HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-07 Board of Selectmen PacketPage I of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: bonazoli@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:14 PM /
To: Anthony, Camille; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Re: FW: EVERSON PETTION TO READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Hello all - hope everyone is doing well.
Additioanlly, although we are not slated to meet, I will be traveling for work on Tuesday February 28th
and will not be able to meet.
I have been approached by a couple people thinking the Board has hired Jeff for this issue and as that is
not the case we may need to be address this in one of our future meetings.
Thanks - take care
James
Original message
From: "Camille Anthony" <canthony@ftmc.net>
I am leaving for FL for 10 days tomorrow. Have fun. James and I are not at the meeting next week. Do
we have a quorum?
Can you bring up Jeff's petition and how you want to go forward and let him know?
Camille Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Everson, Jeff [mailto:jeverson@foster-miller.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:57 PM
To: Camille Anthony
Subject: RE: EVER SON PE 7ION TO READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Camille:
Thank you. Your interest in this is appreciated.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Camille Anthony [mailto:canthony@ftmc.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:47 PM
To: Everson, Jeff
Subject: RE: EVERSON PEfTION TO READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Jeff:
I have the auditors in this week and also did not have a BOS meeting. The Board meets next
week and I will ask Peter to have it before the Board.
cl%
2/2/2006
Page 2 of 2
Camille Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Everson, Jeff [mailto:jeverson@foster-miller.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:29 AM
To: canthony@cdmtitle.com
Subject: EVERSON PETION TO READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Camille,
I recently sent you an email regarding my petition to the Reading Board of
Selectmen (BoS) on obtaining documentation from the Addison Wesley
developer, S. R. Weiner. This documentation pertains to the verification of the
developer's claim regarding the traffic split of 80-15-5 percent related to
motorists heading to the Lifestyle Retail Center (LRC) at Addison Wesley.
Will the Reading BoS
• Request this documentation from the developer? If not, why?
• Make issuance of a permit and rezoning contingent upon receiving and
evaluating this documentation?
• Consider pursuing this matter as,, a possible case of fraud if the developer
fails to comply with your request for documentation?
I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, Reading First
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com
2/2/2006
- OF
V'
-14 ti : Town of Reading
.16 Lowell Street
9'tNCORpO~P Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: February 2, 2006
RE: Mission Statement and Goals
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942.6643
Bob LeLacheur has made an attempt to modify the Mission Statement and the Goals to
consolidate and focus them, and to make the Mission Statement read better. They are attached.
Please let me know what you think. The Value Statements have remained the same as
previously drafted.
PIH/ps
/ c3
DRAFT
MISSION STATEMENT
The Mission of the Town of Reading Municipal Government is
to provide essential services to the residents of the Town of
Reading. In fulfilling its Mission, the Town needs to constantly
strike a balance between near- and long-term objectives,
constrained by prudent fiscal discipline. This will ensure that
the community remains an attractive place to both live and
work.
The Board of Selectmen shall provide the vision and
leadership to guide Town Government to act in a manner
consistent with their adopted Values in the pursuit of their
stated Goals.
Page 1 of 15 updated 01/30/06
VALUES STATEMENT
The following values shall guide Reading Town Government and it's
employees and officials in conducting their business. These values are
adopted as an element of the Town's Mission Statement.
COMMUNITY IN'T'ERACTIONS
➢ All business of the Town shall be conducted according to the
highest standards of ethics and integrity.
➢ Employees and officials shall operate in an open manner, providing
opportunities for public discussion and input into those decisions.
➢ Employees and officials will keep the community informed with
accurate, timely, and factual information.
➢ Mutual respect and an attitude of caring shall govern all aspects of
Town Government.
➢ Employees and officials shall conduct themselves in a professional
manner at all times. Reading values professionalism
COMMUNITY SERVICES
➢ Reading residents value the quality of services provided by their
Town Government. The highest feasible quality of service is the
standard for Reading Town Government.
➢ The Town strives for continuous improvement in all services that it
provides.
➢ The Town is open to new methods and technology to make
improvements to its services.
➢ All services need to be provided in the most efficient and cost
effective manner possible.
➢ While respecting the past and present, Reading will continue to plan
for the future, embracing improvements that make the community a
better place to live and work.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER
➢ Residents of Reading strongly identify with the community, and
have a great deal of pride in their Town. This is evidenced in the
Page 2 of 15 updated 01/30/06 l
G~
level of civic involvement within the community. This is a standard
that is embraced and supported by Town Government.
➢ Reading is an open and welcoming community.
➢ Reading embraces diversity.
➢ The Town will strive to maintain and enhance the character of the
community including: volunteerism, history as reflected in historic
buildings and areas, quality of residential development, a
concentrated and focused commercial center, outstanding public
buildings, and a quantity and quality of open space and recreation
areas.
Page 3 of 15 updated 01/30/06
G(2 %
GOALS STATEMENT
In its effort to continuously improve the quality of life and. civic
involvement in the community, the Board of Selectmen adopts the
following goals:
1. Financial Strength
• Enhance and maintain the financial strength of the community
in order to have the resources to accomplish its priority services.
• Develop and maintain both physical and intellectual
infrastructure in a manner that reflects significant community
investment and financial support.
2. Public Health and Safety
• Support Public Health and Safety as priority local services.
Enhance local efforts with assistance from Federal, State, and
regional resources.
3. Communication
• Continuously enhance open two-way communication between
Town Government and its residents.
• Emphasize and enhance strong communication within Town
Government.
4. Planning
• Utilize long-range strategic planning on all levels, to provide a
constant and reliable framework for decision making.
• Continuously evaluate and improve the services the Town
provides, and how the services are delivered.
GI
Page 4 of 15 updated 01/30/06
FY07 General Town Budqet - Significant Additions
BOS
Goal
TOTAL
Wages Benefits Expenses
Lumuiative
In FY07 Budget
1
Snow & Ice
$
25,000
$
25,000
$
25,000
Increase budget towards long-term average
4
Health
$
9,235
$
9,235
$
34,235
Inspector- incr. from 23 to 30 hrs/wk
4
Health
$
8,053
$
8,053
$
42,288
Public Health Nurse - incr. from 26 to 32 hrs/wk
1
Assessment
$
28,400
$
28,400
70,688
Revaluation 2008
6
Library*
$
17,250
$
17,250
$
87,938
Long Range Strategic Plan
1-6
Town Manager
$
-
$
871938
. Salary review
$
87,938
( $
17,288 $
I $
70,650
Priorities:
2,4
Police
$
71,500
$
55,000
16,500
$
159,438
Police business administrator
2
Parks & Forestry
$
4;000
$
4,000
$
163,438
Playground mulch
2,6
Long Range Plan
$
25;923
$
25,923,
,189,361
DPW - Department review by consultant
2
Technology
$
22,467,
$
,'22,467.
$
211,828
Increase from PT to FT for GIS co-ordinator
3,5
Technology
$
12,528
$
12,528
$
224,356
Website improvements
3,5
Human Resources
' $
12,552
$
12,552
$
236,908
Customer Service training/software
1
Assessment
$
28,800
$
18,000 $
<10,800
$
265,708
Increase from PT to FT
6
Community Svcs
$
$
45,000 $
13,500
$
265,708
Permits Co-ordinator and/or technology - increase revenues
1 $177,770
( $140,467 $
40,800 $
55,003
Defer until FY08:
Library*
$
65,437
$
56,902
$
8,535
$
331,145
Restore four hours of operation
3
Library*
$
35,788
$
15,560 $
15,560 $
4,668
$
366,933
Technology Librarian - incr. from 12hrs to 28hrs
Library
$
28,750
$
28,750 -
$
395,683
, fully fund library materials
1
Assessment
$
400
$
400
$
' 396,083;
, New digital camera
4
Fire
$
6,300
$
6,300
$
402,383=
Position promotion - Asst. Fire Chief
Community Svcs
$
12,627
$
12,627
$
415,010
Increase from PT to FT clerical
Community Svcs
$
1,000
$
1,000
416,010
Prof. Dev. - ICMA conference
Elder/Human Svcs
10;304
$
10,304
$
426,314
Operator of a 2nd Van
Elder/Human Svcs
$
2,100
$
,2,100
$
428,414
Operation of the 2nd Van
1,2,5
Technology
$
2,349
$
2,349
$
430,763
Prof Dev. -network administration training
2,5
Technology
2,349
$
2;349:
433,112
Prof Dev. - GIS training
$167,404
1 $101,693 $
15,560 $
50,151
Storm Water Man
agement Enterprise Fund:
2
Highway*
$
17.9
59;369 $
:17,811
Two new laborers
\
* = all Library non-materials costs have been increased by a 15% addit
ional materials requirement
Qlq
f
r. .DING POLICE DEPARTMENT
k~~ ~ mar=
OFFICE OF THE CHEF
~`t HCtlR 15 Union Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Tamed T. Cvrnzier Emergency Only: 911 All Other Calls: 781-944-1212 1 ax: 781-944-2893
C/lief of Police E-AUU: JCormier@ei.reading.ma.us
TO: Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
FROM: Chief James W. Cormier
DATE: February 1, 2006
RE: Walkers Brook Drive, West St. & Salem St. Developments
Regarding the request for information about the impact the new developments are having
on services provided by the Reading Police, Department, the chart below shows the calls
for service activity as outlined at the meeting on January 28, 2006.
