) Column 3 shows a 25% shift from residential to CIP (or 1250. (4) Column 4 shows a 50% shift from residential to CIP (or-150t)' (5) The residential. tax rate decreases at a much slower rate than the CIP increase. (6) Page 6 and 7 show the detail of the actual taxes per $1,000 of valuation for different valuation levels in $25,000 incre- ments. 4 FORMULA FOR TAX RATE R+O TAXES X RES FACTOR =RO TAXES DIV BY R+O VAL = TAX RATE TOTAL TAXES LESS RO.TAXES =CIP TAXES 'DIV BY CIP VAL = CIP RATE TAXES. R+O W C+1+P. TOTAL TAXES R= RESIDENTIAL 0= OPEN SPACE C= COMMERCIAL I= INDUSTRIAL P= PERSONAL PROPERTY .-4~- (k) 100% $18065$,752.85 100.0000% $18,658,752.85 $19240,608,600 $15.04 $20,689,604.00 $18,658,752.85 $2,030,851.15 $135,030,000 $16.04 -9b $18,658,752.85 $2,030,851.15 $20,689,604.00 110% $18,658,752.85 98.7888° -X18,432,758.04 $1,240,608,600 j . $14.86. $20,689,604.00 .$18,432,758.04 $2,256,845.96 $135,0309000 $16.71 $18,432,758.04 $2,256,845.96 $20,689,604.00 125% $'C8,658,752,85 '06.9720% $18®093,765.82 $1,240,608,600 .$.14.58 $20,689,604.00 $18,093,765.82 $2,595,838.18 -$135,030,000 $19.22 $18,093,765.82 $2,595,838.18 M p •$20,689,604.00 15036, $18,658;752.85 93.9439% $17528,760.12 $10240,50.8,600 $14.13' $20,689,604.00 $179528,760.12 $3,160,843.88 $135,030,000 . $23.41 $17,528,760.12 $3,160,843.88 $20,689,604:00 r k4l EXAMPLES SHOWtNG-IMPACT OF BURDEN SHIFT TAX PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE ' RATES VALUE TAXES FROM 100% % VALUE. TAXES FROM 100% VALUE TAXES FROM 100% 100% - RESIDENTIAL 15.04 , 100,000 1,504 125,000 •1,880 1501000 2,258 COMMERCIAL 1#.04 , 100,000. 1,504 . 125,000 11880 150,000 2,256 110% RESIDENTIAL 14.88 100,000 1,488 18 125,000 1,858 23 150,000 2,229 27 COMMERCIAL .18.7.1 100,000 1,671 11671 125,000 21089 (2091 150,000 2,507 (250) 125% RESIDENTIAL 14.58 100,000 1,458 46 125,000 .1,823 58 150,000 2,187. 69 COMMERCIAL 19.22 100,000 1,922 44181 125,000 2,403 (523) 150,000 2,883 (8271- 150% RESIDENTIAL 14.13 100,000 1,413 91 125,000 1,788 114 1150,000 2,120 137 COMMERCIAL 23.41 100,000 .2,341 (837) 125,000 2,928 (1,046) 150,000 3,512 (11250). TAX PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE -RATES VALUE TAXES FROM 1009E VALUE TAXES FROM 100% VALUE TAXES FROM 100% 100% _ y RESIDENTIAL 15.04 175,000 2,832 200,000 31003. 250,000 3,760-- COMMERCIAL 15.04 175,000 2,632 200,000 31008 250,000' 3,760 110% RESIDENTIAL 14.88 175,000 2,x01 32 200,000 2,972 36 250,000 3,715 45 COMMERCIAL. 16.71 175,000 2,924 (2921 200,000 '.3,342 (3341 250,000 4,178 (4171 125% . m w RESIDENTIAL 14.58 175,000 . 2,552 81 200,000 2,918 92 250,000 3,845 115 y COMMERCIAL 19.22 .175,000 3,384 (732) 200,000 3,844 (838) 250,000 4,808 11,045) 150% . RESIDENTIAL 14.13 175.000 2,473 159 200,000 2,828 182 250,000 3,533 228•" • " COMMERCIAL 23.41 175.000 4,097 (1,405) 200,000 4,682 (1,874) 260,000 5,853 (2,093). EXAMPLES SHOWING IMPACT OF BURDEN SHIFT (CONT4 TAX PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE RATES VALUE tAXES FROM 1009E VALUE TAXES FROM 100% VALUE TAXES FROM 100% . 100% RESIDENTIAL 15.04 300,000 4,512 350,000 5,264 . 400,000 6,016 COMMERCIAL 15.04 300,000 4,512 •350,000 5,264 400,000 6,016 110% RESIDENTIAL 14.86 300,000 4,458 --64 350,000 5,201 63 440,000 5,944 72 COMMERCIAL -18.71 300,000 5,013 4-(501) 350,000 5,849 (584) 400,000 " 6,684 (668) 125% RESIDENTIAL 14.58 300,000 4,374 . 138 350,000 5,103 161 400,000 5,832 184 COMMERCIAL ` 19.22 300,000 5,768 (1,254) 350,000 6,727 (1,463) 400,000 7,688 (1,672) 150% RESIDENTIAL 14.13 300,000 4,239 ' 273 350,000 ,1,946 _ 319 400,000 5,652 384 COMMERCIAL . 23.41 300,000 7,023 (2,511) 350,000. 8,194 (2,930) 400,000 9,364 (3.348) v TAX 'PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE PROPERTY VARIANCE RATES VALUE TAXES' FROM 100% VALUE TAXES FROM 100% .VALUE TAXES FROM 100% - (0096 - - RESIDENTIAL 15.04 500,000 7,520 750,000 11,280 11000,000 15,040 COMMERCIAL 15.04 500,000 7,520 750,000 11,280 1,000,000 15,040 110% ' RESIDENTIAL 14.86 500,000 ' 7,430 90 750,000 11,145 135 1,000,000 14,860 180 COMMERCIAL 16.71 500,000 81355 (835) 750,000 12,533 (1,252) 1,000,000 1.6,710 (1,670) • 125% RESIDENTIAL. 14.58 500,000 7,290 .130 350,000 10,935 345 1,000,000 14,580 460 COMMERCIAL 19.22 500,000 9,610 (2,090) • 750,000 .14,415 (3,135) 1,000,000 19,220, (4,180) 150% `RESIDENTIAL 14.13 500,000 7,065 458. 750,000 10,598 683 1,000,000 14,130 910 ~j COMMERCIAL. 23.41 500,000 11,705 (4,185) 750,000. 17,558 (6,278) 1,000,000 23,410 (8,370)- • R m w ~o rt 1993 TCTF Report Page B-12 of 19 DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES FOR COMMERCIAL.AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY Summary of Information Contained0APage.9: (1) The thirty properties having the highest values contain 6Wk of the total value. (2) The remaining 16,3 properties contain the other. 3316 of the total value and these properties therefore have the relatively small, average value of-$234.,460. (3) A significant number of residential properties have a higher value than this average of $234,4.60 for 84°s of the Town's commer- cial and industrial properties. (4) Assuming the 150°k shift, the maximum average savings for a residential owner would be $159.86. (5) To save the residential. owner an average of $159.86, the Commercial Industrial owner would have an increased average tax of $2,388.38__ rte- J D r° 3d~o 8.. COMMERCIAVINDUSTRIAL - FY93 DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES VALU E RANGE QUANTITY PCT, CUM PCT. LESS THAN 100,000 21 10.88 10.88 100,000 TO 150,000. 24 12,44 23.32 150,000 TO 200,000 21 10,88 34.20 200,000 TO '250,000 15 7.77. 41.97 ' 250,000 TO • 300,000 1$ 9,33 51.30 300,000 TO 350,000 17 8.81 60.10 350,000 TO 400,000 17 8.81 68.91 . 400,000 TO. 450,000 10 5.18 74.09 450,000. TO 500,000 5 2.59 76.68 500,000 TO 600,000 7 3.63 80.31 - 600,000 TO 700,000 6 3.11 83.42 700,00o r - TO 800,000 4 207. • 85.49 800,000 TO .900,000 3 1.55 87.05 900,006 To 1,000,000 0 0.00 87.05 - 1,000,000 TO 2,000,000 17 8.81 95.85 OVER 2,000,000 8 4.15 100.00 , 193 100.00 TOTAL CA VALUATION 116,724,000 AVERAGE CA VALIATION 604,788 MEDIAN VALUE - 285,350 - RANGE 34,600.TO $13,931,400 CA MEDIAN VALUE 285,350 RESIDENTIAL AVG 175,670 015.04 4,291.66 015.04 2,642.08 @23.41 6,680.04 014.13 2,482.22 MAXIMUM INCREASE 2,388.38 MAXIMUM SAVINGS 159.86 TO SAVE THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER A MAY MUM OF $159.86 m w THE AVERAGE COMMERCIAL INDUTRIAL ®WNER WOULD HAVE TO PAY 32388.38 W . MORE THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID UNDER ONE TAX RATE. o fib ~n , 1993 TCTF Report Page B-15 of 19 III RESIDENTIAL VXEMPTION EFFECT OF A RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION Summary of Information Contained on Page 12 & 13: (1) The Selectmen may vote an exemption for principal residences of up to 20% of the average assessed value of all class one properties. (2) Class one includes owner occupied homes and condominiums. (3) The exemption would shift taxes from lower value homes and condominiums to higher value homes. (4) The figures in Appendix F show examples of the shift for 10!k exemptions and 2015 exemptions. (5) With a 10 % exemption, to save the lower valued homes $123, the higher valued homes would have to pay $363 in added taxes. (6) With a 2016 exemption, to save the lower valued homes $275, the higher valued homes would have to pay $811 in added taxes. (7) The owners of many of the lower valued homes already have exemptions and deferrals of taxes. (8) Low income owners of all homes, no matter what the value, have the option of applying for exemptions and deferrals. di q--,o, 4/ cotp • f+jg3 TOl OF pN OF V~ ~ v • nun ts2 1~2 VA O VALISEG3 50.000 s • 2sAs 105 39.66 .0.01 603 Z1r1AN ~$S' TO 004 76.Q00 1000 16s 17.07 1 ~ 6.97 91.11 25,56 50, -to 76,000 SO 1250 1b®•Ot~O 29 7.46 31 1..0 29.16 100.00 100.004 't s12o 1'6,000000 0 0,? .5 0.;4 1 15 + TO A.175.000 2 0 ,000 100.00 416 ps . '[C3tAa GE Cp%y00 YA~ M~,vA~us . N 40,A61,1Q0. 0a 90 00 as `O ro w rA ~ 1 O V r. o ~ r w t V _ V SINGLE FAMILY HOMES - FY93 DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES VALUE RANGE QUANTITY PCT. . CUM PCT. LESS THAN 900000 - 25 0.40 0.40 100000 TO 925000 979 2.87 3.27 925000 TO 150000 9485 23.82 27.90 950000 TO .975000 2978 34.94 62.04 975000 TO 200000 9903 97.70 79.74 200000 TO 225000 561 9.00 88.74 225000 TO 250000 396 5.07 93.81 250000 TO 275000 '969- • 2.79 96.52 275000 TO 300000 93 9.49 98.09 300000 TO 325080 . - 62 0.99 99.01 325000 TO 350000 26 0.42 99.42 350000 TO 375000 17 0.27- 99.70 375000 TO 400000 9 0.94 99.84 OVER 400000 10 0.96 900.00 6233 900.00 TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY VALUATION AVERAGE ASSESSMENT MEDIAN VALUE 9,094,954,000 • 975,670 X65,300 53% OF THE VALUE FALLS BETWEEN $950,000 AND $200,000 85% FALLS BETWEEN $925,000 AND $225,000 27.% ARE LESS THAN .$950,000 AVERAGE ASSESSMENT OF A TWO FAMILY NOME AVERAGE ASSESSMENT OF A THREE FAMILY HOME 970,898 980,893 °v W b~ H ~ y V ~ O r'f') fD h+ O 110 " ct 1993 TCTF Report Page B-18 of 19 A RE31DE?nlAL EXEMPTION OF UP TO 0 IMPROVED RESJ PROPEi1TtE8 20% OF THE AVERAGE MWDU T L X RES. EXEhWMN ASSESSMENT MAYBE ADOPTED. TM ~ VALUE DECREASE EXEMPTION FAVORS THE PROPERTY TOTAL I= VALUE OWNER WITH AVALUE BELOW THE NET VALUE AVEIIAGE AND PENALIZES THE RESIDENTIAL TAXES PIOPERTY ABOVE.THE AVERAGE. TAXES / NET VALUE THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT N READW3 FOR FY4315 #170.818. 10% EXEMPTION 10% EXEMPTION 7,044 17.081 120,318.684 1.240.808.800 . 1,120.290.038 18.868,765 18.85 20% EXEMPTION 20% EXEMP IO 7.044 34„182 240.837.128 1.240.808.800 999.971.472 -•18.869.763 1s.ea VARIANCE VAR ANCE TAX PROPERTY FROM FULL TAX PROPERTY . FROM FULL PATS VALUE TAXES VALUE RATES VALUE TAXES VALUE PFIOPEK Y VALUE 15.04. 100.000 ' 1,644 16.04 100.000 1,504 LESS EXEMPTION . (1700811 (34.1621 ADJUSTED VALUE 18.88 82.919 1.581 123 18.88 86,838 1,229 275 PROPEm VALUE .15.04 130,000 1.965 15.04. 130.000 1.065 -LE83'EXEM TWN • 117,0811 04.1821 ADJUSTED VALUE 18.88 112.919. 1:881 74 18.88 96.838 11788 167 PROPERTY VALUE 15.04 150.000 4256 116.04 160,000 2,258 LESS EXEMPTION (17.4811 04.1821 ADJUSTED VALU9 • 10AS 132.919 2,214 42 18.88 116.838 2.182 04 PROPERTY VALUE 15.04 175.000 2.832 15.04 176.000 2.832 LESS EX9A"TiON . (17.0811 IK1821 • ADJUSTED VALUE 18.88 157.919 2.831 ` 1 18.88 140.838 2.828 . 4 PROPERTY VALUE ' 16.04 190.000 =.858 16404 1901000 2.968 LESS EXEMPTION 07.081) ( 04.1821 ' ADJIUSTED VALUE 18.88 172.919 2,881 (231 18.68 165,838 2,908 4=1 PROPERTY VALUE 15.04 225.000 3,384 15.04 225.000 • 3.384 LESS EXEMPTION (17;0811 04,1821 ADJUSTED VALUE 18.88 207.919 3.484 (601 18.88 190.838 3.681 (177) PROPERTY VALUE 15.04 260.000 3,740 15.04 250,000 3.780 LESS EXEMPTION (17.0811 04,182) ADJUSTED VALUE 18.88 232.919. 3,880 41201 1848 216.938 4,028 1=% PROPMrV VALUE 15404 300.000 4,612 16.04 300.000 4.612 LESS EXEMPTION 417.0811 04.1821 AbJU87ED VALUE 18.88 282,919 4,713 0011 18.68 205,838 4,981 µ4a1 -PROPERTY VALUE 15.04 400.000 e.018 15.04 400,000 8.018 LEGS EXEMPTION 117,6811 04,1821 ADJUSTED VALUE . 18.88 382,919 8,379 I= 18.88 385.838 0,827 68111 101 14 Y 1993 TCTF Report Page B-19 of 19 IV COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION . SECTION 112. Said chapter 59 is hereby amended by inserting after section 5H the following new section:- Section 61. With respect to each parcel of real property classified as class thres, commercial, in each city or town certified by the Commis- sioner to ae assessing all property at its full and fair cash valuation, and at the option of the board of selectman or mayor, with the approval of the city council , as the case may be, there shall be an exemption equal to not more than ten percent of- the value of the parceliprovided, however,. that such exemption shall only apply to property that is occupied by a` business that, at that location and all others combined, had an average annual employment of no more than ten during the previous calendar year as certified by the commissioner of the department of employment and train- ing and the assessed valuation of which is less than one million dollars. This exemption shall be in addition to any exemptions allowable under sect- ion five. The value of exemptions granted under this section shall be bourne by the combined value of class three commercial property and class four industrial property. The guidelines for the implementation of this statute have not been issued: Given the time period that is necessary for the issuance of the guidelines, it may or may not be available to Cities and Towns for FY1994. 15 Reading 1993'Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page C-1 of 13 Task Force Report .Appendix C Records of the Task Force The Task Force held five open meetings at Reading Town Hall on September 2, 9 and 27 and October 7 and 26, 1993. The agenda of meetings #2-5 and minutes of meetings #1-4 follow. The charge to the Task Force (Appendix B) comprises the agenda for meeting #1, Sept. 2. Minutes for meeting #5 of the Task Force., October 26, are not included here since this meeting was to be held solely in order to accept this report before its presentation to the Board of Assessors on October 26. The original of this report and papers, records and correspondence of the Task Force will be filed with the Reading Town Clerk upon conclusion of the work of the Task Force. Page 1 of 1 ~65 ~2 , ( Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Halloran, Michelle Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:11 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: Cormier, Jim Subject: Washington Street-No parking here to corner Sir- After meeting with DPW and Engineering on location, we recommend making the "No parking here to corner" signs on Washington Street a distance of 50 feet from the street line/corner on both ends (Woburn and Prescott). This measurement takes into consider the placement of driveways and property lines while providing a safe entrance/exit onto the roadway. Also, is this topic on the agenda for tomorrow (12/12/06) BOS meeting?? And if so, do you want the Chief and me there? -Michelle #64 ~Ipf 12/11/2006 RELEASE OF EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that the Town of Reading, a municipal corporation, having its usual place of business at 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts (hereinafter "Town"), acting by and through its duly elected and constituted Board of Selectmen, as the holder of a dominant estate in a 20' drainage easement running over, under and upon 37 Joseph Way in the Town of Reading; WHEREAS this easement was created for drainage and is shown as a 20' drainage easement on a plan of land entitled "Reading Manor in Reading, Mass. For Hillcrest Realty, Inc, dated March 15, 1954, Dana F. Perkins & Sons, Inc., C. E. and Surveyors, which plan is recorded with the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in Book 8281, Page 201 and which 20' drainage easement to be abandoned is shown on a plan to be recorded herewith entitled "Plan of Land in Reading, Mass. Showing Easement Abandonment" Prepared for Stephen & Julie Voegelin Middlesex Survey Inc. Land Surveyors 13 Park Street, North Reading, MA 01864 Scale : 1"=20' Date: Sept. 20, 2006, which plan also depicts easements of which the Town of Reading is the beneficiary and which are not being abandoned; WHEREAS, Article 12, as approved, by the November 13, 2006 Subsequent Town Meeting, a certified copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, authorized the Board of Selectmen pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40, §3 to release all of the Town's right, title and interest in said drainage easement; NOW THEREFORE, the said Town of Reading, acting by and through its duly elected and authorized Board of Selectmen, for good and valuable consideration, hereby releases and abandons all of its right, title and interest in and to, above and below, over and across the easement area shown on the plan hereinabove mentioned, to Stephen A. and Julie A. Voegelin and to their successors in title and assigns. WITNESS our hands and seals this day of December, 2006. TOWN OF READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN Ben Tafoya, Chair James E. Bonazoli, Vice Chairman Stephen Goldy ~9l Camille Anthony Richard W. Schubert COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Middlesex, ss. December , 2006 On this day of December, 2006, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared proved to me through satisfactory evidence of, identification, which was , to be the persons whose names are signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. Notary Public My commission expires: ~yZ- Reading Police Department James W. Cormier, Chief of Police MEMORANDUM Date: October 30; 2006 To: .Town-Managees Office Cc: Lillian Marino From: Chief Jim Cormier RE: Renewal of licenses 2007 (d Entertainment, Amusement, Laundromat, Taxi & Livery, Class 1, 119 111 Motor Vehicles Approved By: Chief C i Approval Initial The Police Department has reviewed the applications, and business listings. for license renewal and would recommend approval of all licenses. COMMON VICTUALLER LICENSEES Aroma Cafe 607 Main Street Bangkok Spice Thai Restaurant 76 Haven Street Burger King 357 Main Street Casa kery 351 Main eet Christopher's Restaurant 580 Main Street Dandi-Lyons 1331 Main Street Dunkin' Donuts 454 Main Street Emperor's Choice 530 Main Street Green Tomato 42 High Street Harrow's 126 Main Street Inside Scoop 162A Main Street Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Mandarin Reading Restaurant 296 Salem Street Meadow Brook Golf Club 292 Grove Street Bagel World 323 Main Street Bear Rock Cafe 26 Walkers Brook Drive Caf6 Capri 355 Main Street Chili's Grill & Bar 70 Walkers Brook Drive Colombo's Pizza & Cafe 2 Brande Court Dunkin' Donuts 273 Salem Street Eastern Chinese Restaurant 672 Main Street Fuddruckers 50 Walkers Brook Drive Gregory's Subs & Deli 162 Main Street Hot Spot in Reading 85 Haven Street Jimbo's Famous Roast Beef 454 Main Street Last Corner Restaurant 49 High Street McDonald's 413 Main Street Meadow Brook - Snack Bar 292 Grove Street q--1--2--? COMMON VICTUALLER (Continued) Music Room Coffee House Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Pizza World 583 Main Street Reading Ice Arena Authority 51 Symonds Way Reading Station Coffee Depot 32 Lincoln Street Richardson's Ice Cream 50 Walkers Brook Drive Savory Tastes Caf6 601 Main Street Starbucks Coffee 24 Walkers Brook Drive Twin Seafood 591 Main Street The Wine Shop 676 Main Street AUTOMATIC AMUSEMENT LICENSEES Jordan's Furniture, Inc. d/b/a Jordan's Duck Derby 50 Walkers Brook Drive Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Reading Veteran's Association 37 Ash Street Reading Overseas Veteran's, hic. 575 Main Street P & S Convenient Store 287 Lowell Street Quiznos Sub 505 Main Street Reading Overseas Veterans 575 Main Street Reading Veterans Assoc. 