As I mentioned at the meeting our annual calls for service are just over 12,000. The
numbers shown for the Walkers Brook Dr. area currently account for approximately 5%
of our total calls for service. Prior to 2004 the area was largely undeveloped and calls for
service were minimal.
Calls for Service
Walkers Brook Dr.
Johnson Woods - West St.
Archstone Dev. - West St.
Salem St.
TOTAL
Cal. Yr. 2004
Cal. Yr. 2005
420
640
10
59
0 (
12
0 (
3
430
714
We are currently able to handle the increases we've experienced by adjusting our
assignment areas, and focusing our attention through analysis. We would expect to see
increased demands for service at the three housing developments currently under
construction. How much impact is difficult to judge, there are many factors that play into
impacts from housing areas. These include crime mitigation techniques built in by
contractors, lighting, security systems, seclusion barriers, etc. Location will impact
crime, proximity to escape routes, convenient access, etc.
I recommend we continue to monitor the calls for service and evaluate periodically. We
have taken steps to segregate various areas in our record keeping system so as to be able
to easily monitor the service demands. Any other questions or comments please feel free
to contact me.
~4 -
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Murphy, Tom
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:18 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Sunset Rock and Roma Cul-de-sac
Pete,
l have,not sent the work order to the DPW yet for the new regulations for these cut-de-sacs because they do not address
the weekend issues: I figured it would not make sense to have the DPW install signs and then have to replace them. Do
you know if the BOS will address this issue?
Tom
(2" o.
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: McClellan, Maryann [Maryann.McClellan @mwra.state. ma. us]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:17 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: The Case for Debt Service Assistance
TO: All Interested Parties
FROM: Joseph Favaloro, Executive Director, MWRA Advisory Board
DATE: February 2, 2006
RE: The Case for Debt Service Assistance
Page 1 of 1
n
01 c-: X11 p 1~
U
A sincere thank you for all of your efforts regarding the Advisory Board's Resolution for increased funding for Debt
Service Assistance. Forty-nine communities, representing nearly 98% of the service area, have endorsed the
Resolution.
Phase II begins tomorrow. Attached is a package of materials that will be sent to every MWRA service area
legislator. It is critical to follow up our mailings with your own calls and letters.
Together we can make a difference.
C 4.
2/2/2006
60
14IWRA
a 'ADVISORY
BOARD
February 1, 2006
Dear MWRA Area Legislator:
As you are well aware, water and sewer rates continue to be a major concern for our
ratepayers and our communities.
In addition, over the next five years, MWRA wholesale rates are expected to grow by over
$208 million (44%), primarily due to ever-increasing debt payments on the outstanding
MWRA capital bonds.
In FY07, increases to our communities are now projected to be nearly 10%.
With this backdrop, working closely with Mayors, Selectmen and elected officials, we present
to you a Resolution signed by 49 MWRA communities, representing 97.5% of the service
area, requesting that the Commonwealth provide additional Debt Service Assistance.
Once again the Governor, in H1, provides zero in Debt Service Assistance funding. We need
your continued support. The Advisory Board respectfully requests that each of you also sign
a Resolution asking for a minimum of $25 million for FY07; we also hope that you include
increased Debt Service Assistance on your list of Legislative Budget priorities as you sit with
leadership in the coming weeks. The Resolution can be obtained in Caucus Chairman Ron
Mariano's office.
We are grateful for all of your efforts in the past and look forward to working with you on
behalf of our ratepayers. Please call me if you would like a presentation and/or have a
question.
If you would like to access your local communities' impact or the Advisory Board case for
more Debt Service Assistance, they can be found at www.mwraadvisorvboard.com.
Sincerely,
r
Joseph E. Favaloro, Jr.
Executive Director
C/
Resolution in Support of Increased Funding for the
Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund
Whereas, the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a statewide program, providing over $60 million to
140 communities throughout the Commonwealth at its peals in 2002 and funded at $12.5 million in FY06;
and
Whereas, the MWRA has spent over $6.4 billion to date on capital projects and intends to spend an
additional $1.3 billion over the next ten years; and
Whereas, 62% of the MWRA's annual operating budget goes directly to pay outstanding debt; and
Whereas, a recent study found that public investment in Boston Harbor has resulted in a radical
transformation of. the Boston waterfront that is providing economic benefit throughout the Greater Boston
area,. as well as a renewed recreational interest in the harbor islands and the return of marine life; and
Whereas, a 2004 affordability analysis found rates in the MW][ZA service area, which includes 60
communities and over 2.5 million Massachusetts residents, are presenting a substantial social and economic
burden to homeowners and are threatening the economic viability of the region; and
Whereas, water and sewer rate assessments to communities are expected to increase $208 million over the
next five years; and
Whereas, homeowners in the MWRA system already pay some of the highest rates in the nation; and
Whereas, the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a formula-driven program providing state funding
up to 20% of the cost of a wastewater project thereby directly offsetting debt service costs and providing an
ininiediate benefit to communities and residents;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the <<Town or City>> supports funding the Connnonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund
based on the established formula, minimally including $25 million in Fiscal Year 2007;
RESOLVED, that the <<Town or City>> supports fully funding the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief
Fund based on the formula by Fiscal Year 2011.
ADOPTED this
SIGNED
10 Arlington
(S Framingham
10 Natick
10 Swampscott
I® Ashland
(S Hingham
10 Needham
10 Wakefield
10 Bedford
10 Holbrook
Is Newton
_._._r Walpole
10 Belmont
I® Leominster
10 Norwood ~
I® Waltham
Boston
.10 Lexington
10 Peabody
10 Watertown
10 Braintree
Lynn
10 Quincy .
f ® Wellesley
(Q Brookline
Its Malden
1® Randolph
10 Westwood
10 Burlington
10 Marblehead
10 Reading
10 Weymouth
0 Cambridge
_
10 Medford
10 Revere
10 Wilmington
10 Canton
Its Melrose
€0 Somerville
Ind Winchester
10 Chelsea
0 Milton
Is Stoneham
0 Winthrop
10 Dedham
10 Nahant
10 Stoughton
h Woburn
I® Everett I ( 1
Actual Resolutions are on file at the MWRA Advisory Board office.
v
Resolution in Support of Increased Funding for the
Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund
Whereas, the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a statewide program, providing over $60 million to
140 communities throughout the Commonwealth at its peak in 2002 and funded at $12.5 million in FY06;
and
Whereas, the MWRA has spent over $6.4 billion to date on capital projects and intends to spend an
additional $1.3 billion over the next ten years; and
Whereas, 62% of the N VWRA's annual operating budget goes directly to pay outstanding debt; and
Whereas, a recent study found that public investment in Boston Harbor has resulted in a radical
transformation of the Boston waterfront that is providing economic benefit throughout the Greater Boston
area, as well as a renewed recreational interest in the harbor islands and the return of marine life; and
Whereas, a 2004 affordability analysis found rates in the MWRA service area, which includes 60
communities and over 2.5 million Massachusetts residents, are presenting a substantial social and economic
burden to homeowners and are threatening the economic viability of the region; and
Whereas, water and sewer rate assessments to communities are expected to increase $208 million over the
next five years; and
Whereas, homeowners in the MWRA system already pay some of the highest rates in the nation; and
Whereas, the Commonwealth Sewer Rate Relief Fund is a formula-driven program providing state funding
up to 20% of the cost of a wastewater project thereby directly offsetting debt service costs and providing an
immediate benefit to communities and residents;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that we the undersigned MWRA area legislators, support funding the Commonwealth Sewer
Rate Relief Fund based on the established formula, minimally including $25 million in Fiscal Year 2007.
SIGNED
v
ipat Notes
pAuntc VeUVOSement
Professional
nt Bud at
oe
file Reimb
2 500 defett elth COMP
ins
Additional $ ,
nroll in h
Su"eY To:
r Contribution Lif
v??s=
ense"On
Oeveio T
ot e
TA does n
Vehicle is p,Ojided it
ICoMP
to e
Manager Salaty ~EmP Y . ins.
own D
109, sabili
T
ed
P9
q 165 of it is
$7 815, but$ , t dept.
hnu
e
_
213106 pPrPrr
FY0 6 Sala
for
0
2
thrua
s
f
costs
IRS ra
-
insurance
C MM-0 match, up to
and vita ta
501/0
Annual iCMP, Con
s
Bett
s replOnai m
l
-
$650imonth
$122,500 up to $2,500 None s
to a $1,600
u
d
a
as wel
needed
p
Bedfor
None erbufsement
$128,004 $5,674.90
As
bursement
Vehrcte plus reim e expenses
onab
Belmont $1,236.18 -
fl00
$10
0
-
for fees
imbursement
,
$132,542 Up to $2000
to $2000
U
No
e re
Mileag $10.725
Ig3,600 annisaliv) F{p7 Salary 1 °
P
Danvers
$4,750
$300 par month
$135,000 No
Lexington Atl managers
140 Ica% vatd -
dMin Dept
Total of fi is $10.440
i -
mite for
0
$107,504
left
30 C
ants p eetinas
f
out of town m~
0
LYnnfieid -
p
None
-
0
er Month
' $107,504 0
p
$45
Reading 0 r
Nrth 0
$1,000
_
-
mileage
if submitted,
0
$105,859 -
is reimbursed
0
Stoneham
$7,500
ai vehicle
Municip
$120,000 No
Tewksbury No
and ATM
000 for TM
5
No
$102,220 - 0
$
,
onth
$400 perm
Wakefield 0 r _ -
- 0
expenses fiat
A9Tee to pay ai development
$115,368 Yes reoutred PT~fes
$250,p00j---"
Yes
(tat
Wilmington -
5°l0 of annual
' $1361000 salary
Winchester
$119,317
Average s are above what is
000
ntribution
$11A,
employer co
eadtn9 These
ll other employees,
R
offered a
I G, S
RMLD Presentation to the Reading Board of Selectmen
February 7, 2006
• Calpine, one of the RMLD's power suppliers, filed for bankruptcy on
December 20, 2005. Calpine represents approximately 50% of the RMLD's
power supply. The Calpine power supply 'contract term was from June, 2002
through October, 2007.
• According to the power supply contract, when Calpine lost its investment
grade credit rating in June, 2003, Calpine was forced to post money into an
Escrow Account in the RMLD's name to ensure performance.
• After Calpine filed for bankruptcy the RMLD exercised its rights under the
Power Supply Agreement with Calpine and terminated the contract on
December 28, 2005 and determined the settlement amount owed to the RMLD.
• Calpine has disputed the RMLD's settlement amount. As a result of Calpine's
disputing the settlement amount, the Escrow Account has been frozen. The
RMLD is in the process of taking legal actions against Calpine in order to
release the money from the Escrow Account. .
• The RMLD has replaced the power supply, which was lost through the
termination of the Calpine contract. The replacement power was obtained at a
higher price than the Calpine price, which is a result of the current market
conditions. The amount of funds in the Escrow Account fully covers the
additional cost of the replacement power.
• It is the RMLD's intention to obtain the money from the Escrow Account
through efficient legal channels. However, during the time it takes to obtain
the Escrow Account funds, the RMLD will cover the cost increases through a
combination of reserves and increasing the Fuel Charge.
• The Fuel Charge may increase $.005/kWh in March, which will result in an
increase of $3.50 per month for an average residential customer using 700 kWh
per month.
• The RMLD hopes that this issue will be settled as expeditiously as possible.
L
Memo
Date: 1/20/06
To: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager
From:John Feudo, Recreation Administrator
RE: Reading Good Sports Partnership Commission
The Good Sports Partnership Commission is a group made up of Reading Youth Sports Administrators
along with members of the Reading Police Department and Recreation Division. Our goal is to promote
and educate members of our youth sports community in the area of Sportsmanship.
We would like to invite you to a youth sports evening with guest speaker Bob Bigelow. Bob Bigelow is
very well-known around the country for his presentation on youth sports. He was seen as recently as this
past summer on ESPN's acclaimed series "Outside the Lines" to speak about the Little League World
Series. Parents and Coaches will be invited for this free educational event. The event is being
sponsored by Reading Youth Baseball and Reading Youth Softball and will take place on Thursday,
February 16th at 7:00 PM at the RMHS Auditorium.
Attached is a handbook the Commission has developed. We are asking that the Board of Selectmen
accept and support this handbook as a standard for Reading Youth Sports. The goal of this handbook is
to have it distributed to each and every coach and parent in Reading. The cost of the printing this 12-
page bi-fold will be supported by local sponsorship. Of course any comments and or suggestions are
welcome as this is a working draft.
Please contact me if you have any questions at 781-942-6674.
~G
7
DING
YOUTH SPORTS
VOF1\1
HANDBOOK
READING RECREATION DIVISION
READING POLICE DEPARTMENT
YOUTH LEAGUES OF READING
~ a )41-
GOOD SPORTS PAR TERSHIP
COMMISSION
V9 P'*I\ MISSION STATEMENT
To promote good sportsmanship and appropriate
behavior in youth sports at all times through the
education of parents, coaches and players.
ABOUT THE GOOD SPORTS
PARTNERSHIP COMMISSION
The Good Sports Partnership Commission is a
group made up of Reading Youth Sports
Administrators along with members of the
Reading Police Department and Recreation
Division. Our goal is to promote and educate
members of our youth sports community in the
area of Sportsmanship.
A (~3
TOWN OF READING
FI MASSACHUSETTS
Vgp~
This handbook has been developed as a
proactive approach against violence in youth
sports. We sincerely hope each of our parents,
coaches, players and officials in Reading will
take the time to understand their role in this
community as a participant with our youth
programs.
This policy has been developed by leaders of the
youth sports organizations and accepted by the
Recreation Committee and the Board of
Selectmen as a standard policy in Reading.
Let us pledge that we, as individuals, will abide
by this code to insure that all of our children will
benefit from the experience they have
participating in Youth Sports.
A L., I
V9". No
THE PLAYERS ARE EXPECTED TO...
♦ Know, understand, and honor the commitments that they and their parents have
made to coaches, teams, and leagues.
♦ Always try to do their best.
♦ Be honest with all involved.
♦ Learn all the rules of their particular sport.
♦ Respect and cooperate with their coaches, officials, teammates, administrators,
opponents and parents.
♦ Avoid showing off, trash talking, or taunting anyone.
♦ Respect team and league rules concerning tobacco, drugs, alcohol, and behavior
beyond the field or court.
♦ Respect equipment and playing sites and do not destroy the site, steal or leave a
mess.
♦ Behave properly in transit.
e Expect to be treated fairly and with respect from all involved.
♦ Expect to play an appropriate amount of playing time according to team rules and
regulations
♦ Expect coaches, parents, fans, game officials and administrators to provide an
environment where the players can learn their sport, be safe, and have fun.
A C/-5 .
PLAYERS SHOULD EXPECT
COACHES TO...
♦ Provide a safe environment for participants.
♦ Develop a strategy to implement and monitor the sportsmanship policies of the
league.
♦ Communicate messages encouraging good sportsmanship to coaches, players,
parents, fans and game officials.
♦ Review and monitor sportsmanship policies.
♦ Be sure that all persons involved are aware of rules and regulations.
o Support and reward participants, coaches and fans that display good
sportsmanship.
♦ Create a positive atmosphere to allow participants to demonstrate the highest level
of sportsmanship.
♦ Insist that the behavior of all involved will be positive and sportsmanlike.
♦ Serve as a positive role model.
♦ Show respect for public and private properties i.e. remove trash after games.
♦ Develop selection procedures for coaches designed to encourage the value of good
sportsmanship.
♦ Make sure all players experience appropriate amount of playing time, according to
league's policy.
♦ Make an effort to attend annual coach's training/orientation sessions.
♦ Promote the emotional and physical well being of all athletes ahead of any desire
the may have for their own child.
♦ Not force their child to participate in sports.
♦ Remember that children participate to have fun and that the game is for youths, not
for adults.
♦ Inform the coach of any physical disability or ailment that may affect the safety of
their child or the safety of others.
♦ Learn the rules of the game and the policies of the league.