37 Ash Street Roman's Macaroni Grill 48 Walkers Brook Drive Starbucks Coffee 228 Main Street Town Pizza & Deli 648 Main Street Venetian Moon 680 Main Street V 3 ENTERTAINMENT LICENSEES Bear Rock Cafe 26 Walkers Brook Drive Cafe Capri 355 Main Street Chili's Grill & Bar 70 Walkers Brook Drive Colombo's Pizza and Cafe 2 Brande Court Emperor's Choice Restaurant 530 Main Street I-Max Theater 50 Walkers Brook Drive Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Mandarin Reading Restaurant 296 Salem Street Meadow Brook Golf Club 292 Grove Street Music Room Coffee House c/o Knights of Columbus 11 Sanborn Street Reading Veteran's Association 37 Ash Street Reading Overseas Veteran's Association 575 Main Street Roman's Macaroni Grill 48 Walkers Brook Drive Savory Tastes Caf6 601 Main Street Venetian Moon 680 Main Street CLASS I, II AND III MOTOR VEHICLES LICENSEES 128 Tire, Inc. 459 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 128 Sales, Inc. d/b/a 128 Ford 88-96 Walkers Brook Drive Reading, MA 01867 Brown's Auto Repair 35 Lincoln Street Reading, MA 01867 Reading Auto Sales 550 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 Reading Square Auto Body, Inc. 9 Chapin Avenue Reading, MA 01867 North Reading Auto & Recon, Inc. d/b/a Gray's Towing' 4 Minot Street Reading, MA1867 TAXI AND LIVERY LICENSEES Town i of Reading 11 Lothrop ad Big Boy Limb 88 Eastway Pram 40 Orange Street LAUNDROMAT Lava Laundry 47 High Street Cam Motors 244 Ash Street Reading, MA 01867 Reading Foreign Motors, Inc. 4 Minot Street Reading, MA 01867 GGasco, Inc. d/b/a Reading Motors 1337 Main Street Reading, MA 01867 2~1s_ 1 PROPOSED NO PARKING SIGNS: WASHINGTON STREET tit O,'bO f h NX N No Parking Here to Corner No Parking Here to Corner No Parking Here to Corner \ V 4 ' X e 6SV. .Zaf .n ~ ~ Legend 1 Parcels Parking Buildings f ` Paved Railroad Unpaved Driveway Roads Sidewalks Paved Unpaved yt . ~eA~ 6 W"6 A'AMI 'ill Y \ Map by.: Town of Reading Map date: 12112106 Parcels valid 1/1/06. Roads, buildings, sidewalks, drive- ways, & parking areas from aerial photos taken spring 1998• oni Data are for planning purposes only. 0 25 50 100 15o c3M* 1 1 ~ e • N A L42r. Joint Finance Committee/Board of Selectmen Meeting November 28, 2006 The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present from the Finance Committee were Chainnan Andrew Grimes, Vice Chairman Charles Robinson, Members Paul Bolger, David Greenfield, George Hines, Harold Torman and Michele Williams. Present from the Board of Selectmen were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James Bonazoli, Selectmen Camille Anthony, Stephen Goldy and Richard Schubert. Also present were Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner and the following list of interested parties: Russell Graham, Jay Lenox. The Chainnan of the Finance Committee and the Chainnan of the Board of Selectmen called their respective Boards to order. Discussion/Action Items Addison-Wesley Site - The Town Manager reviewed the proposal to conduct a charette for the Addison-Wesley site so that the Town could proactively address the future uses of this property. He reviewed the process by which a consultant would have a group charette to determine from the coirununity what the "common ground" is for the site, would then develop several alternative scenarios for development, and would then go through a process of determining community consensus on the best of the alternatives. The consultant would then "tweak" the final proposal. The estimated $50,000 cost would not include development of a Zoning By-Law amendment. Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikrner suggested that the Town could request a $50,000 mitigation measure from the developer so when the land is developed, these funds come back to the Town. Board of Selectmen Chainnan Ben Tafoya mentioned that if a OR project were developed on the location, substantially more than this $50,000 would come back to the towns based on the amount of housing units. Finance Committee Member Paul Bolger asked what was the current zoning for the property? The Town Manager stated that it was zoned for office and hotel, not residential or retail. He also mentioned that the Addison-Wesley Working Group strongly agreed that a mixed use blend was the ideal development. Selectman Richard Schubert added that these factors were important to consider: Tax revenues to the Town, impact on services provided by the Town, location and access questions. He asked what the appropriate Town role was, and indicated that a collaborative community effort was required with Town leadership. Finance Committee Member Michele Williams asked what was the deliverable of a design charette? The Town Manager stated that it would be a series of drawings and data. They would identify common ground, scenarios to implement the common ground, and a consensus of the community. There was still an undecided question as to whether a Zoning By-Law would be drafted from this effort - and if it should be done before or after engaging a developer. Sal- Joint Finance Committee/Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 28, 2006 - Paae 2 Finance Committee Vice Chairman Charles Robinson spoke of his view that the FINCOM Reserve Fund was not meant for this type of expense as it was not an unforeseen emergency. Finance Committee Chairman Andrew Grimes asked why the January 30th or February 6th time frame was important. The Town Manager stated that the property owner was not sure what the intention of the developer was at this point. He pointed out that the Finance Committee could ask a Special Town Meeting to replenish the $50,000 back into the FINCOM Reserve Fund. Finance Committee Member George Hines agreed that this was not an appropriate use of the reserve fund, and that there was no need for a rapid time frame. He reminded the group that this was private property, and that the A-W Working Group was the public process for this issue, and no further action was appropriate. Board of Selectmen Chainnan Ben Tafoya noted that W/S Development has exclusive rights, and they are paying a fee for these rights. He also noted that the property owner Pearson had'no role in the A-W Working Group. The Town Manager added that Pearson was willing to participate in the design charette process. Chuck Robinson and George Hines asked if this participation was on the financial side, and the Town Manager stated that it was not. He reminded the group that over the many years, Pearson was a very good corporate citizen, a point to which all agreed. Finance Committee Member David Greenfield noted that the agreement between W/S Development and Pearson must have an end date. George Hines asked the Board of Selectmen if they would individually stand behind the results of the design charette process no matter what the conclusion was. The Town Manager stated that the process was designed to bring out common ground. George Hines noted that regardless of the connnon ground, there would be some minority position. Selectman Richard Schubert pointed out that mixed use was a strong consensus and that if the old W/S proposal went to Amiual Town Meeting, it was not a good choice. Selectman Camille Anthony added that an affordable housing element should be part of the final design. The requirements of 40R for the Town would be a steep 66 housing units per year. Board of Selectmen Vice Chainnan James Bonazoli stated that the community needed healing over this issue. He asked if the $50,000 request was enough, or whether $70,000 would be needed. The Town Manager stated that the higher figure might be needed for a civic engagement process but the design charette was less expensive. George Hines suggested that the cheapest alternative was to do this all locally though the MAPC. Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the expertise needed for this process was beyond our capabilities, and that an outside party would help to heal and establish trust. The Town Manager added that local knowledge was vital to the process. Finance Committee Member David Greenfield stated that the time frame was too short. George Hines again asked that the effort be done locally with Chris Reilly. He again asked if the Board of Selectmen would stand behind the results of such a process. ~z , Joint Finance Connnittee/Board of Selectmen Meeting - November 28, 2006 - Paee 3 Selectman Stephen Goldy declared that he would stand behind the findings, and acknowledged that there would likely be an inevitable small group that did not agree with the results. He noted that we needed the experts now, and we need closure on the matter as soon as possible. Michele Williams also expressed concern over the timing and time frame. Board of Selectman Vice Chainnan James Bonazoli noted that we needed to decide about the existence of a Zoning By- Law as that would drive the time fraine. Paul Bolger asked that we learn of the terms between W/S Development and Pearson - at least as to time frame. He stated that there would be no point in doing any design process if the terns would go on for another five years. He also stated that we already knew the answer that such a study would get - mixed use for the property. Finance Committee Chainnan Charles Robinson again stated that this was not a FINCOM Reserve Fund item. Board of Selectmen Chairman Ben Tafoya asked if they should do an RFP pending funding, and ask a later Town Meeting for the money. Selectman Camille .Anthony asked that FINCOM vote on the request. A motion by Greenfield seconded by Grimes to approve the Reserve Fund Transfer of $50,000 to fund a design charette for the Addison-Weslev site was not approved by a vote of 1-6-0 with Grimes in the minority. A motion by Anthonv seconded by Schubert to adjourn the Board of Selectmen Meeting of November 28, 2006 at 9:10 p.m. was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. A motion by Grimes seconded by Williams to approve the Minutes of October 18, 2006 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. A motion by Robinson seconded by Torman to approve the Minutes of October 25, 2006 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. A motion by Williams seconded by Hines to adjourn the Finance Committee Meeting of November 28, 2006 at 9:20 p.m. was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary . _ ~0 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Number: 2006-2 TOWN OF READING This is to certify that DON COWAN d/b/a BRIAN'S FATHER'S HOT DOGS'to sell hot dogs, etc. at Eric's Greenhouse, 1090 Main Street, Reading, Mass. on December 16 and 17, 2006, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. IS HEREBY GRANTED A PEDDLER'S LICENSE in said Reading, Massachusetts and at that place only and is 'subject to the following conditions: Set up on right side of driveway next to entrance to outdoor sales area. This license is granted in conformity with the statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and expires on December 17, 2006, unless sooner suspended or revoked. In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official signatures. 407 Date Issued: December 12, 2006 6 a, - ~4n11RCFS ~Tyo MASSACHUSETTS ATER ESOURCES UTHORI Charlestown Navy Yard 100 First Avenue, Building 39 Boston, MA 02129 9S~ACN*1S~ Frederick A. Laskey Telephone: (617) 242-6000 Executive Director Fax: (617) 788-4899 TTY: (617) 788-4971 November 27, 2006 Camille Anthony -m Chair, Board of Selectmen Town of Readings 16 Lowell Street Reading MA 01867 Z3 Dear Chairwoman Anthony: w v As you know, Governor Romney has used his 9C authority to make a number of cuts to the Commonwealth's FY2007 budget. Among the items cut was the $25 million rate relief fund which provides debt service assistance to water and sewer agencies across the state. The MWRA's share of this funding was expected to be $18.7 million. This program is critical to keeping water and sewer rates affordable in MWRA customer communities. A shortfall of this magnitude mid-way through the fiscal year could force a further rate increase for FY2007. For Reading, this could mean an additional $170,128. Rest assured that we will be working closely with our Advisory Board and the Legislature over the coming weeks to have this cut reversed. It was only with your assistance that we have been successful in getting this program reinstated at the current level of funding. Please let your local legislators know how important this program is to the ratepayers in your community. Sincerely, Frederick A. Laskey Executive Director Ka . ® Printed on 100% Recycled Paper GARY S. BRACKETT ELAINE M. LUCAS JUDITH A. PICKETT JAMES T. MASTERALEXIS STEVEN C.FLETCHER* ELLEN CALLAHAN DOUCETTE DONNA GORSHEL COHEN HEATHER C. WHITE *Also Admitted in ME and CO BRACKETT & LUCAS COUNSELORS AT LAW . . 19 CEDAR STREET WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01609 508-799-9739 Fax 508-799-9799 WINCHESTER OFFICE 165 WASHINGTON STREET WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01890 781-729-1500 Fax 781-729-5444 E-Mail: ECDoucette@BrackettLucas.com Please respond to the Winchester office. November 27, 2006 Melanson, Heath & Company, P.C. Corporate Place 93 100 Burtt Road Andover, MA 01810 } Re: Town of ReadinL-, Massachusetts - Fiscal Year 2005 Dear Sir/Madam: W - Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager of the Town of Reading, has requested that we submit this report to you in our capacity as Town Counsel to the Town of Reading. We understand that our response should indicate matters that existed as of June 30, 2006 and to the date of this response. Pendim4 or Threatened Litigation (excluding unasserted claims and assessments) William Brown, et al v. Town of Reading: Middlesex Superior Court Action No. 06- 2881. This is an action filed by two residents of the Town of Reading seeking to overturn the imposition of the town's Stormwater Management fee. While the action is to invalidate Town Meeting's action in adopting a Stormwater Management fee and the Board of Selectmen's establishment of the actual fess to be charged, the Plaintiffs appeal could result in the return of any fees already imposed and paid to the town. This matter is being handled by Town Counsel's office. NTD, Com. v. TXL Comoration, et al: Middlesex Superior Court Action No. 06-00760. This is an action filed by a low level subcontractor on the Reading Memorial High School construction/renovation project. The plaintiff seeks payment of monies allegedly due and owing from the town's general contractor for services/equipment rendered on the project. This matter is being handled by Town Counsel's office. 8wl/ Miscellaneous Matters: The Town is involved, as a defendant in a limited number of matters concerning litigation involving appeals by abutters to the issuance of various land use permits, including but not limited to the issuance of special permits, site plan review and variances. These suits will not result in the assessment of monetary damages against the Town. The Town of Reading is currently a defendant in one matter where the landowner is directly suing the Town of Reading for failing to issue a special permit/variance. Again, this suit will not result in the assessment of monetary damages. Claims made pursuant to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act have been forwarded to the Town's insurance carrier and are the responsibility of their counsel. Therefore, Brackett & Lucas are not in a position to assess the risk of liability to the town for these claims. 