♦ Be a positive role model for their children and encourage sportsmanship by showing
respect and courtesy, and by demonstrating positive support for all players.
♦ Not engage in any kind of unsportsmanlike conduct with any official, coach, player
or parent such as booing, taunting, refusing to shake hands or using profane
language or gestures.
♦ Teach their child to play by the rules and to resolve conflicts without resorting to
violence.
Demand that their children treat other players, coaches, and spectators with
respect, regardless of race, creed, color, sex or ability.
♦ Praise their child for competing fairly and trying hard.
♦ Never ridicule or yell at their child or other participants for making a mistake or
losing a competition.
♦ Emphasize skill development and practices and how they benefit their child.
♦ Promote the emotional and physical well being of all athletes ahead of any personal
desire that they may have for their child.
♦ Refrain from coaching their child or players during games and practices, unless one
of the official coaches of the team asks them to help with Coaching.
♦ Show interest by enthusiastically cheering and applauding the good plays on both
teams.
s Show proper respect for game officials, participants, coaches and other fans.
♦ Not "boo", stamp feet or make disrespectful remarks towards players or officials.
♦ Learn the rules of the game so that they may understand and appreciate why
certain things take place on the field or court.
♦ Obey officials and league administrators who are responsible for keeping order.
♦ Stay off playing fields at all times.
♦ Never use tobacco, alcohol, and or drugs at games and practice sites.
♦ Pay attention to the game and not disturb those around you.
♦ Treat the contest as a game not a war.
♦ Encourage those around them to display good sportsmanship.
♦ Accept and respect all decisions of the game official.
♦ Show good judgement on their choice of words.
♦ Show respect for public and private property to include removing trash and personal
items after each practice or game.
ql(!I~
PLAYERS SHOULD EXPECT
OFFICIALS TO...
♦ Know the rules. Stay current and discuss them with the coaches and other officials.
Stay in good standing in your official's association. Attend the official's clinics and
rules interpretation meetings.
♦ Be punctual. Follow you associations' and the league guidelines concerning your
arrival time prior to game start. It is your responsibilities to know directions to game
sites and arrive on time. Know your pre-game responsibilities and perform them
properly.
♦ Dress properly. Look sharp. Follow the league and association guidelines to the
letter concerning uniform particulars.
♦ Keep your equipment safe and up to date.
♦ Be decisive. Be confident. Be proud. Make your calls clear without hesitation.
Carry yourself with integrity, humility and honesty.
o Listen to players and coaches. Use your discretion when somebody crosses the
line then act accordingly. Do not look for trouble. Do not hold grudges or look to get
even but do not appear weak. If a situation seems to be getting out of hand, slow
down and calmly decide what should be done and take the appropriate action
without hesitation.
♦ Not use of alcohol or drugs prior to games.
♦ Work with your partners. Know your individual and team game responsibilities.
♦ Communicate clearly with coaches when calling a game due to hazardous weather
or field conditions.
C
I/_ C/
" READING YOUTH SPORTS INFO
ORGANIZATION CONTACT PERSON PHONE
Reading Youth Softball
Frank Driscoll
944 - 6237
Pop Warner Football
Adam Pollock
942 - 9494
Babe Ruth League
Jeff Pierce
944 - 7552
Senior Babe Ruth League
Jeff Pierce
944 - 7552
Lou Tompkins League
Jeff Pierce
944 - 7552
United Soccer Club
Mike Sheedy
msheedy@comcast.net
Reading Youth Baseball
David Gray
942 - 0093
Reading Youth Basketball
John Feudo
942 - 9075
Reading Youth Hockey
Jay Stratton
942 - 0203
Reading Youth Lacrosse
Charles Hardy
942 -1489
READING YOUTH RESOURCE WESSITES
Reading Recreation - www.ci.reading.ma.us/recreation
Reading Police - http://users.rcn.com/readingl/police
United Soccer Club - www.rusc.org
Youth Lacrosse - www.readinglacrosse.com
Youth Baseball - http://eteamz.active.com/rybaseball
Pop Warner Football - www.readingpopwarner.com
Youth Hockey - http://eteamz.active.com/readingyouthhockey/standings
G~~
GOLDEN RULE OF COACHING
If athletes are coached with criticism, they learn low self-esteem.
If athletes are coached with hostility, they learn to fight.
If athletes are coached with ridicule, they learn to withdraw.
If athletes are coached with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If athletes are coached with patience, they learn to improve.
If athletes are coached with encouragement, they learn confidence.
If athletes are coached with praise, they learn to have faith.
If athletes are coached with fairness, they learn justice.
If athletes are coached with approval, they learn positive self-esteem.
If athletes are coached with honesty, they learn to trust.
If athletes are coached with modesty, they learn teamwork.
If athletes are coached with acceptance and friendship, they will learn to
find love in sport.
-From the National Youth Sports Safety Foundation, Inc.
V~ C/ ~ \
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF READING
To. the- Inhabit-ants .of the.. '
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that. the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold public hear-
ings on the following. matters.on
Tueed'ay, February7, 2Q06 in
the Selectmen's, Meeting Room,
16 Lowell Sfireet, Reading,
Massachusetts:
• Parks Rules and.
Regulations
8:30 p.m. .
Amending Drain Layers.:
License Fees`
9:00 p.m..
All. interested .parties may
appear in. person; mq.y .subrimit `
their: comments -in writing, or
may ernall commei nts to town
manaaer@ci.readind.ma.Llis.
By order of
Peter`i. Hechenbieikner
Town Manager
:1131
L
1
1
Section 4 5.2 - Rules and Regulations Relating to Parks, Plavsrounds and
Recreation Areas
The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading hereby adopts the following Rules and
Regulations governing conduct in Public Parks, including the enforcement of the Rules and
Regulations and penalties for their violation:
This policy shall be known and may be cited as the "Reading Park Rules and Regulations."
H 5.2.1 Definitions.
For the purposes of this policy, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations
shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the
present tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and
words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory
and not merely directory.
1. "Town" is the Town of Reading.
2. "Park" is a park, reservation, playground, recreation center, field, playing court,
pool, or any other area in the Town owned and/or used by the Town and devoted
to active or passive recreation.
3. "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or
organization of any kind.
4. "Vehicle" is any wheeled conveyance, whether motor powered, animal-drawn, or
self-propelled. The term shall include any trailer in tow of any size, kind or
description. Exception is made for baby carriages, bicycles, wheel chairs, and
vehicles in the service of the Town parks.
6 5.2.2 - General Reeulations
Deleted: ARTICLE 6-5 - HUMAN
SERVICES POLICIES¶
Section 6 5.1 - Hummn Services
Revolvine Fondsli
6-5.1.1- Creation ¶
There are hereby created four donatio
funds within the Department of Hum n
,ervices in the Town. These shall brl
tept separate and distinct. They ar as
Ilows:¶
¶ 1. Shopper Assistance Fu /d -
El er Services Division¶
2. General Assistance $und -
Eld r Services Division¶
3. General Assistan /
cgg Fund -
Hu n Services Departmenql¶
4. Prevention Educdtion Fund -
1. Facilities under the jurisdiction of the Reading Recreation Committee are for use
by Reading residents only unless specifically authorized, in writing by the
Recreation Committee or their designee, to the contrary.
2. Industries and businesses using recreation facilities must be located within the
Town of Reading unless specifically authorized, in writing by the Recreation
Committee or their designee, to the contrary.
3ti Other than business and industrial groups, all groups using outdoor
. - - -
facilities must - be made up of Reading residents only, except as specified by the
Recreation Committee.
4. No person or business may use any public field, tennis court,
basketball court or playing area to derive compensation with out the consent from
the Recreation Committee or their designee.
5,_ _I_I__P__arks and Playgrounds_under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Committee shall
open at 8:00 a.m. However, no sport or team shall begin any activities before
noon on Sundays. An exception may be granted one time per year per
organization by the Recreation Committee.