11. Unasserted Claims and Assessments We are not aware of any unasserted possible claims or assessments which are probable of assertion. Should we determine, in the course of our duties, that a disclosure of possible claims and settlements should be made, we will advise Mr. Hechenbleikner accordingly. III. Other Matters As of June 30, 2006, there was an outstanding amount of $7,038.39 owed to Brackett & Lucas. Please advise at your earliest convenience if you require any additional information regarding these matters. Very truly yours, Ellen Callahan Doucette . ECD:sjs cc: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Gary S. Brackett, Esquire S?sz. Rea~ji,ng CO-OPERATIVE BANK I'D 53 C 180 Haven Street Reading, MA 01867-2969 tel 781.942.5000 fax 781.944.1401 December 1, 2006 www.readingcoop.com Dear Neighbor(s), First I want to introduce Reading Co-operative Bank to each of you as based on your proximity to downtown and your interest in the community; I thought knowing the history of the Bank might be of interest to you. As you will see in our 100 year booklet enclosed, Reading Co- operative Bank was created for the residents of Reading. You may have heard that Reading Co-operative Bank has the need for additional staff parking. This need has been exacerbated by the parking rule changes that went into effect in September. Our employees are currently parked in the abutting residential neighborhoods wherever they can find an unregulated space and walking into downtown regardless of the weather. Based on our existing and anticipated needs the bank took steps to secure our presence in downtown Reading by purchasing the burned down three-family lot on Sanborn Street. The lot is abutted by commercial properties on three sides. In addition, we have obtained the support of the only residential abutter as he preferred our proposed use as it was less disruptive to him then its prior use. There were a few families that were concerned that changing the zoning for this lot would create a domino effect and they could find a commercial zone next to their home if left unchecked. Based on that feedback, the bank has identified and is proposing the creation of an employee parking overlay zone to be applied to this parcel in lieu of seeking to rezone the parcel to commercial zoning. Permission for any parcel to be placed in the parking overlay zone would require Town Meeting approval and the Town Planning department would have to approve the site development plan and issue a special permit. It is my strong desire to accommodate the needs of our employees and to continue to prosper with Reading at our present location at 180 Haven Street for the next 120 years. Therefore I respectfully request your support of our endeavor as it goes forward to Town Meeting. If you have any questions or wish to contact me directly, I can be reached at 781-942.5006, ext 108 or by email at jthurlow@readingcoop.com. Yours truly, ' V Julieann . Thurlow President CEO C MEMBER FDIC MEMBER SIF We've been at The Center of Reading For 120 Years Reading Co-operative Bank has been in the heart of Reading-both literally and figuratively-for a century and nearly a quarter. That's right. The Bank was founded in 1886, so now we're well into our second century of service to the people of this town and surrounding communities Did you know the Bank was started specifically to help its neighbors? Reading Co-op's founding purpose was "to enable the working men and women to purchase a home." _ This was a revolutionary idea in the 1800s when the banks of the time-including the established banks in Reading-weren't interested in extending mortgage money to small, local borrowers. But a group of prominent Reading residents believed that their neighbors had the right to own their own homes. To make this possible, this group decided to establish a co-operative bank in the community, and they made this announcement to the town: "The Reading Co-operative Bank will hold a public meeting on Monday evening. December 6th. Good speakers will make addresses showing the value of the system. All are invited." This is how that innovative approach to home ownership worked. The first customers of Reading Co-operative Bank subscribed to share offerings; this meant they could build individual nest eggs by saving a set amount of money each month (a dollar was the minimum). And as those savings grew, it made more and more money available to working people for more and more mortgages; in this way, the community was enriched. The forward-looking idea of Reading Co-operative Bank's founders and directors made a significant contribution to town growth in those early days. Today, our co-operative bank still takes that community approach. The share concept, which had served the Bank and the community very well for more than ninety years, was discontinued in 1983 when changes in the banking laws made it obsolete. At that point, however, it became possible for the Bank to offer more loan and deposit products to its customers. Its commitment to the people in the community has deepened as Reading Co-operative Bank continues to offer loans for mortgages, home improvement, personal uses and small businesses. rc,~_ - More than 16,000 customers-9,000 in Reading alone have chosen Reading Co- operative Bank for their savings accounts, checking accounts and CDs. The reasons are straight-forward: many prefer to do business with a mutual bank-(which is owned by its community of depositors and whose funds are insured in full). They are comfortable with its customer-centered philosophy and with the convenience and the business values that only a community bank can offer. Still, a community bank needs to offer the cutting-edge banking amenities that only the most advanced technology can ensure. And we are proud to say Reading Co- operative Bank has more than kept pace with banking technology, assuring our customers of convenience and safety. And speaking of community, do you know how involved Reading Co-operative Bank is in this one? While technology and the industry have created enormous changes in banking in the one hundred plus years that we've been in this location, what hasn't changed is the Bank's commitment to the community it serves. The Bank is an employer of local people; half the staff are Reading residents. We see this bank as an integral -part of the neighborhood and the community. We are quick to recognize community needs when they arise, and we believe the Bank is responsible for taking actions that continue to enrich our town and it neighborhoods. As buildings evolve to accommodate the changing needs of twenty-first century people, you'll see us quietly offering financial assistance, just as we always have. Look at the west end of Haven Street, for example, where M.G. Hall has enhanced Reading real estate. Or see what is happening on the corner of Woburn and Summer Streets where the Unitarian Universalist Church is making room for more members. Mindful of its founding principles, the Bank has established a charitable trust to support worthwhile local endeavors. Reading Co-operative Bank is proud to have made contributions to the organizations listed below. You've known us for years Our building sits near the top of Haven Street, right in the Center of Reading. Store owners and tradespeople still walk over from their businesses to make deposits. Residents from all over town come to do their banking, as they always have, before heading off to shop and do errands in the town's businesses. Reading Co-operative Bank is an established part of the community-a landmark institution that's been a valued part of Reading Center for 120 years. We'd like to be here for at least a century more. Reading people making home ownership and fmancial security possible for other Reading people---that's what this bank has always been about. Written by: Nancy Parson, Writer and Director of Reading Co-operative Bank R c~ 31 Reading Co-operative Bank is Committed to this Community YTD 2007 Grants (Year end April 2007) Reading Memorial High School 500.00 Burbank YMCA Reach Out Campaign 1,554.00 Reading Lions Club Gold Tournament 2,500.00 Reading Lions Club Gold shoe bags 1,519.00 Reading Lions Club Friends and Family Day 200.00 Rotary Foundation 250.00 Deborah Winters Foundation Road Race 2,000.00 Reading/North Reading Chamber Golf Tournament 2,000.00 RNR Chamber "Shop Us First" Gift Certificate Program 1,500.00 Angel Flight Wings of Hope sponsorship 10,000.00 RMHS Football Field Lighting Fund 30,000.00 FYE Aoril 30.2006 Grants Community Parish Nursing 1,000.00 Reading Scholarship Foundation 500.00 Tsuanmi Relief 1,578.00 Angel Flight NE 5,000.00 Mass Bankers Assoc. Charitable Foundation 100.00 Reading Lions Club 2,500.00 Mass Bankers Assoc. Charitable Foundation 250.00 Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce 1,000.00 Community Service Network 3,000.00 Consumer Credit Counseling of Southern New England 500.00 Winchester Hospital Foundation 5,000.00 RCB Charitable Foundation: Hurricane Relief 1,777.00 Reading Lions Club 1,662.00 VNA of Middlesex East Sawtelle Hospice House 500.00 Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce Lighting Fund 1,000.00 J.W. Killam School PTO 500.00 Reading Elder Human Services 500.00 Mission of Deeds 1,000.00 Town of Reading: Recreational Div. 1,025.00 Reading Community Television 3,000.00 VNA of Middlesex East 5,000.00 Angel Flight 5,000.00 NRYSSA (Youth Drug and Alcohol Abuse) 2,500.00 Creative Arts: Jazz Night 1,000.00 Junior Achievement 1,000.00 North Shore Youth Symphony Orchestra 1,500.00 Angel Flight NE 500.00 Jimmy Fund: Red Sox Day 275.00 fc,tk U) ~~U O o U ~ w z U GS HISTORY Late in the fall of 1886, a group of prominent Reading men met to discuss the establishment of a co-operative bank in this small community of approximately 4,000. Meeting at the home of Harry P. Bosson of 91 Prescott Street, these gentlemen elected officers, a board of di= rectors, and three auditors. From that simple beginning, the Reading Co-opera- tive Bank, now a thriving community thrift institution, celebrates 100 years of personalized banking to the three primary communities it serves: Reading, Wil- mington, and North Reading. After electing officers and adopting a set of by-laws on November 22, 1886, the bank notified the commu- nity that "The Reading Co-operative Bank will hold a public meeting on Monday evening, December 6th. Good speakers will make addresses showing the value of the system. All are invited." Harry P. BOSSOn, . community leader, was instru- mental in the I establishmentpf a co-operatiue bank in Reading, a bank which would enable workingmen (and .women) the chance to pur- chase their own homes. C~ 3 >V Several commu- nity leaders met at the Aome of Harry P. Bosson at 91 Prescott Street and founded the Beading co- operative Bank in November 1886. For many years board meetings were frequently held here.. 4 On December 6, 1886, the Reading Co-operatiue Bank held its first share offering at the old South Methodist Church. This building later burned and was replaced by a replica structure. Although the bank had rented quarters, on at least one occa- sion the Boston and Maine depot witnessed a meeting of the board of directors. That meeting, held at the Old South Church, drew a large crowd, "among whom were many ladies." Fea- tured speakers for the evening included Robert Treat Paine of Waltham, one of the men "instrumental in intro- ducing these banks into the state." During the meeting, 401 shares (with a value of one dollar per share) were subscribed. The Reading Chroni- Cie of December 11, 1886, rather prophetically stated: "This is a very favorable start for the bank. The projec- tors did not anticipate a sale aggregating over three hundred shares, and the result of this evening ensures for the bank a permanent success." In its first year of business, the bank's officers voted to forego any salaries for themselves, apparently feel- ing that the new institution's initial success would primarily depend on sound management and a little sacrificing by the officers. However, they did approve the purchase of a table for conducting bank business. It wasn't long before the neophyte bank and its board of directors were approving loans; one of the earliest ones was given in April 1887 to a woman, Carrie I. Mace, who borrowed $1,200. Throughout the Reading Co- operative Bank's history, women have always had ready and equal access to loans. Although the intitial share offering was made at the Old South Church, the officers realized they would need more suitable quarters and voted to hold future meet- ings at the Bank Building, although the earliest records indicate that meetings continued to be frequently held at Mr. Bosson's, occasionally at other directors' homes (such as President Wendell Bancroft), the vestry of an earlier Congregational Church, and even, in an emergency or two, at the Boston and Maine depot. As of January 1894, the Reading Co-operative Bank's meetings were held in the new rooms of the First Na- tional Bank of Reading, located in the Masonic Block (at the corner of Main and Haven streets). In an age of seemingly more palatable rents, Room 9 was secured for $55 a year, excluding heat and light. Just a year later 5 enditure to have roved an ex to be followed by the bard of directors app Soon iced for electricity, safe. th (but suitable) anniversary, the rooms w a used e purchase of lust before its the paying of In November 1887, ltted nd tYie solid position perm $25 a year a e the banks to receive ar, which cam treasurer that first Ye ounted to salaries: the 00EarrningS t from loans, am secretary lines and interes from late $433.05. Built in 1893• the Maspnic Block Buitdin9-s ROOM g housed the Reading 0- 0 er tiue Bank's Oice for many years. 44 founded lust erative Sank was banking The heading C° °p e of co °stern s first decal w banking sy the end of the .this ne Tevolutionary after wealth. in the cOm'~On s simple to us, b ut an to purchase a phllosophY see enable the working ~tantital sums to time tO loaned sub and means; the for its rger banks inence home ~ le of prom successfully for and poop compete buSipesseswas unable to cYl a e pie Subscribed to share little man money in su mount of a set a mortgage tive bank, p _ and N a co-opera they soul dollar t1~e minimum offerings' that is, With a money each month munity as wn their ama ss a nest egg. s returned to the c0 oneY le who desired to hale sub- this m to working poop were also m~nghomes; M. borrowers aces, for o er offers serial si scribers. h the bank no log the backbone of the Sys u bank industn' Rltho g Were ing over ninety years they when signlficant were discontinued t9s3 tom; by obsolete, they ent tot e ntinue to changes made them S original co bank ed; people home However, tine ever cYlang Bank for o erative s wr ich „workingman Reading Co p t and other loan come to the e imprOvemen le live better lives mort etts gages, hom v,,orkingpeop assachus entieth century ociation of Ni P Bosson, help tw 1889, the "'65 with Harry • of that In February formed, the founding Banks wa resent at role. Co-ope prose active ely taking an 7 the banks anSec d most lik ltlatl0r inst MEgT1NC?S NEEDS THE G01N~NE DECADES OVER most often as o, banks were smaller, ly1f.1 t a century ag d larger towns, n ,heir ow dearly cities an did not have pan, con ive soclated `Kith usually erat it unities C°-op n community' rural comrn the Reading ow e of its institution. PIS and p of at least one the row rosPer neetds tog recognize the In June receive timed n to recog No ReadingFren to bega in that community, ale ghboring tow d 'Carpenter and n authorize areh°lde board serial sh first "branch- Boston, of . Money from this the banks emerged _ in any Read Se yrere were 5 many bank also thus maanotrier satellite office d in the capital city, rr1ents, interest, a al pones probably ejoec ing linen who worked to receive pay days 1942 t Boston, tw address- 1902? Stree , Boston d in February S vote Devon TWO other Devonshire Tw and fines at 9 to 2 F.M. 246 from 9 ?,.M. e funct month served this samt. to reflect the es also Water Stree an decade and 112 era, the ~ n began the first The Street anthat same dbefore in poring d ,.high tech' ele d advertise of changes an Although the t program • en,ertainmen of «advertis- of lhis.cen icie and ass mailing loved in Reading Chron Club, a m was app Athletic of Reading board voted to the Reading citizen ery later, the moriti"1' Arid, 2.5o er ing cards to ev Just two years p A JP February 1906 honeat a cost °f $ xpenditure of p acquire a telep computers, an e) - Yi• P day before chine was g ,s grows in po for an adding ma so tyle Meeting, e `mere 82 mee $3 S the years c March 912 A ase in acc°u''to " tween 191 ` u jef incre Se accounts' Trite treasurer's Salary. rs the e in-me $120 to $1,p°°' the only increas cri 1913, it rose from banks the formative yea secretary, A during the urer and treasurer was In fact treas ks first 6 to were the The ban knot d tygjee title, o,wo Pal d employ es. th N at position who held unt ass Bosson owes, V Aunt Newell ri en gdgar • P • 1891, Wh Mr. "AJO en the JOY) , `Nh . Aftde In R ymond December unti11912 1917 lchh until his. wh er the Job ~Un trim 1918 i ihe held until took ov to Mrthat ob, a position reverted J k briefly - was was elected to of 1960, Ban J°hns0 ement in Dece neeReading Go ho Operative of his retlr the Teens, ding last year flaring er fronts, inclu sold :)n °th to the public. D Me bank was busy ds for sale clusion, iberty, bonds, Liberty b°n ar and after its con h t in of the Great `N .dollars' o t" involvernen of many thou a-rt an for our country' so its p doing I. s were also raised at tthha lt y time, comrnit- World war or her m°n imam ehis erspective, the Share m ldincreas ut ,his in p operative that a P(r $ to $40• Tat at Reading G°-men, from $25 5 a clerk bank weekly salary of of the Twenties, thov Bank. es• was $14 perity e necessary that and so the proswth an rd books in `f`J d care During more gTO ,he rec° collect money on to advan- sho wed the same time, lts to take d Sarbara Rwanted This d Aroun prize Me k oath wil ninglon who Santis servic me, fir th st ban le in erative street, g'`'as to e of he Reading Co-op Lowell ton, including located on ing ter, g icl1 was W ilm the cen store, v'Ih locations wit I Drug Store ]n a building of many Dennison completion of Savings N1Cughlin andnk until trie Nlecrianics used by t bank baoccupied wav the gs) in may 192 affirmed, which th Massbanlc ford nectionwasbfrom R°°m $ank ov w e $ e°he~Nilmin 'toll M d s me Reading Go"Operative t Savings _ ics Mec'nan cant - the Plea Building to of Maln and and Lat11ara)- e net of the Masonic at 11-10 ome of L5 a month as 21p e $ariks currently th was $2 made; in 19 foofn Streets re rental den th eove wa ~dreat,light ian1ks ~t includ e the ban cerr'b wen up to $4o lot This would be, location rental fee d telep11one'ed to its prey service, wean d it 51014 was 58, ciion pot a"Y reorne Until 19 colle w on Haven Steeth Reading Reading wag f, ~a epre- In _ Not Nder was the bank ndCd_ Where Fd in oster S 19?2 atc11el its civicniiUding e bank also retained start, Car senty1ile w `rh n acAuiredland n Nr11ile it grew, t11 many ne the bank. ness by helpgTOOkGoil Club- 1915 througe dings first the Me l le iFrankli as it Soon became R { unpre Once the ga11 oUrse' d been a perioountry, the Land only) g ties ha d cheer for the anaperiod e -V'Sen beg all w Crated prospe011 ctober 2ever2 during this Ming ced arket eras w stock rnendous 11ardswip No of ire origin, , Their , lye 18 gu tdin9 Ba doused other also in an busty era This pato shows the building. prior to rengUanon. Ul ar Reading C° even the the ever during Capenny' Cirrie, Earn econom s fiscal health; ne one ever jot:' dida"Y the WTI Cen- tai (A 0 presslon ave to lace operative { the o0 bank did h the C°- help all Me, days o ver, the In 193an effort 10 theRea " we Cd. ©and assets deck fished in 1936 when. d ,made ing $ank was estia in the state' BY old, it 11a an tral tiveban was fifty Years traIBankin co opera five $ank to tre Cen sachuseits• $22,00© Mas ercent ink n°e p close tO litolons in rnan 0 sister ins voted a n° p e th pay help save o{ directors Carne velt, effort to 1110 board le R°°se . In Reading all peop Franklin p • andated co n t'ne salaries of "t u Cr order o f Pra k pay and Other rn d k waive all $l,po°. 1 per and Me bank also ge holders,~p wher11"d1 ei R11ead- closing its rnortga those w ents, th To help 1933 F°r age path' ands to help and lot March 011t111Y I-n backer fed ,many jine's to make their bent over e°PlCayments, Crativ a d tit, es. Many p e, Co °p sion of p e~chang ing t11roUg h h s en s In e therr'v0d a six-rn° xe granted exa to heir 11ornes to ih recei rand we the dee asked 10. greed to give Starting irr, 1919, r10Zens Noue ending Go- Y tom. t r r 10 top re atiue snared quarters s sou-the Me ank to the r€4 in9s ildin9 at Banc erofMal" the ant and Pleas shown t_ streets, photo- here here in to P n grapy 1930 ~S around t to ease a further atternp were ure. on all mortgages lieu of #Oreclos ebruary 1935• bank in interest ratea ring in F vial burdens, ears forecl©s 3 finan t/%foroney measures, beT~94 reduced tO 5 with these in Decern even $146,000- amounted Hoti ever, to $120,863-69 early en the bank properties inMarch 1935 to n rncrease 1835, wh sing and W.ig 0 of hope app eared In er the Federal Hou dividend s ee un when d s p,. e a mortgag fOilowed hares applied to b This was soon to 2% on matured Adnzinistrationpltial dip in 1933 s, rose in the autumn °f raess after an matured share erty and 21/4% on un °and 31/ a 1 of {ore a°a los pecauam°unt 1935 tO 1g9 sales By 0 ct0ber 19 om 1928,111 of them 59 000. _g se en madef at a profit Of $ k was able "a still d boe $6910( 30 and 53 operative Ban eading CO" losses, and many ing r absorb its ward un of its stability, the ression, attitude to weather the Dep d caring strangely to rsonal an selves in e found then' 1930 S• 1939 moaeowners Nvho during the urope in h financial territory ending in B after the #amiliar ressionwas mediately was be im 7 19, Just as the Dep 41, the f'nd 11 On December pa atitanis.vely un" w orld war earl Harbor the com bombing es was also one O# d itsel# in rel united e n the banking industry fours all required f or agar potential iliar waters Of the fam a p damge In surance was Because were photo" at b the bank s records Sav mortgages hel bings all the bark e Woburn 5 Cent er Of born held at th lOyees, Nit man Bang duplicates ei ar-tim staled, wit gut with less th ontroi Rc another ` e fags Bark e the Salary C ally agedtO escap ositions.norm service, p women. In measure' y men in the ed by times assum assistant ~Nith SO mat, elected men were son'eTuck eer was first woman held byber 1944, Dorothy ing DeCetn f the bank' ma treasurer o made accorru l the set" bank er was in again the w~nn pnce ose chief bread onen'er'ts were flies wh and POST call O# their those fam e re al-1 veered the ures Mortgag more loreclos men ns vice of the day as However additional loss the order were drafted. and 1945 at an country or wereen 1940 and hours. banking occurred betw Saturday e ank did ctors VOt to to Nhme, e the war ended, go Chapter the banks d oe records, e dir aves of rCYA Cding to Of Ma. - 15, ACCO Saturdays bas errs, as twith assachus en Saturdays ours close °n resolves of M was op daily h evening Pets and the bank regular prior to that, eXCeptedl. 1947. oaths and one Tuesday summer m some sum M to 2:3o P M ding Co- Were 8:30r 7 B-301 the Fifties, the ?ling savings a month ies became the Mecharlt 011953, the Fort March ks qu arters at the issue early as operative B a dequate eve location; ank en- Bank pr~k be iganna to consider a er that until the 1'w build- the ba every Year ales for a ne en came up nearly rovide arch' estim ber 1955, wh C° the reading " ing• vital in d September aged an It became g The action Bank an Oint banking quar k mutually agreed that ] the Mechanics Savings old operaIIVc 13 o longer feasible. including M of sidered, tio tens we sites were C°nently the locawnhich was several tpres sons store, Woolworth building twins the Masonic d the de#unct Pt will into a bark re p Charlesl an Haven Street p Sto a t located on t aces for COnvertn g downtown are was 1310&1- ~St~m so land Prop- CO 'any, ed excessive decided °nthe 9,400 seem Bank this sought. r"Operative Haven Street reading The read at 18 p ased from the orous erty it now ocCUp1es put nd, more vig area was land in ha drawn up square-foot with the inary plans s Masonic TemplepcludM9 prelim and Frer'ehb of f So 130 g ued, firm ° in JuR , 1957' P's th y the ar hitectural ~s b ton. Construction began the scenes Were at workent the Otylefs going up' ngs whlcYl w°ul building was floors 'Nas Dosi ng f urn s no and a_half Was able bank w structure o11958, the Nrithtw ne the spring the k public: the bank nedto more in space, former, proudly ope expanded Wor ester than in its ears th's new greatly e ~prnunitys °e ex. !For and . to serve its custonne over t tweh ed quarters. , and and reno cramp et the ban additio n bankthe extra room m structure id-tg80s an and d an 13111 ~y the m ird floor and gav e the e oncerv ed tYtc tYI being c sidering panel ded office was eously con ending it nee the Read Iogwas simultan in North R orth E:ren as e bank a branch while the N constructed, th of opening ington. tons did. NriltriCng sh th possibilities Inwilrn zevoted to e W quarters establi ne ver mater'ali andfioding ne ctors that comrnu. ,heading br 63, he board of (Site ecogniZI Reading Go- ington' with the ding expan in March 19 inr o associa ch office Awing towns a bran ea e gr royal s many y and th is app nlty tive Bank missione cholfice opera eds. og com thebCan this bankin wring g oe the 1963. ye ington' Altho bank After sec ente sNovi ember 30, 'years, opened to occuped d for several in , and was op n- ad e uat q al space Avenue. was gtrU arrequ~ e addition N11d(Jlesex Wou t building at 352 its r in 19581 after rooer seventy geas a the bank bu t s own office. in 1986, the budd►n9 bg add enlarged reel ing a andthefrOnt dorrn"er LuindoLUS' k and'°rta do not an~`'ng services CnVistn'as and provided gut bricks period, for reeN, b ues velers cheq es pro thas p tra e in ing including Ile travelers' chequfrom h° Ards a added, 195$' le to travel aW y credit Clubs bath .w in ay for peOp d international g easier fox sec tional an liday sh°ppinthe Read. an era befora Chia ,made ho any ape n'services ristm customers. UnI ©eprovide Was the June the Ch o f es o's bank's hundreds Operative c°nti nu is of the i96on, the b Co-op or even rld Johns ingly'nde in one of the rnaj of 14. Raymo seem umed the er. ring nsQ f rst ass inter 1966 retiren'd chief 1 pia . Job Without surer an r d held them he also trey individua that time, e in an asuime, r ex itn 4 9 ye an ars. Rorie ative Saf op of dutie sof tre the Go -op to twe'lVe rupwla fay Pre nsident oo f Me- riginalch began di'n lion. If, se INC d and Was central Sank w ng the DeprnK ng sys 19J~s 27 C© operative ter an du es in the ba Cldwars, as . t tro xbh dp ,man C~ ang ion of t e°an involve Ns ca lus the advent a , and the ACn re D ed to tern, plus delpfession, a oxldwid Stark Was naExecutive vv t In Korea N1r Leslie lved into Stark men departire ears evo e title ~r- with his over they s`Ident, th d to the that l°b Wh1c' and finally Pr tae title referre in each case" ?resident Vice holds. h the currer'tly Although c°n o d Wilm 1Or19 nection ha~tished been epCesen- throu9 mho re- tatiu. osits ce9ued al of the on be Wilmin9- bank, wn branch ton's O pted o office firs' 19~ at in Middiesex Aue nue. 15 career that in a ix de" spanned d sP.1960)' a codes niond H- R as chief o Johns n officer, operating e bonK de . , ✓ , { gui othsion through b es Great pepr and economic , booer f forgetting of the neu r. ~ r Beds then 1e and the op n ; pe hies i commun service' nks the b~ area. k 1 onsible for • resp the d ?ndra f't cal yeaoperative 'ratingto d'ayractivitieoe Reading G° cy1ef °p in the rndust'Y ban day dec es, the ksast tW° ad the changes erative bank IT, the p t ace With basic co-op at working Dank has k gp igyt °f the funding s th n homes. of bank, without lOS providing th urcoase their ow ~ the pyilo ~ phy ould afford top the bac° to fluctuations, peop continue t° ent interest-ra its Mortgage's widely a' and economic br° e °dit cards to t Scree weathering offer state were lnnat'ok started to recessions, e ban mesaae c -via era rtificates in mers throug IgBIAII laws regarding I g 2. custk and rust. 1 do to fits customers gan liberaliza certificates begun with the d them Mon(-',4 market ices. bank first °f Pere only rn ventorY of seg the toe . owing" d the security afteatoayebanks 9T ed to be' Sy°ry long ya petition `Sere add h the bank has beyind it, it nce Corpora Althoug Central Sank Posit tnsura toe spring of in erative Federal Deled co n co~op me a me T~,at p~ "lion Was gra lion (FID Cn 1996. 0 , THE COMNNNITY S THE LpOKFVTURE ~D T~-1E as also realized . icy, hanky as1100 the the P e commun serves. Duringcoaritable in As a part of th wns itto ne d d funding for bank yja ~ °rtributed obligation viding s Donations its ro roup Coest, years, the addition top and tCIN/I onornmunlty uild- stitut. ns, in lion clubs, g organ1za sloe wilrning PublicLibrarY~on, the many Cross, eading °unda to the Red r Fund, lye R holarship Nrilmington Reading United tyre Unitedwa Sc YMCA, the ing nd, yeuaria Society, th cousetts BaY Ghrist- t Fu le n Massa eading s Reading nter, the Gouts), R hospital, as al Health Ce y 1G1r1 S ester three the winch e banks Reg14n Rice moo, Fund camp Fund, and vehelpedth eartedvein, mas igoting Ina more lvely particlpating as otoer institutions, ya actively unities• well service com unity spirit by arade. b usiness MOO, wed its com ourth of 3ulY p e in any tYi1S it sy° 1892 F milestOn roud °f in Reaal r iversaNile the ban cord k °f is se curity,'t has A 100M ersonal a - life. past re lete or institution s of its out providin g per and them ach1evs remained vierrsandto offering s ahead ae atron to its Gusto s evvces. eagerly look will pro ' ange banking with pride, ttun also the finegiw Co- °f hies ang r it too d oppor e advent of ba an lc, th e PIS challenges always dynamLeasure th to the static, aces with p vide. Never k ar'ticip operative Dan turY its second Gen 17 PROFILES OF SOME OF THE BANK'S FOUNDERS AND EARLY LEADERS AAlook through the records of the Reading Co-opera- tive,Bank provides a miniature course in Reading's his- tony . Among the founders and directors were many of Reading's most prominent citizens and many familiar names, such as Nichols and Parker. Founder Wendell.Bancroft was born in Reading in 1830. Most of his life was spent in the building and contracting business under the name of Bancroft and Temple. For many years his business continued on High Street near the railroad tracks as Bancroft Coal and Lumber. In addition to being one of the founders of the Reading Co-operative Bank, he was also the pres- ident of the First National Bank of Reading, which was founded in 1890. One of Reading's most prominent men was Horace G. Wadlin, who is best known to present-day citizens as the architect of the Highland School, now the town's public library. In addition to the school, he also de- signed many Reading homes, including his own at 206 Woburn Street. Born in South Reading (now Wakefield) in 1851, Mr. Wadlin was a descendant of Nicholas Browne, one of Reading's first settlers. For more than twenty years he was a member of the Library Trustees, a logical choice for the man who was to give up ar- chitecture and become the Boston Public Library's lib- rarian. He was also elected to the House of Represen- tatives and served the community in that capacity as well. S 18 Lawyer, legis- lator, and former lieutenant gover- nor of the com- monwealth, Ar- thur W. Coolidge's association with the Reading Co- operatiue Bank began in 1913 and lasted until his death in 1952. He lived at 210 Sum- mer Auenue. Somewhat later another prominent resident became associated with the bank, acting as secretary and board member for 39 years. Arthur W. Coolidge, a lawyer and legislator, was known throughout the state. At one time he served as lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. In March 1913, he began his service to the Reading Co- operative Bank as secretary, a position he held until his death in 1952. His active association with the bank was one of the longest on record. Reading's second junior high school was named after him. 19 0 , CURRENT OFFICERS =now 9P CURRENT DIRECTORS i Ralph M. Kelmon (1958) Leslie D. Stark (1961) Leslie D. Stark, president Chester E. Oldmixon (1962) B. Bedell, Jr. (1969) T. Gerald Richards, Vice President Leroy . T Gerald Richards {1971) • Philip G. Dalrymple, Treasurer 1875) Assistant Treasurer Neil H. Murray Elizabeth L. McCarthy, David K. Blake (1982) Susan H. Muse, Assistant Treasurer -3s Joan M. Tarbox, Assistant Treasurer i ti { r :a s i 3 Lam: - ~ d si. 3 r ~Philip G. DaIrympie , ; 1d ra ^G ~ T. e Richards Leslie D. Stark f = E 77- 77, uen directors and the board's secretary gather r These at a recent meeting at the bank. From left to right: airympe Phili G. D 3 Dau -d K 131ake, Secretary P Chester E. Oidmixon, T. Gerald Richards, ftaiph M. Kelmon, Leslie D. Stark, Nei} H. Murray, and Leroy B. Bedell, Jr. (1 Susan H. Muse Joan M. Tarbox \ Elizabeth L. McCarthy 21 A 0 T D,~CTORS of LIS CROF-I' (I886.1900) WENDEI t g )N (1886-1917) . HARRY P. BOSS( N (1886'1917) p,jjgERT p. 50S OWN (1886.1889) Cvi)"RI,Es F. 6R ON (18861915) WFS JH. CARI"ET8864938) FRANKE• C FIS (1 OWES {1886-1891) Ne.NO-1.11 Ig8648g1) AKARLEY PRENTtSS ( 8g6 1$89) DPERNS (i ]899) H RRER,r VA, R{}SERTS (1886 I'CH (1886.1910) FRp,NK M. SM PLE (1886'1889) R. DEXTER WOLIN (1886-1888) CE 1914•) HIES MC'(j (1888.1921) MOSES E. NIC CROFT {1889.1923) LE~N~ M. p~Ir,F,R (IS$~9~i4) MERRtCK p' STO CH (1891 1938) pGARI~ .KUI~NT (1591-1933) ER (1899 tg13) EDWARD K• P oN (1901-1954) "VNRRY R. JOKN (1910-1932) 30"N ONNOL~Ly Y (19134930) OI IVER F, A~NEY (1913 1966) 1916) JOHN p KER (1913- EDWARD P• PAR ROppFN (1913) IANA i 14.1923) 4-1958) 1914. FREDE ICK W . ALAN L M• SPENCER (ig15 1953} CAES13 KARRIMR (1916-1919) I tARVEY G. TURN GE (1918-1952) COOLIE} ON (1918-1966) ART~OND JOHNS 1942) K ER {1919" d~ER R• WIT (1923-1961) B. IIAROLE) CUR 10r,FSS (1923-1933) E t 7,x4 'y" embers Opeofthefou", E Crafts of the bank, Fran o gears as a servedforflChetb and of direc mes ~ including tined t ue u t L)Ank history Paul E !n recen ~nbershlp o mong Case's m directors Is a ears the longest. For m boa gears he served as the pre-5lc{ent. for years 05 its Ores (19341955) EE pp,ViE) `3 HERS ES (1931-1944) WARD M• EAM (1932-1965) EDWARD W' H R (1933.1936) ELMER P• GR1AS (19354946) 1~38-1947} I A5TI•IU?1 TWOMgLE EARL vc"FR ^pjN (19 1g3 ~ 948) WILLIAM E DOOM (1942.1961} EDWp,RD J. E AR (19441971) E• F y (19464982) li HAROLD M 4. ~NILL 1 G. HARLFS {1947"1957} C t, NO WIN (tg48-1951) 'p" C GOOp 1951 196I) KORACE H• JONES ( 1966) Rp,I pH R. CLRR-,B G (gg54-1957) ROLAND C. ')e S(1955-1976) PEN31 M F• 1985) t PAUL E CASE. (TROY {1956.1g76) RALPH K• POM,,ENS (1 WAI..DO 959-196`1) A' STE 1977) ELMER JONES (.,N (1 964.•1972) JAMES T. RANI U (1 I4E {1964-1981) \PINOLD C. R~ROTT (1965-19~8) STEPNE Y A• A.MUIR (1966'1979) VAI-1- AM y.. 11" N GJ?1 (19 7-1975) KOENt, T14 , CU MN (i972-1g79) UF -f, CENT R. 23 100TH ANNIVERSARY STATEMENT OF CONDITION November 28, 1986 ASSETS Loans on Real Property $28,701,790 Loans on Depositors Accounts 596,730 Consumer Loans 1,020,022 Commercial Loans 846,068 Co-operative Central Bank Deposits 319,995 Cash and Due From Banks 2,740,091 Investments 19,593,905 Bank Building 898,885 Administrative Accounts 462,558 Total $55,180,044 LIABILITIES Deposits $50,547,169 Escrow Funds, Real Estate Taxes 233,958 Administrative Accounts 737,974 Statutory and Specific Reserves 3,660,943 Total $55,180,044 . 4 24 .DING POLICE DEPRTIVIENT a OFFICE OF THE FIEF O G39.1NCORQ~P~ Jamee W. Cornier Chief of Police December 6, 2006 ( C (~C/5 Dear Reading Business: 2 ~ I would like to take this opportunity to notify you that there are new parking regulatiog§ in effect in the business district. These regulations limit parking in the downtown business district to two hours from 8 am until 5 PM Monday through Saturday. These parking time restrictions are not per space, but are for the entire business district. The signs are now in place, and I would encourage you, your employees, and your customers to comply with the regulations - they will be enforced. To assist merchants and businesses in parking, there are opportunities to purchase stickers that allow all day parking on parts of certain side streets: Chapin Avenue; Gould Street; Lowell Street; Haven Street; and Pleasant Street. If you would like further information on this option, please contact the Parking Clerk, Vicki Cummings, at 781-942-6769, or the Parking Enforcement Officer, Ron Burns, at 781-942-6773. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We are working hard with our local businesses to make Reading a better place to work and to do business. Again, if you have any questions, feel free to contact the individuals listed above. Sinc rely, ` James Cormier Chief f Police 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Emergency Only: 911 All Other Calls: 781-944-1212 Fax: 781-944-2893 E-Mail: JCormier@ci.reading.ma.us yC~ September 6, 2006 Robert Redfern, Chairman Reading Zoning Board of Appeals Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Petition of Reading Co-operative Bank for Variance/Special Permit/Amendment of Variance No. 78-3 Parking Lot Configuation-16 Sanborn Street, Reading Case No. 06-21 Date of Scheduled Hearing - September 21, 2006 Dear Chairman Redfern and Board Members, Please be advised that on September 6, 2006at the Board of Directors meeting of the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce, a unanimous vote of all Board Members present and voting was made to support the above-referenced petition. The Chamber strongly feels that downtown parking is vital to the growth and success of downtown Reading businesses, and the creation of a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street, is an important step towards the realization of that goal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, Carol Hughes Executive Director yc 9 Ds s R'~lyG 60 CrT~F ~ MWRA ~ ADVISORY o OARD MWRA ADVISORY BOARD Sun2rnary of MWRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING November 15, 2006 A meeting of the Board of Directors of the MWRA. was held on November 15, 2006 at the Charlestown Navy Yard. Present: John Carroll, Andrew Pappastergion and Joseph Foti, Advisory Board Representatives; Lucile Hicks, Gubernatorial Appointee; Kevin Cotter and James Hunt III, City of Boston Representatives; Joseph MacRitchie, City of Quincy Representative; Marie Turner, Town of Winthrop Representative. Absent: Chair Robert Golledge and Rudolph Banks, Gubernatorial Appointees; Vincent Mannering, City of Boston Representative. AGENDA Report of the Chair In the absence of Chairman Robert Golledge, Vice-Chairman John J. Carroll introduced former MWRA Executive Director Douglas MacDonald, who was in town to speak on the "Big Dig vs. the MWRA". Mr. MacDonald stated in contrasting the Big Dig to the MWRA, the biggest issue is the importance of transparency and accountability. The MWRA as an organization has established that transparency and accountability. Clearly, if tough decisions had to be made, what happened at the Board of Directors' table was fundamental. That is what is missing at the Big Dig. The Board has been an "unsung hero" and never gets enough credit. Mr. Carroll noted that Doug MacDonald was among those who participated in writing the legislation that created . the Authority while working at Palmer and Dodge. The legislation was wise because it created the right amount of balance and no one group can easily control any votes of the Board. Report of the Executive Director MWRA Executive Director Fred Laskey stated the overriding issue for this meeting is the apparent loss of Debt Service Assistance (DSA) through 9C cuts by Governor Romney. MWRA was expecting to receive $18.75 million in DSA for FY07. The MWRA Advisory Board has issued a memo to conun unities about the impacts of this loss. In conversations with the Senate President and the House Ways & Means Chairman, we have been assured that their support remains strong and they are working to restore the funds. Mr. Laskey also reported the discouraging news that a Boston Globe editorialist thought this was a good cut. Staff will monitor the situation and be ready when we know the outcome. MWRA Advisory Board Executive Director Joseph Favaloro added that he was discouraged and concerned. The loss of DSA is a significant impact for FY07 and will clearly affect FY08. Debt Service Assistance is a critical part of the MWRA's rate relief strategy; this situation will directly impact rate increases from FY07 forward. Mr. Laskey noted that the Authority, in many ways, is in its worst position to absorb these cuts because there is not a lot of low hanging fruit and the Authority was already looking at daunting rate increases. The new Rates Management Committee was formed to develop a strategy to address these increases. g1/ MWRA Advismy Board Szmimaq of MWk4 Board of Directors' Meeting November 15, 2006 Board Member Andrew Pappastergion expressed his concern that if these cuts become reality, how long should the Board wait to regroup. Mr. Laslcey stated the incoming Governor has until February 22 to file the House 1 Budget. Staff will likely recommend waiting to file for next year until after House 1 comes out; however, every month that goes by makes it more difficult for communities to make up revenue shortfalls. A rnid-year rate increase may be an option. No action from the Legislature is expected until January. Board Member Jay MacRitchie stated the longer you wait, the harder it becomes for communities. Staff should do some preliminary work, perhaps through a combination of rate stabilization fiinds, cuts and a mid-year increase, to ensure the burden does not fall on communities. Mr. Laslcey said staff will provide a preview of options in December. Mr. Favaloro noted that the Advisory Board believes it is important to let the Legislature know that the loss of DSA will be a burden to cities and towns. The MWRA cannot afford to make cuts in Operations or Maintenance. Perhaps a mistake was made in 2003 when the MWRA minimized the impact of the loss of DSA and survived its loss. There will be a cause and effect for FY07 to FYI 8. This might be the time to notify communities. Board Member Jaynes Hunt agreed, stating that a more robust discussion was needed. In deference to the legislature, we should defer the conversation for one month and wait to see where the new administration stands. Mr. Hunt said he hoped for a lively discussion and that the word must get out on the ramifications of this action. Board Member Marie Turner agreed; communities should be contacted to get them to contact their legislators. Mr. Carroll said the Board should authorize the Executive Director to contact the comrnrmities. Mr. Laskey said an individualized letter would be sent out to each of the communities. Mr. Laslcey recognized Advisory Board staff member Ryan Ferrara for his tireless efforts on behalf of ratepayers during his 11 years of service. Mr. Ferrara has taken a position with the City of Newton. Mr. Laskey stated the MWRA and its ratepayers benefited greatly from Ryan's hard work. Mr. Ferrara thanked Mr. Laskey and stated that he would be remiss if he did not add the Advisory Board to the inix for the reasons that the MWRA has transparency and accountability. Mr. Ferrara stated that the staff at the Authority are top notch and professional and that he enjoyed working and learning from them over the years. APPROVALS Approval of Chapter 55 and Section 3 of Chapter 64 of the Acts of 2006, "An Act Relative to Accidental Death Benefits for Survivine Children" The Board voted to approve the MWRA Retirement System's adoption of the provisions of Chapter 55 and Section 3 of Chapter 64 of the Acts. of 2006, increasing the accidental death benefits for surviving children to an amount equal to the benefits provided for in G.L. c.32 Section 7(2)(a)(iii). On September 19, 2006, the Retirement Board unanirnously voted to accept the provisions of Chapter 55 and Section 3 of Chapter 64 of the Acts of 2006, an Act that created a local option that will allow for an increase in the accidental death benefits for surviving children to an amount equal to the benefits provided for in G.L. c.32 section 7(2)(a)(iii). The annual benefit amount is currently $629.64. The retirement system currently has no members who would benefit from the approval of this action. Fiftv-second Supplemental Bond Resolittioza (2007 Series A) The Board voted to adopt the fifty-second Supplemental Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $200,000,000.00 of Massachusetts Water Resources General Revenue Bonds (2007 Series A). The bonds issued under this authorization will be used to finance a portion of outstanding cormrnercial paper for recently completed capital projects and provide permanent financing for numerous MWRA capital projects now g~2. MWRA Advisory Board Summmy ofMWRA Board ofDireclors' Meeting November 15, 2006 in construction. This issue will include up to $200 million of new rnoney for long-tenn financing of capital projects. The assets being funded with this issuance have long useful lives and, as a result, the term of the bonds to be issued may be up to forty years. MWRA Treasurer Ralph Wallace noted that the Board asked staff to review the bond resolutions to free up monies for the future and incorporate these amendments in upcoming bond issues. These amendments will be presented to the rating agencies and, based on their reaction and guidance, staff will come back to the Board to seek authorization. Board Member Cile Hicks asked if the agencies will be able to respond by the December Board meeting. Chief Financial Officer Patricia Filippone stated that two of the three agencies, Moodys and Standard & Poor's, will have a response to a scaled back proposal. Water Suvvly At-reenents and Renewal ofNeedharn and Welleslev Agreements for Continuation of Water SuvDIv The Board voted to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute ten-year Water Supply Continuation Agreements with Needham and Wellesley. The draft Water Supply Continuation Agreement with Needham indicates that MWRA agrees to provide the community with a maximum annual volume of 165 million gallons (.45 MGD) and a maximum daily volume of 6.5 MGD each year of the contract, barring unusual demand or supply circumstances. The Agreement's annual volume is consistent with the town's objectives for use of local sources beyond 2006; that is, it assumes that the Town's Charles River Water Treatment Facility will be fully operational, as it was in 2000. In 2000, local sources supplied 1,067 million gallons of the total annual demand of 1,180 million gallons. The Agreement also provides for greater demand from MWRA in years that are drier than 2000 (the recent combined demand of local sources and MWRA averages 1,201 million gallons annually and is as high as 1,250 million gallons). In terns of allowance for future growth, Needham does not anticipate significant fluctuations in population or major expansion in the industrial and commercial sectors. In fact, MAPC projects decreasing population and employment. The draft Water Supply Continuation Agreement with Wellesley includes average annual withdrawals under two different scenarios. The average annual withdrawal varies between 210-220 million gallons annually, or about 0.6 MGD, over the duration of the contract. This average withdrawal request is based on a number of considerations: the town's baseline use, a consultant's report projecting a 6.2% increase in demand over the period 2006 to 2015 and the town's concern that there will be a gradual decrease in the yield of local sources, despite a program of well redevelopment that the Town considers rigorous. The projection also reflects an assumption of decreasing per capita demand as a result of conservation programs. A maximum. annual withdrawal of 300 million gallons is also included in the contract, due to Wellesley's concern that the Town be ensured adequate supply during years of unusual circumstances, as have occurred in the recent past. Request for Water Service to YMCA at Lees Hill The Board voted to: (1) approve a water connection to the MWRA water system through Marblehead for the YMCA at Leggs Hill, as set forth in its application to MWRA and in accordance with MWRA OP.09, Water Connection Serving Property Partially Located ila a Non-MWRA Community; and (2) authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute a water connection agreement with the YMCA at Leggs Hill stipulating the terns and conditions of service. The project includes the development of an 88,525 square foot YMCA facility and ten single-family homes. Development is proposed on a parcel of land that fronts Leggs Hill Road and that straddles the corporate limits of both Marblehead and Salem. Most of the site development, including the YMCA facility itself, will occur in Salem. The average water use projected for the YMCA facility and the residential component of the development is 12,696 gallons per day (gpd); peak water use is projected to be 18,106 gpd. r 3 MWN Advismy Board Stanrnary ofMWRA Board of Directors' Meeting November 15, 2006 Eileen Simonson of WSCAC stated that WSCAC supports this project and illustrates it as an appropriate use of the Straddle Policy. Southern Extra Hieh Distribution Storaee and Redundancv Plan The Board voted to authorize staff to commence the Southern Extra High Distribution Storage and Redundancy Plan project, for an estimated cost of $900,000.00, with an estimated award date of January 2007. The Southern Extra High pressure zone is currently deficient in distribution storage and lacking in redundant distribution pipelines. The average day water use of the Southern Extra High communities (Canton, Dedham, Norwood, Stoughton, Westwood, portions of Brookline and Milton and the Roslindale and West Roxbury sections of Boston) from MWRA's system is 13.3 MGD; the maximum day use is 21.1 MGD. MWRA maintains two distribution storage tanks (Bellevue Tanks I and 2) totaling 6.2 million gallons of storage for the entire Southern Extra High service area, which is significantly below the goal of one day of storage. Further highlighting the deficiency is the fact that the overflow elevation for the 2.5 million gallon Bellevue Tank 1 is 25 feet lower than the overflow elevation for the new 3.7 million gallon Bellevue Tank 2, limiting its useful capacity. Careful review of these deficiencies has resulted in a reprioritization of this project, now identified as a Priority One, Appointment ofProiect Manneer, Deer Island Capital Proerains The Board voted to approve the Executive Director's recorntnendation to appoint Mr. Frank Brickelmaier, Jr., P.E., to the position of Project Manager, Deer Island Capital Programs, Operations Division (Grade 25, Unit 9), at an annual salary of $70,172.96, effective November 25, 2006. Mr. Brickehnaier possesses all of the educational, engineering and supervisory qualifications required for the position of Project Manager and has more than 13 years of civil engineering experience working on numerous MWRA wastewater and water projects. Adequate funds for this position are included in the FY07 CEB. The recorrnmended salary is in accordance with - guidelines established in current MWRA collective bargaining agreements. November PCR Amendments - FY2007 The Board voted to approve amendments to the Position Control Register. Together with amendments voted on by the Personnel Committee, but not requiring a vote of the Board, the annualized budget impact of these PCR amendments have a theoretical range from a cost of -$1,918 to $43,416 and will likely be at the higher end of that range. Staff will ensure that any cost increase associated with these PCR amendments will not result in spending over the approved FY07 Wages and Salaries budget. CONTRACT AWARDS Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Services: Cannon, Cochran Manaeement Services, Inc. The Board voted to approve the recommendation of the Consultant Selection Committee to select Cannon, Cochran Management Services, Inc. to provide Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Services and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute a contract with Cannon, Cochran Management Services, Inc. in the amount of $130,000.00 for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007; further, to authorize the Executive Director to exercise the options to approve two additional one-year contract renewals at the same annual amount. The firm is the current contractor. Jointly Funded Cooperative Research Aereenzent between MWRA and National Data Buov Center for Auemzentation ofBuov 44013 to Observe Additional Oceanoeranhic Variables: Contract S433 The Board voted to approve the award of a jointly-funded Cooperative Research Agreement between MWRA and the National Data Buoy Center and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute said Agreement in an amount not to exceed $159,000.00 for a four-year term from January 2007 to December 2010. MWRA Advisory Board Summary of MWRA Board of Directors' Meeting November 15, 2006 The Outfall Ambient Monitoring Plan, which includes specific monitoring requirements for potential outfall effects, is attached to MWRA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant. As such, these monitoring requirements are enforceable. The Monitoring Plan was revised in 2004 at MWRA's request to reduce the intensity of field monitoring near the outfall, saving approximately $900,000 annually. A special study, "Continuous Measurement of Biological Parameters", was added to the revised Ambient Monitoring Plan. When the regulatory agencies approved the decreased frequency of sampling, they did so on the condition that MWRA evaluate the feasibility of augmenting its monitoring with continuous water quality monitoring to compensate for fewer scheduled surveys and implement the technology if feasible and recommended by the Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel. If possible, MWRA is to provide monitoring data in real time. As required, MWRA has carried out