6,, All Parks and Playgrounds under the jurisdiction of the Recreation Committee
- - -
shall close at sunset except for the lighted facilities which shall close at 10:00
p.m. However, a game in progress on a lighted facility will be allowed to finish,
5-1
F .S. r.21 Parpose ¶
These ads are estnbli hed as follows: ¶
Fund 1, 1 - . To pay the salary and
expenses f the shopper a assist the
elderly in eetm, their.outine shopping
needs.$
Fund No. 2 . To assis: the elderly in
times of nee and when no other
resources or available. Examples may
include helpi g to race transportation
expenses or a traordin! y repairs to
property. Thi fund is et up so that in
many instance loans c in be repaid and
the moneys me a availuble again.¶
Fund No. 3 - . imilar to Fund No. 2, this
fund is established to Asist any resident
of the Town in ti ne of need and when no
other resources m - av ilable. Some
elements of this fi d may be set up on a
loan basis with re y= to go back into
the fund.$
Fund No. 4 - . To ay expenses of the
Substance Abuse P grams and Health
Fair.¶
6.5.1.3 - Procer ores
The following ppioced res are approved
for the administration f these funds by
the Board of ~electme
I.. The funds are hereb established by
the Board o Selectmen t tr the purposes
stated.¶
2.. When oneys are rec Dived, they will
be deposit d through the 'reasurer.
Collector and a notation i iade in the
appropri a monthly repot . Gifts will be
aecepte for a particular fi d but with no
other r tractions unless suc restrictions
are ap roved by the Board o Selectmen.$
3.. T expend moneys, the D partment
Will se the normal Town bill- aying
FOS. ess widr prior approval required from
Director of Elder Services for Fund
I and 2,the Director of Human,,, (11
Deleted:.. 3.
- - - -
Deleted: 4..
.t Deleted: 5.
~ti
with no inning, period, or game of tennis starting after 10:00 p.m. No game or
match on a lighted facility will be started after 9:00 p.m. A scheduled game in
progress will be allowed to be completed past the closing time, and the park must
be vacated within ten minutes of the completion of the game. The Board of
Selectmen may, from time to time, establish other specific closing hours.
71, Hockey_playing is permitted in a public skating area in that section of the public
{ Deleted: 6.
skating area designated by sign for that purpose only.
Sly Reservations for outdoor facilities must be reuested at the Recreation Division
- -
{ Deleted: 7.
office. Permits for authorized use will be issued by the Recreation Committee or
its designee.
9ti _ User-fees. for outdoor facilities will be charged as listed in current fee schedules,.-
Deleted: s.
-
Fees must generally be paid before permits will be issued.
The Recreation Committee will rule on situations not specifically covered in the
1.0,
-
{ Deleted:. A.
,
policy, and the Recreation Committee may amend the policy at any time.
{Deleted:
~ 5.2.3 - Rules
RULE 1. No person shall damage or break or cause to be broken any windows,
doors or other appurtenances of any buildings or structures on any public park, playground or
recreation area, or marls upon deface or disfigure any such buildings appurtenances or structure.
RULE 2. No person shall, in any public park, playground or recreation area in the
Town of Reading throw any stone or other missile; or have possession of or discharge any
destructive weapon, bow and arrow, firearm, firecracker, torpedo or fireworks; or make a fire; or
post, paint, affix or display any sign, notice, placard or advertising device; or engage in business,
sell or expose for sale, or give away any goods, wares or circulars; or drop or place and leave in
place any piece of paper or other refuse, except in the receptacles designated; except with the
written authority of the Recreation Committee or their designee and/or other permit granting
authority.
RULE 3. No person shall, on any public park, playground, recreation or other area under
the jurisdiction of the Recreation Committee in the Town of Reading, solicit the acquaintance of
or annoy another person or utter any profane, threatening abusive or indecent language or loud
outcry; or solicit any subscription or contribution; or have possession of, or drink any alcoholic
beverages as defined by Chapter 138, Section 1, of the General Laws; or play any game of
chance, or have possession of any instrument of gambling; or make an oration or harangue or
any political or other canvass; or preach or pray aloud; or do any obscene or indecent act; or play
any musical instrument or use any sound amplifier, except by written authority from the
Recreation Committee or their designee.
RULE 4. TREES, SHRUBBERY, LAWNS
1. Injury and Removal. No person shall, in any public park, damage, cut, carve,
transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark, or pick the flowers or
seeds, of any tree or plant. Nor shall any person attach any rope, wire, or other
contrivance to any tree or plant. A person shall not dig in or otherwise disturb
grass areas, or in any other way injure or impair the natural beauty or usefulness
of any area.
2. Climbing Trees, etc. No person shall, in any public park, climb any tree, or wall;
or stand or sit upon monuments, vases, fountains, railings or fences or upon any
other property not designated or customarily used for such purposes.
5-2
k3
A 01
3. Hitching of Animals. No person shall, on any public park, tie or hitch a horse or
other animal to any tree or plant.
RULE 5. No person shall, in any public park, playground or recreation area in the
Town of Reading, bathe except in proper costume and at places designated therefor; nor shall
any person loiter or run about or lie upon the areas around pools in bathing costume in a manner
deemed inappropriate by community standards.
RULE 6. No person in any public park, playground or recreation area in the Town
of Reading shall refuse or neglect to obey any reasonable direction of a police officer.
RULE 7. No person shall, in any public park, playground or recreation area in the
Town of Reading promote, or engage in any game of ball or other sport; except within the areas
especially provided therefor, or by written authority of the Recreation Committee or their
designee.. No person shall use or exhibit golf clubs in any public park, playground, or recreation
area.
RULE 8. No person shall, in any public park, playground or recreation area in the
Town of Reading, undress or dress put on or take off a bathing suit, except in buildings
designated for such use for the purpose of undressing or dressing or putting on or taking off a
bathing suit.
RULE 9. No person shall operate, drive, or ride an animal, vehicle or motor vehicle
upon or over any part of a playground recreation area or any public park in the Town of Reading
except where specifically allowed.
RULE 10. No person shall, in any public park, playground or recreation area in the
Town of Reading stop, stand or park. any automobile or other vehicle except in such manner and
in such areas as may be designated by signs or by a police officer.
6 5.2.4 - Enforcement
These regulations shall be enforced by the Reading Police Department who shall cause
the immediate termination of any activity that violates these rules and regulations. Violators
may be subject to tine, arrest or summons.
Compliance with these rules and regulations as established by the Recreation Committee is a
condition for the use of all facilities.
6 5.2.5 - Penalty
Any person violating any of the above rules shall for each offense be punished by a fine
of not more than twenty dollars, as provided in General Laws, Chapter 45, Section 24.
Adopted: 10-8-91, Revised 12-13-94-; revised 1-14-03
5-3
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Feudo, John
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:16 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Cormier, Jim
Subject: RE: Washington Park
Peter,
All the parks close at the same time. The by Laws state that that time is sunset, however our signs say Dusk
and/or 10 PM.
I have attached the signs posted at Washington's Entrance and at the Washington Park Tennis Courts.
Lt. Robbins and I sent along recommendations for about 3/4 of the Parks - I will attach that as well.
Let me know if you need more info.
John
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday; October 25, 2005 3:52 PM
To: Cormier, Jim; Feudo, John
Subject: Washington Park
Is the park posted for hours it is closed? I assume that the hours are the same for all parks.
Pete
5
12/19/2005
I
~19
Park Signage Recommendations
Park/ Area Changes/ Amend to Sign
Add Sign
Other Changes
Sturges Park ♦
Closes at Sunset
♦ 1.5 Hour Limit on
♦ Lower Sign on Pole
Tennis Courts/ Charging
near skating area
♦
Trespassing after hours
for Private lessons is
may be subject to arrest,
prohibited unless
summons or fine
permission is received
by Recreation Division
Washington Pk. ♦
Closes at Sunset
♦ 1.5 Hour Limit on
♦ Post sign on
Tennis Courts/ Charging
Bulletin Board at
♦
Trespassing after hours
for Private lessons is
Washington St.
may be subject to arrest,
prohibited unless
Entrance
summons or fine
permission is received
♦ Trim Trees back on
♦
Sweetser Ave Entrance
by Recreation Division
Signs
Sign Changed from Board
of Public Works to
♦ No Soft Toss Signs on
Recreation Committee
Backstop
Hunt Park ♦
No Pets allowed in
♦ No Soft Toss Signs on
Playground area
Backstop
♦
Closes at Sunset
♦ Trespassing after hours
may be subject to arrest,
summons or fine
Memorial Park ♦ Closes at Sunset ♦ 1.5 Hour Limit on
Tennis Courts/ Charging
♦ Trespassing after hours for Private lessons is
may be subject to arrest, prohibited unless
summons or fine permission is received
by Recreation Division
♦ Hours Posted on Tennis
Court 8 AM -Sunset
Symonds Way ♦ Add name "Symonds ♦ No Soft Toss Signs on
Way" to the sign. Backstop
♦ Closes at Sunset
♦ Trespassing after hours
may be subject to arrest,
summons or fine
Birch Meadow ♦ Closes at Sunset ♦ No Soft Toss Signs on
Backstop on all
♦ Trespassing after hours backstops
may be subject to arrest, ♦ 1.5 Hour Limit on
summons or fine Tennis Courts/ Charging
for Private lessons is
prohibited unless
permission is received
by Recreation Division
01-1
Izaah, CTS BOD Review
- Performance to 2095 Goals
Reading Techno ogy &
Te ecommunications Advisory
Committee
Feb 2006
- Comp1e« strategies
• Establish f und raisin
reflecting fund raising reality
- Goal revised
-St
N
I
_ oovisit RCN M
fission Statement
® _ e- inG • "r N
work wan Lv vv , . m - -
C ublic meeting
Attended all p
g 1M nu . nf RAN
r ap- ■ r~v~d by
App ~t
s
200E RU IV SOD uucal.s
- 3 Month Goals due April 2006
Strategic, Pla niny
Community Feedback Re entat~on
view'ofpolicy Docum`
.s::-
~j
LEGAL,'NOTICE
TOWN OF READING'
To. the, Inbabitanfs.d'f the.. '
Town of Reading:
Please take' notice' that. the
Board of Selectmen .of the Town
of Reading will bold publio hear-
ings on- the following. matters. on
Tc'eed'ay, Fetiruary7, 2006 'in
the Selectmen.'s. Meeting .Room,
16 Lowell Sheet, Reading,
Massachusett :
• Parks Rules an*d .
Regulations
8:30 p.m. .
• Ame0.d4frq reCin ayers.:
License Fees`
9:00 p.m..
All. interested parties m,y'
Cappear. in .person; ~,~y submit `
i
iheiir: commdnts -in wilting, `Or
may email co'r ments to town
rnanaaer@ci.readina:rna.06.
• By -order of
Peter 1. Hechenbleikner
Town .Manager
:1/31
Licensed Drain Layers
M
Sewer Connection Fee
Renewal Fee
First Time Fee
Bond
Insurance
Residental
Commercial
Stouqhton
$100.00
$100.00 i
$5,000 Surety
N General Liability (
$50.00 N
$75.00
Stoneham
$50.00
$50.00
Not Required
( $1,000,000
No Charge
No Charge
Wakefield
$25.00
$50.00
$5,000 Surety
Comprehensive General
$50.00
$50.00
*shall include bodily injury
and property damage
Winthrop
***No response from repeated phone calls-
~
$150.00
Lexington
$30.00
$30.00
$5,000
General Liability
$50.00
$50.00
Worker's Comp
XCU
Wllminciton
$100.00
$100.00
$5,000
Worker's Comp
N/A
N/A
Wellesley
No Charge
No Charge
$1,000 Certified Check
Not Required
N
Woburn
No Charge
No Charge
-No response from repeated phone calls***
Newton
No Charge
No Charge
$20,000 Surety
N
$100.00
$100.00
Watertown
No Charge
No Charge
$10,000 2 Year Surety
$140.00
first 140 sf. of trench
Saugus
$200.00
$300.00
$10,000 Surety
Worker's Comp
$100.00 new
$500.00
$50.00 repair
Reading
0
$25.0
$25.00
$5,000 Surety
Comprehensive General
$25.00
$75.00
Workers Como
Automobile
Lynn
$25.00
$25.00
$5,000 Surety
Worker's Comp
$100.00 single
*under revision by Lrnn Water Sewer Com.
$300,000 General (
$200.00 duplex
Salem
$100.00
$100.00
$5,000 Surety
Not Required
0-10 openings $5,000
Comprehensive General
Peabody
No Charge
No Charge
11-20 openings $10,000
*shall include bodily injury
21-50 " 25,000
and property damage
General Liability $1,000,000
$50.00
$50.00
Burlington
No Charge
No Charge
$10,000 Surety
Auto $1,000,000
Worker's Comp. $700,000
Bedford
No Charge
No Charge
$5,000 Surety
$300,000 Personal Liability
$2,500.00
N/A
AVERAGE
I $72:781
$97.14
<
I i
$66.43 1
$132.14
RECOMMENDED 1 $75.001
$100:00,
N _ I
$50.00 I
$50100;
M 1975 LDL Fee 1
2006 LDL Fee
(3% inflation)
IReading
is 25.00
$60
.68
r
Art.
# Article Description
I Election
2 )Reports
3 I Instructions
Board of Selectmen
Board of Selectmen
4 Amend Capital Improvement Board of Selectmen
Program FY 2006 - FY 2015
5 Approve payment of Prior Year's Board of Selectmen
bills
Moderator
Notes
6 Amend the FY 2006 Budget Board of Selectmen Appropriating
proceeds from
legal settlement to
Water budget
7 Approving FY 2007 - 2016 Capital Board of Selectmen
Improvements Program
8 Establish Storm
April 24 2006 Annual Town Meeting
DRAFT WARRANT OUTLINE 02/03/2006
Mover/
Sponsor Comment
fund
9 ►Rescind lleht AL11horizatiolls
Water Board of Selectmen
B0,11-(l JSelecil»cn
10 Authorizing disposition of surplus Board of Selectmen
11 Health Mutual Aid agreement Board of Health
m:~YF..Pl,lli4l_
12 Authorizing debt and Board of Selectmen
Appropriating Chapter 90 funds 99
w
13 Appropriation of contributions Board of Selectmen • Inwood Park
from Developers for various
14 Authorizing Revolving funds Board of Selectmen • Conservation
• Composting
• Tnmentinnc
15 Acceptance of Special Retirement Contributory
benefit to Veterans on disability Retirement Board
16 Approving the FY 2007 budget (FINCOM
17 1 Vacate Easement - 98 Hartshorne Board of Selectmen
18 Sewer Betterment - Franklin Board of Selectmen
Terrace
19 Authorizing debt for the Board of Selectmen
acquisition of land - north Main
Street
23
Bylaw amendment - Hours of Board of Selectmen
construction
24
Bylaw Amendment - regulating Board of Selectme
n
door to door solicitors
c.
2
25
Amendment to Demolition Delay Historical Commission
26 Zoning Bylaw amendment re CPDC
Accessory Apartments
27 Removal of Town Meeting Board of Selectmen
members
lL Bylaw Amendment - Animal Board of Selectmen
Article 22
2006Annual Town Meeting
To see if the Town will vote to rescind the entirety of Article 5.6 of the
General Bylaws, and replace it with the following, or take any other action
with respect thereto:
Town of Reading General Bylaw - Section 5.6
ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW
5.6.1 - Definitions As used in this By-Law, the following words and terms have the following
meanings:
5.6.1.1 ACO The Animal Control Officer.
5.6.1.2 Banishment An order by the Animal Control Appeals Committee
(ACAC) that a vicious dog may no longer reside or visit in
the Town of Reading.
5.6.1.3 Destruction An order by the Animal Control Appeals Committee
(ACAC) that a vicious dog be destroyed in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 and
Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals guidelines.
5.6.1.4 Effective voice control - To be under effective voice control, the animal
must be within the keeper's sight and the keeper must be
carrying a leash and the animal must refrain from illegal
activities.
5.6.1.5 Keeper Any person having charge of an animal within the Town of
Reading, including but not limited to the animal's owner,
dog walkers, dog sitters, members of the animal owner's
household or family.
5.6.1.6 Kennel Four or more dogs, six months of age or older, kept on a
single property, whether for breeding, sale, training,
hunting, companionship, or any other purpose.
5.6.1.7 Kennel license A special license issued to a kemiel, which allows payment
of a single fee covering all dogs in the kennel; with the
kennel license, the kennel owner receives a special kennel
tag for each dog in the kennel.
5.6.1.8 License A dog's registration, evidenced by a tag issued annually by
the Town Clerk to the owner of each dog residing in
Reading and worn by the dog securely fixed to its collar or
harness.
Formatted: Centered
Y
~~3
5.6.1.9 License, transfer The registration issued to a dog already licensed in
another US jurisdiction, after the dog moves into the Town
of Reading.
5.6.1.10 License period Annually, from January 1" through December 315`.
5.6.1.11 Muzzling Using a device that fits over a dog's mouth and prevents it
from biting, but that does not cause any injury or interfere
with the vision or respiration of the dog that wears it.
5.6.1.12 Nuisance dog A dog that repeatedly violates Section 5.6.5 of this By- ( Deleted: section 5.6.5
Law.
5.6.1.13 Permanent restraint - An order issued by the Animal Control Appeals
Committee under Section , requiring a vicious dog's keeper
to restrain it.