a detailed evaluation of options for continuous monitoring, including a public workshop and presentations at several science panel meetings. This cost-share agreement with the National Data Buoy Center (part of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration) will enable MWRA to obtain required monitoring data during the next four years. MWRA's costs will be indirectly matched by equipment and services totaling $550,000 provided by the National Data Buoy Center. Design and Construction Administration Services for the North Dorchester Bav CSO Facilities: Fav, Spofford & Thornilike. LLC, Contract 7013 The Board voted to approve the recommendation of the Consultant Selection Corrunittee to select Fay, Spofford & Thomdike, LLC to provide fmal design and engineering services during construction for the North Dorchester Bay Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities project and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute a contract with Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, LLC in an amount not to exceed $3,385,223.92 for a term of 2,958 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed. The North Dorchester Bay CSO Control Plan is intended to eliminate CSO discharges and greatly reduce stonnwater discharges to South Boston's beaches. The plan consists of a 17-foot diameter, 11,000 foot, soft- ground tunnel; a 15 MGD dewatering pumping station at Massport's Conley Terminal; a 4,000 foot force main; and a remote odor control facility near the Bayside Exposition Center. Contract 7013 will provide final design and construction administration services for the pumping station, force main and odor control facility. Heat Loop Replacement Construction IL• Beacon Pipin-e Companv, Inc., Contract 6883 The Board voted to approve the award of Contract No. 6883, Heat Loop Replacement Construction II, to the lowest responsive bidder, Beacon Piping Company, Inc. and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver said contract in the bid amount of $1,470,000.00 for a tern of 425 calendar days from the Notice to Proceed. The central plant heating system on Deer Island, consisting of approximately 22,000 feet of mostly 14-inch and 20-inch diameter piping, provides both process heat to the digesters and building heat to other portions of the facility. Most of the piping is buried (approximately 16,000 feet) and leaks have been detected and repaired by MWRA staff. However, repairing these underground pipe leaks has proven to be difficult and tune-constuning. The primary goal is now to redesign the system so that it would be entirely above ground, which will facilitate future maintenance, inspection and repair. The existing buried piping will remain in place as contingency back-up. Two=Year.Purchase Order Contract for the Supply and Deliverv of Sodium Hvpochlorite to the John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant and the Ware Disinfection Facility: Jones Chemical, Inc.. Bid WRA-2621 The Board voted to approve the award of Contract WRA-2621 for the supply and delivery of sodium hypochlorite for the John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant (CWTP) and Ware Disinfection Facility to the lowest responsive bidder, Jones Chemical, Inc., and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver said purchase order contract in an amount not to exceed $1,627,200.00 for a period of two years from December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2008. 5 gds, MWRA Advisory Board San unmy ofMWRA Board of Directors' Meeting-November 15, 2006 There are sufficient funds included in the Field Operations Department's (FOD) FY07 Current Expense Budget for the first portion of this contract. If usage remains as budgeted for the January to June 2007 time period, then FOD will spend approximately $250,000 less for this chemical than budgeted. Staff will include adequate funding for the remaining term of this contract in the Proposed FY08 and FY09 CEBs. Three-Yeas Purchase Order Contract for the Supply and Deliverv of Soda Ash to the John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant: FMC Corporation. Bid 9,RA-2615 The Board voted to approve the award of Contract WRA-2615 for the supply and delivery of soda ash to the John J. Carroll Water Treatment Plant to the lowest responsive bidder, FMC Corporation, and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver said purchase order contract in an amount not to exceed $9,750,000.00 for a period of three years from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. The Operations Division's FY07 Current Expense Budget includes funding of $2,039,607 for soda ash at the Carroll Plant. If usage remains as budgeted, for the January to June 2007 time period, then Field Operations will spend approximately $195,000 more for this chemical than budgeted. MWRA will absorb this overspending, if necessary, within the overall approved FY07 direct expense budget and will include adequate funding for the remainder of this contract in the Proposed FY08 and FY09 CEBs. Blue Hills Covered Storage Desien/Build Proiect: Barletta Heavv Division. Inc., Contract 6216 The Board voted, with Mr. MacRitchie opposed, to approve the award of Contract 6216, Blue Hills Covered Storage Design/Build Project, to Barletta Heavy Division, Inc. and to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to execute said contract at the proposed price of $37,766,275.00 for a tern of 1,170 days fiorn the Notice to Proceed. Mr. Carroll asked if there any more appeals. Authority General Counsel Steven Remsberg stated that the Friends of the Blue Hills have appealed through the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Mr. MacRitchie stated that although he is supportive of the project, .he had to vote against the project until he has had an opportunity to discuss some concerns expressed by the Mayor of Quincy. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS/CHANGE ORDERS Rehabilitation of Weston Aaueduct Supply Main 4: Camp Dresser & McKee. Inc.. Contract 5147. Amendment 11 The Board voted to authorize the Executive Director, on behalf of the Authority, to approve Amendment No. 11' to extend the term of Contract No. 5147 with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM), Rehabilitation of Weston Aqueduct Supply Main (WASM) 4, by 275 calendar days to September 6, 2007. Contract 5147 expires on December 5, 2006. Due to delays in getting the pipeline into service, a time extension is necessary for CDM to complete, the testing and post-construction services. The cumulative total of all Amendments to this Contract total $2,148,317, added to the original Contract amount of $4,001,102, for a total Contract amount of $6,149,419. The FY07 CIP contains a budget of $6,149,360 for Contract 5147; Amendment 11 is for a time extension only and will have no budgetary impact. INFORMATION Internal Audit Department Activities and FY2007 Work Plan Staff provided the Board with a report on audit coverage that was developed through traditional internal and system audits, including performance audits that analyze and evaluate MWRA programs and activities to determine if they are being carried out effectively and efficiently and compliance audits that focus on staff adherence to MWRA policies and procedures. Assignments were selected based on Internal Audit's risk assessment of programs and management controls and input from the Advisory Board and senior managers across the Authority. 6 Fj~ MWRA Advisory Board Summary of MWRA Board of Directors' Meeting -November 15, 2006 Deleeated Authority Report - October Staff provided the Board with a listing of delegated authority actions over $25,000 for the period October I through October 31, 2006. Suunrna v ofExecutive Director's Current Deletrated Authority to Acauire Interests in Real Property In connection with an October 11, 2006 Executive Session agenda item concerning Board approval of staff's recommendation for several takings of certain temporary and permanent easements in connection with the Upper Neponset Valley Replacement Sewer Project, Section 687, Contract 6629, a question arose whether staff would return to the Board at a later date with a separate proposed vote to complete the acquisition of those easement interests of property owners that had voluntarily negotiated price and other terms concerning the use of their properties with the Authority and for which a taking was not necessary. The answer given at the Board meeting was that the Board had previously delegated authority to the Executive Director to acquire interests in property having a value up to $250,000. A request was made at the October 2006 Board meeting for a review of the history of the delegation of authority by the Board with respect to the Executive Director's authority to acquire real property. The current and only delegation of authority relative to acquisitions of real property first appeared as Schedule M of the Board's current compilation of Management Policies, which was adopted by Board vote on December 9, 1987. This delegation has not changed since its adoption. FY2006 Year End Capital Proiect Performance Report Staff reported that total MWRA Capital Improvement Program spending in Fiscal Year 2006 was $152.4 million, or 27% less than budgeted spending including contingency. Excluding the contingency budget, the variance is $40.5 million or 21% less than the year-to-date budget. This $40.5 million variance is the net of $18.7 million in more than budgeted spending on 20 projects and $59.2 million in less than budgeted spending on 62 projects. It is worthy of note that eight projects account for $29.8 million or 74% of the $40.5 million in total under spending in FY06. 2005 Outfall Monitorine Overview Director of ENQUAD, Andrea Rex, provided the Board with an overview of MWRA's permit-required annual Outfall Monitoring Report for 2005. MWRA is required to submit this report to federal and state regulatory agencies annually. Special studies on effluent quality and changes in Boston Harbor are highlighted in this year's report. Overall, in 2005, as in previous years, the envirommental monitoring found that the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges can be detected only locally around the outfall and no adverse impacts of the discharge on the ecology (plankton, water quality, bottom-dwelling communities) of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays or Stellwagen Marine Sanctuary were found. Contaminant loadings from Deer Island effluent over the past five years are well below predictions. Mr. Favaloro stated MWRA is about to negotiate its NPDES pen-nit. Results show significant benefit and no significant impact from the outfall. The Outfall Monitoring Program requirements should be revisited. Dr. Rex said she is trying to get changes made to the pennit. Water quality monitoring has the largest potential for savings. Water Svstent Master Plan: Findines and Recommendations Staff provided the Board with a report on its Water System Master Plan. Total water system needs identified for the FY07-48 Master Plan tirmeframe are approxiinately $1.1 billion (in current dollars), including all projects currently in the CIP. Mr. Favaloro stated it is not a secret that the Advisory Board has been pushing for a Master Planning process. It is fair to recognize and applaud the Authority for its efforts on the Master Plan; now the easy part is done. The difficult portion will be the prioritization between water and wastewater projects with finite resources. 7 g 7 MWRA Advisory Board Summary ofMWRA Board of Directors' Meeting November 15, 2006 Update on Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Director of Planning Stephen Estes-Smargiassi stated MWRA system-wide lead levels in the September 2006 sampling round did not exceed the lead Action Level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). This is the sixth consecutive sampling round below the Action Level (and the ninth of the past eleven). However, results continue to hover near the Action Level of 15 ppb, raising the possibility that a relatively small number of samples with slightly higher results, could result in exceeding the Action Level. While this round's system-wide result is similar to the previous round, there continues to be variability in the individual community results based on the small number of sampled sites and changes in individual volunteer sampling homes. Mr. Estes-Smargiassi noted in other parts of the country, 400 samples are done at once. Region 1 looks at each community as an individual system. Perhaps changes in staff in the next few years will provide an opportunity for a different view and Region 1 could adopt the national EPA standard for testing. Evaluation of Options for Bottling MWRA Water MWRA staff provided the Board with an evaluation of options for bottling MWRA water. Overall, staff concluded that limited bottling for free distribution for a promotional purpose is reasonable, but that bottling or licensing for profit is probably not. Important points supporting those conclusions are the lack of experience elsewhere in the country at successfully running a bottled water program for a profit, the substantial "reputation risk" if there were a water quality incident and the limited upside even if such a program were successful. There are, however, a number of successful on- going promotional bottled water programs nation-wide, but there are a number of important policy and risk issues that MWRA would need to evaluate prior to undertaking such a program. Mr. Favaloro stated the Advisory Board would like the Authority to always try to look "outside of the box". Although the opportunity to produce a water revenue stream through a third party may not be there today, it may be possible in the future. Mr. Pappastergion noted that. this will require a lot of thought because a single incident of contamination could damage the agency's image. The bottling operation must meet Food and Drug Administration standards also. Mr. Estes-Smargiassi stated there are three or four additional steps of treatment before the water can be bottled and, thus, staff is not sure it meets MWRA's needs of saying this is tap water. One quality of water would be delivered in the tap and another quality in the bottle. Ms. Hicks said it is not a revenue source if there is additional treatment. Ms. Turner stated MWR11's water is as good as spring water from Maine or New Hampshire. People buy what is on sale as a matter of convenience because they can carry it. This Board should look seriously at a bottling company and distributor to make money on it. Mr. Hunt stated he would want to see a lengthy review. Further, are there legal issues in terns of a public agency getting into a profit organization? In teens of water availability to address the needs of other communities, there could be a whole host of policy ramifications. Mr. Pappastergion said he is in favor of the concept, but this staff surnrnary raises issues that need to be resolved before looking for bottling and distribution companies. If further treatment is required, is it tap water? Ms. Turner said the Board needs to find out if the concept is feasible. This Sunzniary does not include every item discussed by the Board, nor the full extent of the discussions. Please contact Mary Ann McClellan at the Advisory Board office with questions, comments or requests for additional information. 82~x ~IC~aS TRACKING OF LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2007 Monthlv Hours $ Month Monthlv Monthlv Hours Cumulative Available Monthlv Monthlv Cumulative Available Hours Hours Used vs Remainder $ 1 Cost Remainder Allocated Used Allocated of 1/2 vear Allocated Used Year July 51.2 48.6 (2.60) (2.60) 258.6 $6,667 $6,318 $6,318 $73,686 Includes Heir search August 51.2 44.8 (6.40) (9.00) 213.8 $6,667 $8,189 $14,507 $65,497 for Memorial Park September 51.2 34 (17.20) (26.20) 179.8 $6,667 $4,875 $19,382 $60,622 October 51.2 51.5 0.30 (25.90) 128.3 $6,667 $6,635 $26,017 $53,987 November 51.2 (51.20) (77.10) 128.3 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 December 51.2 (51.20) (128.30) 128.3 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 307.2 178.9 (128.30) $40,002 $26,017 $26,017 $53,987 January 51.2 (51.20) (179.50) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 February 51.2 (51.20) (230.70) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 March 51.2 (51.20) (281.90) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 April 51.2 (51.20) (333.10) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 May 51.2 (51.20) (384.30) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 June 51.2 (51.20) (435.50) 435.5 $6,667 $26,017 $53,987 Subtotal 307.2 0 $40,002 $0 - Total 614.4 178.9 -435.5 $80,004 $26,017 $53,9871 ICMA Web Site I CCU MA Leaders at the Care of Better Communities About: ICMA Join ICMA Newsroom Conferences, Meetings, & Events Mr:muer Support ICMA Priorities Page 1 of 2 L ( C IgcS JobCenter I Retirement Corp r E] ICMA ICMA UNIVERSITY Citizens Rank Drugs and Traffic Congestion as Top Government Problems In wrapping up 2006, data pulled from the National Citizen SurveyTM revealed a fe citizen opinion. Across the more than 14 million people in the 118 communities u! Survey TM (NCS): n The majority of residents feel that population growth is too fast and job grc ■ Drug and traffic congestion problems rank highest while fewest residents fi Ethics are significant local problems. Professional Management ■ The percent of residents turning to the Internet to conduct business with th Awards grown by more than 50% in the five years of the NCS Credentialing Who's Who ~ National Comparisons Provide Valuable Information Discussion Lists The National Citizen SurvevTM is the low-cost, high-quality, service developed by I Corporate Relations Research Center, Inc., for local governments. Jurisdictions survey citizens on ser% then use the data for budgeting, goal setting, performance measurement, and pro Link" I participating jurisdiction can make important customizations for its locale and the Passwords & Preferences with other jurisdictions from jurisdictions across the United States. 