5:6.1.14 Restraint Limiting, restricting, or keeping an animal under control by
means of a physical barrier (e.g., a leash, substantial chain
or line, visible or invisible fence).
5.6.1.15 Running at large A dog is running at large if it is not on the private
property of its keeper, or on private property with the
express permission of that property's owner, or on a leash,
or under effective voice control (i.e., within the keeper's
sight and the keeper is carrying a leash).
5.6.1.16 Temporary restraint An order issued by the ACO under Section
5.6.124), requiring the dog's keeper to restrain a nuisance { Deleted: 5
- rain--------------------
dog or suspected vicious dog for 30 days.
5.6.1.17 Vicious dog A dog that, without provocation, bites a human being or
kills or maims a domestic animal without provocation.
5.6.1.18 Any word or term defined in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140,
Section 136A, and not otherwise defined here, is incorporated by reference.
5.6.2 VACCINATION, LICENSING, AND FEES
5.6.2.1 Three or fewer dogs.
5.6.2.1.1 License and vaccination requirements. All dogs six months and older,
while residing in the Town of Reading, must have a license. To obtain or renew
the license, each dog owner must annually present proof of a current rabies
vaccination. When a veterinarian determines that vaccination is inadvisable, the
owner may present a veterinarian's certificate exempting an old or sick dog from
vaccination for a stated period of time.
5.6.2.1.2 New dogs. Within 30 days of acquiring a dog 6 months of age or older,
each dog owner in Reading must present proof of that dog's current rabies
vaccination and obtain a license and dog tag from the Town Clerk.
5.6.2.1.3 New puppies. Within 6 months of a puppy being born, each dog owner in
Reading must present proof of that puppy's current rabies vaccination and obtain
a license and dog tag from the Town Cleric.
Formatted: Centered
V
P
5.6.2.1.4 New residents. A new resident who owns a dog 6 months of age or older
must license it within 30 days after moving into Reading. The Town Clerk will
issue each dog a transfer license, upon the owner's surrender of a current license
'from another US jurisdiction and proof of current rabies vaccination. The
transfer license is valid until the next regular licensing period.
5.6.2.1.5 Lost tags/replacement tags. Dog owners must replace a lost tag within
three business days of the loss, by obtaining a replacement tag from the Town
Clerk.
5.6.2.1.6 Tag exemptions for dog events and medical reasons.
(1) A dog while actually participating in an official dog sporting or dog fancy
event (if the event sponsors do not allow participants to wear tags) is exempt
from the requirement that its license tag be affixed to its collar, provided its
keeper has the tag at the event and available for inspection by the ACO.
(2) When a veterinarian determines that a dog cannot wear a collar for medical
reasons, the dog is exempt until it recovers from the requirement that its license
tag be affixed to its collar, provided its keeper has the tag in his or her possession
and available for inspection by the ACO.
5.6.2.1.7 Annual renewal. Dog owners must renew each dog license annually. The
annual licensing period runs from January lst through December 31St
5.6.2.1.8 License due date/late fee. The application form for obtaining, renewing, or
transferring a license shall be available to each household no later than
December 31St each year. Dog owners must return forms and fees to the Clerk by
April 1 (or the first business day thereafter, if April 1 falls on Saturday, Sunday,
or legal holiday). Any license renewed after this date is overdue, and the owner
must pay a late fee as determined by the Board of Selectmen in addition to the
license renewal fee. The overdue license fee and the late fee may be added to the
owner's tax bill or may be recovered through the imposition of a municipal
charges lien on any property standing in the name of the dog owner, pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 58.
5.6.2.1.9. License fees: The fees for licensing each dog shall be determined by the
Board of Selectmen. The fees shall differentiate between neutered or spayed
dogs, and not neutered or non-spayed dogs. The fee for neutered or spayed dogs
shall be less than the fee for non- neutered or non-spayed dogs.
5.6.2.2 Four or more dogs.
5.6.2.2.1 License and vaccination requirements. Anyone who owns or boards four
or more dogs within the Town of Reading must apply for and obtain a kennel
license from the Town Clerk. (This requirement shall not apply to medical
boarding by any licensed veterinarian practicing in the Town of Reading.) To
obtain or renew the license, the kennel licensee must present proof of current
'rabies vaccinations for each dog in the kennel older than six months. When it is
off the kennel property, each dog in the kennel must wear a kennel tag, issued by
the Town Clerk, affixed to its collar or harness.
5.6.2.2.2 New dogs and new puppies. The kennel licensee must report to the Town
Clerk each new dog in the kennel within 30 days of its acquisition, show proof of
3
Formatted: Centered
~s.
current vaccination, and obtain a kennel tag for that dog. The kennel licensee
must show proof of current vaccination and obtain a tag for each puppy when it
reaches six months old.
5.6.2.2.3 Application process. Every applicant for a new kennel license must first
obtain Zoning approval as required by the Reading Zoning Bylaws prior to
submitting an application to the Town Clerk on a form prescribed by the Clerk.
5.6.2.2.4. Inspection process. Before the Town Clerk can issue the kennel license,
the Health Division animal inspector must inspect the proposed kennel, file a
report on the inspection, and favorably recommend that the kennel meets all the
following requirements:
(1) The location of the kennel is appropriate for housing multiple dogs.
(2) The location of the kennel on the property will have no significant adverse
effect on the peace and quiet or sanitary conditions of the neighborhood.
(3) The area provided for housing, feeding, and exercising dogs is no closer than
20 feet to any lot line.
(4) The area provided for housing, feeding, and exercising dogs is no closer than
50 feet to any existing dwelling on an abutting lot.
(5) The kennel will be operating in a safe, sanitary, and humane condition.
(6) Records of the numbers and identities of the dogs are properly kept.
(7) The operation of the kennel will be consistent with the health and safety of
the dogs and of the neighbors.
5.6.2.2.5 Periodic inspections. Before a kennel license is renewed, and at any time
they believe it necessary, the ACO and or the Health Division may inspect any
kennel. If the ACO or the Health Division determine that it is not being
maintained in a safe, sanitary, and humane condition, or if the kennel records on
the numbers and identities of the dogs are not properly kept, the ACO will report
the violations to the Animal Control Appeals Committee (ACAC) for a hearing
on whether to impose fines or revoke the kennel license.
5.62.2.6. Kennel review hearings. Within 7 business days after receiving the ACO's
report of violations the ACAC will notify all interested parties of a public
hearing to be held within 14 days after the notice date. Within 7 business days
after the public hearing, the ACAC shall either revoke the kennel license,
suspend the kennel license, order complianee,or otherwise regulate the kennel. Deleted:
-
(1) Any person maintaining a kennel after the kennel license has been denied,-------- ( Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
revoked, or suspended will be subject to the penalties in Section 5.6.7 of this
By-Law.
5.6.2.2.7. Annual renewal. Each kennel licensee must renew the license annually, at
the Town Clerk's Office. The annual licensing period runs from January I" to
December 315`
5.6.2.2.8. License due date. Kennel license renewal forms will be sent to each
licensed kennel, no later than December 1" each year. Kennel licensees must
return forms and fees to the Town Clerk by January 15`x' (or the first business day
thereafter, if the 15`x' falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). Failure to pay
on time will result in a late fee, due in addition to the license fee. The overdue
Formatted: Centered
y~
license fee and the late fee may be added to the licensee's tax bill or may be
recovered through the imposition of a municipal charges lien on any property
standing in the name of the kennel licensee, pursuant to Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 40, Section 58. Nothing in this bylaw shall prevent or abrogate
the Board of Health's authority to license and inspect kennels in the Town o f
Reading.
5.6.2.2.9 ~F I The fees for licensing each-kennel shall be established by the Board
of Selectmen.
5.6.2.2.10 Incorporation. The following provisions of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 140 are expressly incorporated herein: Section 137B-Sale or other
delivery of unlicensed dog by kennel licensee; Section 137D-Licensee
convicted of violation of statutes relating to offenses against animals; and
Section 138A-Importation of dogs and cats for commercial resale, etc.
5.6.3 ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
5.6.3.1. Appointment. The Town Manager shall appoint an Animal Control Officer
(ACO) under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140,
Sections 151 and 151A to carry out the provisions of this By-Law and to perform
such other duties and responsibilities as the Town Manager or his designee may
determine.
5.6.3.2 Duties. The ACO's duties shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) Enforcement of the Town of Reading by-laws and relevant state
regulationse----------------
(2) Explanation of By-Law violations.
(3) Notification to the owner of Unlicensed dogs.