7 ~V "The national comparisons are critical," said Heather Locke, director of NCS. For To ic Browse b found that fire and EMS remain the highest rated local government services and tt p y planning and services to low income residents. Without the comparisons to other tf community might wrongly conclude that'fire is doing better than planning,' when Grants for Historic Building may have higher planning scores when compared with other jurisdictions." Restoration NCS Response Rates Buck National Trend To promote the restoration of vacant buildings in its Although survey response rates by phone continue to fall, the response rates seen downtown, Sherman, Texas, primarily employs mailed surveys, have held steady when comparing average rest provides grants for substantial, those five years earlier when the NCSTM was inaugurated. visible, and permanent improvements to existing Some jurisdictions have concerns about shifting from existing citizen satisfaction p historically significant trends to the NCSTM, which at $8,400 is typically a cost-savings over customized s commercial buildings. with jurisdictions to create a bridge between existing trends and the NCS results s disruption to their tracking systems," said Locke. To get a new NCSTM information packet complete with a sample survey, send a rep ;c) 2006 International City/County Management Association ICMA is the leading organization for information on professional local government management. Its membership includes city managers, county managers, and other chief appointed officials and assistants in local governments throughout the world. ICMA's mission is to create excellence in local government by developing and fostering professional local government management worldwide. http://wwW.icma.org/main/ns.asp?nsid=2774&mgtinsite=l 12/13/2006 Hechenblelkner, Peter From Sent: To: Cc: Tom Quintal [tqu intal@comcast, net] Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:42 AM Reading - Selectmen Page 1 of 2 L l_^ - Camille Anthony forwading account; James Bonazoli forwarding account; Steve Goldy forwarding account; Ben Tofoya; Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses; Town Manager Subject: 16 Sanborn Street / Reading Coop parking lot Dear Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board of Selectmen, and Town Manager: Regarding Tuesday December 5, 2006 BOS meeting discussion of the 16 Sanborn St residential property and Reading Coop Bank's desire to modify the zoning via a zoning overlay district for parking. I believe that certain points made during the meeting require clarification, as well as your further thought and consideration. Please consider the following: • First and foremost, the BOS should clearly understand that the neighborhood is fundamentally opposed to the proposed change in use from multi-family residential to parking. Although concern regarding infringement and potential "ripple effect" into the residential neighborhood does exist, it is only one of several concerns relevant to this proposed change. • The parking issue in downtown Reading will be exacerbated by zoning actions that convert residential to commercial use in the areas where residential and commercial zones abut. Residents located on the borders of the business district walk to shops, services and employment in the downtown. Eliminating residential units in the buffer area will increase the demand for parking, while at the same time reducing the highly desirable potential for resident pedestrian access to the downtown. • Today, only two residential buildings remain on Sanborn St. The proposed change of one residential building to a parking lot will isolate the remaining residence, creating a single lot residence entirely surrounded by commercial uses. The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance tells us that housing, environment, transportation, economic development and social equity are interconnected, and need to be considered wholly, as a system. Smart Growth addresses fundamental questions such as "Where do we want to grow?", "How do we want to grow?", and "How much do we want to grow?" This proposed residence-to-parking lot conversion will in effect grow Reading's commercial district, converting Sanborn St to all commercial. Is it the intention of the BOS to expand the downtown business district to include Sanborn St? • According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Smart Growth Toolkit, zoning practices can increase automobile dependence and traffic, result in the loss of community vitality, and make neighborhoods unwelcoming to pedestrians and bicyclists. We cannot cure America's love affair with the automobile, however we can and should attempt to support Smart Growth concepts that promote vital neighborhoods and promote the ability to work, shop, and live in one neighborhood. We need the BOS to provide Smart Growth leadership and direction-setting to Reading planning and zoning. • Reading's 2005 Master Plan calls for discouragement of traffic in residential streets (see Chapter 10) and states that the Town needs to "avoid open parking lots that deaden downtowns, and increase transportation options other than single occupancy automobiles." Conversion of a three-family residence to a parking lot conflicts with the goals of the Reading 2005 Master Plan. ■ One of the key precipitants of parking shortages in Reading's downtown is the zoning bylaw that allows commercial development without providing the necessary parking if the commercial development is within 300 feet of a public off-street parking facility (see Reading Zoning By-Laws 6.1.1.1.) Based on this exemption, Reading Coop Bank was allowed to build-out their facility without proper parking, as was the Two Haven St development, and others to follow. The BOS should request Town Meeting to remove this exemption from our zoning bylaws for all future development, putting an end to future development without adequate parking. • According to US Postal Service Northeast Region Operations and US Congressman John Tierney's office, Reading Coop Bank has held discussion with the LISPS regarding USPS lease of parking spaces at the Sanborn St property. The USPS is considering this possibility in their budget cycle. Although Reading Coop Bank has characterized the proposed lot as employee parking, they have not identified their potential intent to lease parking spaces to employees of businesses other than Reading Coop Bank. Does the BOS support the f 12/6/2006 Page 2 of 2 establishment of a "for hire" parking lot in this residential zone? • The Reading Coop Bank as a private concern certainly has the prerogative to solve their issues in the fashion they deem most advisable. However in this case since they are requesting a change to Reading's zoning law to solve their parking challenge I think it reasonable for us to look closely at the specific need and potential alternatives. According to the May 2006 Chamber of Commerce survey of employee parking needs sponsored in part by Reading Coop Bank, the bank at the time of the survey had 40 employees and provided parking for 34, resulting in a shortage of 6 spaces. It also appears that Reading Coop Bank did not participate in the recent lottery for depot spaces, and evidently has recently donated to Mission of Deeds ten parking spaces that Reading Coop Bank had under lease. Of course there is a need for employee parking, the,question is whether revised zoning to allow conversion of residential property to a parking lot is a prudent course of action. I feel that these are important points for the BOS to consider when deliberating on this subject. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to and support of the Town of Reading. I remain amazed at the number of hours you dedicate to serving the town (and at the length of your meetings!) I appreciate your consideration of the above points, and look forward to additional discussion of this very important decision with you. Sincerely, Tom Quintal 64 Woburn St (781) 944-2313 (home) (978) 988-7778 x223 (office) tauintal(c)comcast.net SJ2,' 12/6/2006 Page 1 of I ~ ~C&y Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Vnnyg58@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:53 PM To: Reilly, Chris; melandjanjones@comcast.net; Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: LACORAZZA@ATTBI.COM Subject: Public Zoning Workshop 12/11/2006 mtg. Subject: RE: Article 21 rezoning- rezoning establishment for parking on 16 Sanborn St. (Map 64, Lots 21 & 21 a). From: vnnva58aa.AOL.com To: CPDC BOARD MEMBERS Date: December 15, 2006. To Whom It May Concern: On November 13, 2005 I wrote to the Town Manager (Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner) concerning rezoning ( Article 21) of Woburn, Sanborn and Linden streets, which I was against and still am. The proposed "Public Zoning Workshop" which will convene on December 11, 2006 @ 8:30 PM will discuss the `parking overlay @ 16 Sanborn Street ( Map 64, Lots 21 & 21a ) and will open the way for rezoning of businesses on Sanborn, Woburn and Lindens streets. As I reiterated to Mr. Hechenbleikner, I am against this because of the increase of traffic and will create havoc and safety issues on the above streets. ( As it is we have lots of traffic on Linden Street ) I am against this and DO NOT WISH TO HAVE REZONING ON MY STREET, WOBURN STREET, OR SANBORN STREET. I live on 58 Linden Street and have been a resident for over 36 years and have seen a great deal of "positive improvements" to my home town. This particular rezoning ( Article 21 ) is definitely NOT AN IMPROVEMENT..... But an impediment to me my friends and neighbors of this beautiful town. I hope you take this under consideration at Mondays' meeting. Thank you in advance. Vincent J. Giannusa 58 Linden Street -apt. #1 Connie Leoncello 58 Linden Street -apt.#2 781-944-2681/ 781-944-6489 cc John Sasso, Chairman cc Janice Jones, Town Meeting Member cc Peter Hechenbleikner 12/8/2006 9'v nbleikner, Heche . Peter . , From: John and Mary Ellen O'Neill [mjconeill@comcast.net] C G Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:04 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Jonathan Barnes; Gina Snyder; Ron D'Addario; Jay Lenox Subject: Loss of Residential Property to Parking Lots Dear Camille, James, Steve, Ben and Rick, I want to express my very strong opposition to the proposals by the Reading Cooperative Bank and Mr. Tambone to take residential property for the purposes of parking areas. Residential neighborhoods are the backbone of this community and should not be subject to encroachment by commercial interests. It is imperative that we preserve the integrity of our neighborhoods. The multi-family house that previously stood on the Linden Street lot was a perfect transition situation between the business area of Haven and Linden Streets and the primarily residential neighborhood along Woburn Street. There are many vacant parking spaces in the large parking lot owned by the Post Office. The bank should explore leasing some of that unused space and move forward with returning that lot to residential use. Mr. Tambone too should go back to the drawing board and return with plans that return that house to residential use and that outline a project that will work at that very visible, but very difficult intersection. We must also move beyond the old, environmentally unfriendly practice of paving over land for single car parking and look for more creative solutions. The bank might consider a reward program for employees who volunteer to not drive to work some number of days each week, and sharing a parking space with another employee, for example. Thank you, Mary Ellen O'Neill 1 04, C ICAS Hechenbleikner, Peter From: cnj4@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:09 PM To: Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; dac@cummings.com; jcosgrove@mbta.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; lan.Durrant@state.ma.us; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgailagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; joshua.grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; katsoufis.9395info@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; rmayo@mass-trucking.org; tmclaughlin@cityofwoburn.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@verizon.net; andy.motter@dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com Cc: iblaustein@mapc.org; Melissa.Callan@state.ma.us; michael.a.chong@fhwa.dot.gov; dcooke@vhb.com; adisarcina@hshassoc.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; tharwood@cityofwoburn.com; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom @state.ma.us; efutz@hshassoc.com; Justin. Martel@state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; thomasimclaughlin@comcast.net; john.mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; pmedeiros@sigcom.com; Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us; Carmen. O'Rourke@state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@thecollaborative.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; Frederick.Vanmagness@state.ma.us Subject: A REDESIGNED INTERCHANGE BY ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH Bob, During this second feasibility study, there has been little discussion initiated from the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) regarding the flow of vehicles through an interchange with greater efficiency (e.g., Concept 43) that any of its connecting highway links (e.g., Route 128 southbound in the AM, for example). If this issue is ignored, there will be a flow of congestion from an already congested highway segment directly back into the interchange, thereby rendering its alleged efficiency useless. This effect can be understood by following steps 1-3 below: 1. See: "The Dynamics of Traffic Jams" http://www.nbi.dk/-horlyck/shocks.html 2. Check fourth paragraph from the top: "As a conceptual introduction to the upstream moving shock waves that are observable in the experiment, spontaneously formed traffic jams in car traffic are often used..." 3. Click on the first link in item #2: Notice the computer simulated progression of congestion flowing from right to left. This shock wave would happen as vehicles proceed through a redesigned interchange that allows traffic to flow more efficiently onto a highway segment that's already congested (i.e., Route 128 just southbound of the interchange in the AM) This problem could be addressed by regulating, for example, the flow of traffic from Route 3 and 2A onto Route 128 in the AM to slow the buildup of congestion on Route 128. Traffic flow sensors from Mobility Technologies have been in place along Routes 128 and 93 from some time. These type of sensors could be added to Routes 3 and 2A. This real-time traffic flow data could be transmitted to a central control facility to determine the extent of ramp metering needed to regulate the flow of traffic onto Route 128 from Routes 3 and 2A in the AM. The hardware and software (i.e., ramp metering algorithms) are well known and are part of the Advanced Traffic Management System (AIMS) capabilities. This is not research... Treating traffic congestion in a regional context will maximize the performance of a redesigned interchange. Otherwise, why should the Task Force sanction "plumbing" that invites "backflow?" 1 Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com December 11, 2006 -----Original Message----- From: Bob.Frey@state.ma.us To: jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; rick _schubert@harvard.edu; canthony@ftmc.net; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; dac@cummings.com; jcosgrove@mbta.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us; CnJ4 @aol.com; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua.grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; katsoufis.9395info@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; rmayo@mass-trucking.org; tmclaughlin@cityofwoburn.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@verizon.net; andy.motter@dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com Cc: jblaustein@mapc.org; Melissa.Callan@state.ma.us; michael.a.chong@fhwa.dot.gov; dcooke@vhb.com; adisarcina@hshassoc.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; tharwood@cityofwoburn.com; townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us; Michael.Lindstrom@state.ma.us; elutz@hshassoc.com; Justin.Martel@state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; thomaslmclaughlin@comcast.net; john.mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; pmedeiros@sigcom.com; Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us; Carmen.O'Rourke@state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; creilly@ci.reading.ma.us; wschwartz@thecollaborative.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; btafoya@comcast.net; Frederick.Vanmagness@state.ma.us Sent: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 3:49 PM Subject: 93/95 ITF Meeting 12/13 in Woburn Hello Task Force Members: A reminder that the next meeting of the I-93/I-95 Interchange Task Force will be: Wednesday, November 13, 2006 4:30 PM - 7:00 PM Shamrock Elementary School Green Street Woburn In this meeting, we will continue our discussions on the recommendations and implications for projects and schedule. The agenda is attached: <<ITF 2006 12-13 meeting agenda.doc>> Directions if you need them: From I-93: Take Exit 36 (Montvale Ave.) into Woburn on Montvale. Travel about 44 mile, then bear LEFT onto Green Street.(at Dunlop Tire store). Shamrock School is about mile further on the right. From I-95/Rt 128 and Woburn Center: Take Exit 35 (Rt. 38). Take 38 South into Woburn center (2+ miles, along Main Street). After passing,City Hall, continue south on Main for about 1/3 mile and take LEFT onto Green Street. Shamrock School is about 1/3 mile further on the left. gez Parking is in front of building or in overflow lot off Green street, just past school driveway (toward Woburn Center). Let me know if you have any questions. See you next week in Woburn. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot,state.ma.us Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 3 31/03 Q Page 1 of 2 t (J Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:43 PM To: 'Phil Rushworth' Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] Mass Legislature Needs Access I assume that RCTV's answer is yes you would be interested. This is a great opportunity. Pete From: Phil Rushworth [malito:phil@rctv.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:16 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] Mass Legislature Needs Access Pete, FYI Begin forwarded message: From: "Terry Duenas" <tduenasO.GaDe.com> Date:.December 12, 2006 11:03:05 AM EST To: <alliance-announce -Iists.alliancecm.ora> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Mass Legislature Needs Access Dear Massachusetts PEG Access colleagues, (Forgive me for using the national list serve to reach Massachusetts access centers, but we need to reach all concerned) Mass Access, the Alliance for Community Media state chapter, has just been approached by the office of Massachusetts Speaker of the House Salvatore DeMasi's office to assist them in delivering gavel to gavel coverage of State House sessions. For a number of years, program distribution of these session have been contracted to WGBH in Boston and this agreement has now been terminated. Speaker DeMasi is now looking to forge a distribution plan with Massachusetts PEG access and is looking to Mass Access to begin the dialog and implement the networking. Many details will need to be worked out as to the distribution and format, but we do know there are 45-55 legislative sessions and would probably require a 4-5 hour a week time commitment of channel time. This could be a tremendous opportunity to forge a critical link with our state legislature and become a conduit for this important programming in our local communities. . 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 HERE IS THE QUESTION I NEED ANSWERED! Would your organization be interested in this collaboration. I need to establish solid numbers for a distribution list as soon as possible. Please email me your feedback right away. This is not a commitment at this time but rather a straw poll of interest. Additionally, would you go to www.massaccess.oriz and input or update any contact information for your organization. We need to reach every PE or G access operation in Massachusetts. We've got a long way to go (yeah, I know "and a short time to get there") so please send me your info as soon as possible. Thanks Terry Duenas Chair, Mass Access Terry Duenas Executive Director Cape Cod Community Media Center 307 Whites Path South Yarmouth, MA 02664 voice (508) 394-2388 fax (508) 398-4520 tduenas0cape.com www.communitymediacenter.org 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 1 C 6C41 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Eloubier@aoi.com Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:48 PM To: Reilly, Chris Cc: Town Manager Subject: Reading cooperative Bank Parking This in support of the request of Reading Cooperative banks request to establish an employee parking lot. The bank has consistently been supportive of the towns needs and concerns The management has been active in the community and the bank has always demonstrated a good neighbor policy in the area ...I urge the powers to grant the right to contribute to the solution of the parking problem. Eugene Loubier 12 clover circle 12/12/2006 ~m. Vc, Hechenblefter, Peter From: David Talbot [talbot.david@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:11 PM To: Reading - Selectmen; Town Manager Subject: Clarification sought on Selectmen vote on 16 Sanborn Dear Peter and members of the Board, Chris Vaccaro mentioned to me that Peter told him a majority of the Selectmen support the 16 Sanborn parking proposal. I wanted to send a note to ask whether that was correct and, if so, what it means. l: Do the Selectmen have a formal or advisory role in rezoning questions? 2: Have the Selectmen made a vote of some kind? What/when was the vote? 3: Is some vote by the Selectmen planned, and if so when will this occur? Thanks Dave Talbot 1 901 16 Sanborn Street Property Page 1 of 1 ly Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Conlan, Noreen [nconIan@readingcoop.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:32 PM To: Town Manager Subject: 16 Sanborn Street Property Following is a copy of the e-mail sent to Chris Reilly and the CPDC: Dear Mr. Reilly, Please express to the other members of the CPDC my support for the parking overlay request of Reading Co- operative Bank. I am a Reading resident of 35 years and an employee of Reading Co-operative Bank for the last 19 years. As the Bank has grown to support the needs of the community so has the need for more parking for our increased numbers of employees. Only customers are permitted to use the parking lot beside the Bank and behind the Bank to give them easy access to the Bank. The use of this parcel of land at 16 Sanborn Street as an employee parking area would alleviate the parking of the employees on the side streets and permit more parking to be available for shoppers and individuals attending Church-related functions. With fewer cars parked for the entire day on the streets, this would assist the snow removal/plowing during the winter months. The Bank would keep the property in good condition as it has done with its Haven Street property. As mentioned at the meeting of 12/11/06, the Post Office also has an interest in purchasing this property for an employee parking area. It appears that this property will probably become a parking area. Reading Co-operative Bank is a good neighbor and has a long positive history here in Reading. Noreen E. Conlan 66 Wescroft Road CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The material contained in or accompanying this electronic transmission contains confidential information which is the property of the sender and is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify us immediately. g0. 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 2 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Janet A. Allen [Janet@johnsonwoods.netj Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:30 PM To: Town Manager Cc: 'Thurlow, Julie'; RNRchambercom@aol.com;'Brad Latham' Subject: FW: Proposed Employee Parking Lot at 16 Sanborn Street, Reading Hi Peter: Attached please see emails that I have sent to the selectmen and Chris Reilly. Thanks, Janet Allen Janet A. Allen, CBR, CRB, CRS, GRI, LTG Sales Manager Johnson Woods 781 944-0900 Office 781 944-0943 Fax janet@gloverproperty.cam www.johnsonwoods.net From: Janet A. Allen [mailto:janet@johnsonwoods.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:09 PM To: 'creilly@ci.reading. ma.us' Cc: Thurlow, Julie'; 'RNRchambercom@aol.com'; 'Brad Latham' Subject: FW: Proposed Employee Parking Lot at 16 Sanborn Street, Reading Hi Chris: Please see attached email that I sent to the Selectman yesterday. I can only reiterate that I totally support the Reading Coop's effort to provide employee parking. As members of the MPAC we know all too well that in order to sustain a healthy and vibrant downtown, we need to be able to park cars! The Reading Coop should be applauded for taking a leadership role regarding a problem that affects us all. Please let the CPDC know that we need their help! Thanks, Janet Janet A, Allen, CBR, CRB, CRS, GRI, LTG Sales Manager Johnson Woods 781 944-0900 Office 781 944-0943 Fax janet@gloverproperty.com www.johnsonwoods. net From: Janet A. Allen [mailto:janet@johnsonwoods.net] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:47 AM To: 'selectmen@ci.reading. ma. us'; 'cwanthony@ci. reading. ma. us'; 'jbbnazoli@ci.reading.ma.us'; 'sgoldy@ci.read ing.ma.us'; 'btafoya@ci.read ing.ma.us'; 'rschubert@reading.ma.us' Cc: 'Bradley Latham 0.'; 'jthurlow@readingcoop.com' Subject: Proposed Employee Parking Lot at 16 Sanborn Street, Reading To: Camille, Ben, Rick, Steve and James: The Reading Cooperative Bank has always maintained a respectful, innovative and charitable presence in the Town of Reading. How proud we should be that this Bank has always stepped up to the plate to help others, to recognize need amongst us and indeed, put their money on the line for the good of the majority. Their commitment to the parcel of land located at 16 Sanborn Street is just a continuation of a thoughtful solution to what probably has to be one of the biggest problems the Town faces as we forge 12/12/2006 9~ Page 2 of 2 into the future with all hope of exciting downtown and South Main Street renovations. As a member of the recent Master Plan Advisory Committee, the ability to park (both as a consumer and merchant) was always paramount in all of our discussions regarding the financial health and the maintenance of the quality of life in our wonderful Town. As a Realtor, we must always consider the highest and best use of land. I have been a Realtor in Reading for 27 years and nobody ever likes change. However, I cannot think of a better location for the Reading Cooperative Bank to want to help and I know that the site (albeit a parking lot) will receive maximum enhancement. Thanks, Janet Allen Janet A. Allen, CBR, CRB, CRS, GRI, LTG Sales Manager Johnson Woods 781 944-0900 Office 781 944-0943 Fax janet@gloverproperty.com www.johnsonwoods.net 12/12/2006' Page 1 of 2 Hechenblefter, Peter j~ From: Kingston, Joan akingston@readingcoop.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:04 PM To: Town Manager Subject: FW: 16 Sanborn Street proposed parking lot Peter: Per your request, I am forwarding a copy of the e-mail I sent to the Board of Selectmen prior to last night's CPDC meeting. As time constraints did not allow for comments last night, I wanted to have this information added to the files of pros and cons on the issue. Thank you, Joan Kingston From: Joan Kingston [mailto:jrjak68@hotmail.com) Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:14 PM To: selectmen@ci.reading. ma. us Cc: Kingston, Joan Subject: 16 Sanborn Street proposed parking lot Dear Board of Selectmen: I am writing to support Reading Co-operative Bank's proposal to build a parking lot on the property at 16 Sanborn Street. I have been a resident of Reading for 38 years, I am a member of First Congregational Church and I am an employee of the bank. I know full well the difficulties people have with the lack of parking in Reading center. I most often walk to work so as not to add to the congestion (I live next to Hunt Park). A parking lot at the proposed address would allow more bank employees to park their cars off area streets so that customers, parishioners, Creative Arts students, R.E.A.P. parents, Douglas - Edgerly & Bessom visitors and area neighbors could use the vacated spaces. I understand that some of the neighbors of this site are uncomfortable with the prospect of losing their sense of neighborhood. I can sympathize, as my parents had to sell their home to a hospital for its increased parking needs. These neighbors are correct that this change of use will alter the community dynamic in their "back yard". I can offer that, from past projects, Reading Co-operative Bank creates well cared for, pleasing to look at parking spaces around its facilities. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, and I wish you well in your many efforts to enable our various neighborhoods to feel heard while addressing issues of community wide necessities. Sincerely, Joan Kingston 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 211 Pleasant Street CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The material contained in or accompanying this electronic transmission contains confidential information which is the property of the sender and is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify us immediately. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The material contained in or accompanying this electronic transmission contains confidential information which is the property of the sender and is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify us immediately. 12/12/2006 gk~ Hechenbleikner, Peter From: gmolettieri@baystatefinancial.com Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Reilly, Chris Cc: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen; Camille Anthony forwading account; James Bonazoli forwarding account; Steve Goldy forwarding account; jthurlow@readingcoop.com; Ben Tofoya; Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses Subject: Reading Co-operative Dear Chris: I am writing to you in support of Reading Co-operative's proposed employee lot on Sanborn Street. I am a Reading resident (Lowell Street) and a Reading Business owner. The proposal is integral to Reading Co-operatives continued growth in town. As a community we are extremely fortunate to have such a well run institution be part of our town. In a time when the town is up in arms over a big developer taking over our small business', I can't not see how our town officials can not fully support Reading Co-ops plans. Our town has been infiltrated by many big banks and it makes it more important to support our community bank. Chris, this plan will provide more parking in our community for others,seeing we will get the employee's of Reading Co-op off the street spaces and out of the municipal lots. It also will be very controlled access, which no other lot in town does. I fully support this proposal and I think as a community we need to look at what is best for the "whole" community, not just cater to the loud minority. I feel as if we are creating a government of who ever screams the loudest can put a stop to our town growth. I look forward to seeing this project progress in the right direction. Regards Gino Gino P. Molettieri, CMFC Financial Planner Managing Associate Baystate Financial Services 301 Edgewater Place Suite 100 Wakefield, MA 01880 Tel: 781.876.4152 Fax: 781.876.4199 http://www.ginomolettieri.com/ Gino P. Molettieri is a financial planner and a registered representative with New England Securities. Securities products and investment advisory services are offered through New England Securities, a broker/dealer, member NASD/SIPC and registered investment adviser. Branch office: One Exeter Plaza, Suite 1400, Boston MA 02116 (617) 585-4500. Insurance products are offered through New England Life Insurance Co., Boston, MA, and related companies. (Entity disclosure, if any.) Please do not send any market sensitive messages by fax, email, or by leaving.a voicemail, as orders cannot be honored in this manner. The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use of, dissemination of the information, or copying of the message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. 8~ You may ask not to receive future E-mail advertisements from NEF, MetLife and its affiliates by sending an E-mail message back to me at the address above. Please indicate in this message that you do not wish to receive future E-mail solicitations and be sure to include any additional E-mail addresses to which your request applies. Upon receipt of your e-mail, we will record your request. This may take up to ten (10) business days. (CD200603865; EXP: 7/30/2008) "WorldSecure <nef.com>" made the following annotations on 12/12/06 14:00:53 The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. 2 E S Page 1 of 1 Hechenbiefter, Peter From: aganguly@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Town Manager Subject: FW: Support for Reading Co-Op Bank employee parking Dear, Mr. Reilly & Mr. Hechenbleikner: I am a Reading resident for over 15 years and have seen Reading Co-Operative Bank grow in our town. This bank has been contributing significantly to the town activities and proven to have good intentions. I therefore lend my support to Reading Co-operative Bank's employee parking proposal. Regards, Aniruddha Ganguly Reading, MA 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter C From: Ausline@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:59 PM To: Town Manager Subject: re: Support of Reading Co-operative Banks request for a Parking Lot To: Town Manager My wife and I are in support of the request by Reading Co-Operative Bank for a parking lot at 16 Sanborn Street. This allows the Bank to keep it's operation Downtown. Bruce and Barbara Austin 18 Fairchild Drive Reading 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 1 L l C cS -C Hechenblefter, Peter From: Maureen Scott [mscott@jbcrosby.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:00 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Downtown Parking As a Reading resident and a downtown employee, I would like to support the Reading Co-operative Banks' plan to have the Sanborn St. site rezoned into a parking overlay zone. This would not only help the Bank employees, but also free up parking for other downtown employees. You all know that there is a problem in the downtown, help the Bank in it's bid to help the overcrowded conditions. Let me state the obvious, without employes, you would loose your downtown businesses. Thank you. Maureen Scott 20 Landers Rd. 12/13/2006