44) Issuance of Teinpora y restraint orders._ The ACO shall issue an order of
temporary restraint to the keeper of any animal that is a nuisance or that is
awaiting a decision under Section 5.6.k as- to-wh-ether- it- is -v- - icious- An- - order.
- -
of temporary restraint is an order that the animal must be confined to its
keeper's property when not on a 6-foot or shorter leash or may be ordered
to be sheltered at a local kennel or veterinarian facility at the animal
owner's expense; muzzling will be at the ACO's discretion. It shall be in
force for no more than 30 days unless the ACO renews it in writing for
subsequent 30-day periods. The ACO shall rescind or stop renewing the
order when, in the ACO's judgment, restraint is no longer required. The
aanimal's keeper can petition the Animal Control Appeals Committee
(ACAC) under Section 5.6.4.2,to_rescind the-order of temorary restraint-----------
(a) Nuisance animal. An animal is a nuisance if it repeatedly violates
any subsection of Section 5.6.5,, particularly if it continues to chase motor
vehicles, pedal vehicles, or animals carrying or drawing a person, or
continues to damage property after its keeper has been fined for the animal
rumiing at large.
Deleted:. J
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06",
Hanging: 0.24", Tabs: Not at 5"
j Deleted: t
Deleted:.
Deleted :_5
Deleted: m, emu,
Deleted: _
Deleted: _
Deleted: dog
Formatted. Centered
/11 -
(b) Awaiting a decision on a vicious animal hearing. The ACO must
order an antimal restrained and (when off the keeper's property) muzzled ,
pending the outcome of a vicious animal hearing under Section 5.6.6.2`..........
(6) Issue an order of Confinement, The ACO may make arrangements for the
temporary housing of any animal that is to be confined under the provisions
of this By-Law. The housing may be at local veterinary clinics, or at dog
kennels within the Town or neighboring towns, and shall be at the animal
owner's expense..
(7) Complaint resolution. The ACO shall investigate all complaints arising
within the Town pertaining to violations of this By-Law and try to mediate
disputes between Town residents pertaining to the behavior of an animal
maintained or located within the Town. If the mediation fails, the ACO will
decide on a solution and inform the animal owner and any resident that
brought a complaint or problem to the ACO's attention. Any party aggrieved
by or disagreeing with the ACO's decision may appeal that decision to the
Animal Control Appeals Committee; the ACO shall attend the meetings of
the ACAC on the matter.
(8) Recordkeeping. The ACO shall keep accurate, detailed records of the
confinement and disposition of all animals held in custody and of all bite
cases reported, and the results of investigations of the same. The ACO shall
maintain a telephone log of all calls regarding animals and submit a monthly
report summarizing the log to the ACAC.
5.6.4 ANIMAL CONTROL APPEALS COMMITTEE (ACAC)
Deleted: i
Deleted• _
5.6.4.1 Composition of the ACAC. The Animal Control Appeals Committee is comprised
of three Reading residents, none of whom can be employees of the Town,
appointed to three-year overlapping terms by the Board of Selectmen. The
ACAC will annually select a member to serve as the chair. At least one of the
three members must be a dog owner.
5.6.4.2 Right to appeal. When the Animal Control Officer has investigated a complaint
regarding an anima's behavior and has issued a fording or an order of temporary {Deleted: a
restraint with which either the animal's keeper or the complainant disagrees, then
either party may appeal by sending a written request to the Town Clerk within 16
business days after issuance of the ACO's decision. Following the Cleric's
receipt of a written appeal, the ACAC shall hold a public hearing on the appeal
within X14 days, at which the dog owner, the complainant, and the ACO must { Deleted: 2!
- -
appear.
5.6.4.3. Findings and further appeals. The ACAC shall vote at the public hearing on
whether to uphold, reverse, or modify the ACO's decision and shall mail its
ruling to the animal owner, complainant, and ACO within three business days
after the public hearing.
5.6.4.4 Hearings vicious dogs. The ACAC shall hold public hearings and make
decisions on any vicious dog declaration under Section 5.6.6 ~ Deleted: _
{ Formatted: Centered
5.5.4.5 Further Appeals. An appeal from a decision of the ACAC may be made by either thee------- Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.26",
Owner or,Complainant pursuant to the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 30A_ Hanging: 0.56", Space After: 2 pt,
Tabs: 0.44", Left + Not at 0.56"
{ Deleted: Complainent
5.6.5 CONDUCT OF ANIMALS
5.6.5.1 Endangering safety. No animal keeper shall allow it's animal to bite, menace, or
threaten, all without provocation, so as to endanger the safety of any person. This
section is not meant to preclude an animal from acting as a watchdog on its
keeper's property.
5.6.5.2. Disturbing the peace. No animal keeper shall allow the animal to disturb the
peace of any' neighborhood by making excessive noise without provocation.
Noise is excessive if it is uninterrupted barking, yelping, whining, or howling for
a period of time exceeding 15 minutes. This section is not meant to preclude a
dog from acting as a watchdog on its keeper's property.
5.6.5.3. Damaging property. No animal keeper shall allow the animal to damage public
or private property or realty.
5.6.5.4, Running at large. When not on the private property of its keeper, or on private
property with the express permission of that property's owner, an animal must be
on a leash or may be under effective voice control in locations noted below. To
be under effective voice control, the animal must be within the keeper's sight and
the keeper must be carrying a leash.
(1) Voice control (in place of leash control) allowed. A dog may be under
voice control when within the Town Forest or on Conservation lands..
(2) Public gatherings -leash control only. An animal may be at any public
gathering not otherwise specified in this By-Law only if it is on a 6-foot or
shorter leash and the animal must refrain from illegal activities.
(3) School grounds-animals not allowed during school/leash control only at
other times. Unless the school principal gives permission in advance, no
animal may be on school grounds from 30 minutes before classes begin until
30 minutes after classes end. At all other times, the animal may be on school
grounds only if it is on a 6-foot or shorter leash. An animal is not violating
this prohibition if it remains within a vehicle.
(4) Exception for assistance animals (service animals). Section 5.6.5.4 does
not apply to any properly trained assistance animal or service animal while
performing its duties.
5.6.5.5 Chasing. No animal keeper shall allow the animal to chase a person, motor-
powered vehicle, human-powered vehicle, or animal drawing or carrying a
person.
5.6.5.6 Dog litter. Every dog keeper is responsible for expeditiously removing any dog
feces the dog deposits anywhere except on its keep'er's private property, on other
private property with the property owner's permission,. This provision does not
apply to any assistance dog or service dog while it is performing its duties.
{ Formatted: Centered
5.6.6 VICIOUS DOGS
5.6.6.1 Declaring a dog vicious. Any dog that, without provocation, bites a human being
or kills or maims a domestic animal without provocation may be declared vicious
by the ACAC. An exception may be made for a puppy (animal under 6 months
old) that draws blood, or for a dog that, gtacks or bites- an- unaccompanied-- - - Deleted:
domestic animal on the dog keeper's property.
5.6.6.2. Procedure for declaring a vicious dog. Upon the written complaint of the ACO,
any other public safety agent, or upon the petition of not less than 5 individuals
from 5 separate households the Animal Control Appeals Committee (ACAC)
shall hold a public hearing, after which it will determine whether it should
declare a dog vicious and, if so declared, what remedy is appropriate.
5.6.6.3 Exceptions. A dog shall not be declared vicious if the ACAC determines any of
the following:
(1) The person's-skin was not broken. j Deleted: - -
(2) The person who was bitten was willfully trespassing, committing a
crime, or attempting to commit a crime on the premises, occupied by the
.dog's keeper.
(3) The dog was being teased, tormented, abused, or assaulted by the
injured person or animal prior to attacking or biting.
(4) The dog was protecting or defending a human being in its immediate
vicinity from attack or assault.
5.6.6.4 Remedies. Upon its finding that the dog is vicious, the ACAC shall order one of
the following remedies: permanent restraint; banishment; or destruction in
accordance with MSPCA guidelines.
(1) Permanent restraint order is an order that the dog must at all times while
on its keeper's property be kept within the keeper's house or a secure
enclosure ; whenever the dog leaves its keeper's property, it must be muzzled
and restrained on a lead no longer than.6 feet or confined in an escape-proof
enclosure. The secure enclosure shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide, 10 feet
long, and 5 feet in height, with a horizontal top covering the entire enclosure;
shall be constructed of not less than 9 gauge chain link fencing; the floor
shall be not less than 3 inches of poured concrete; with the bottom edge of
fencing embedded in the concrete; shall be posted with a clearly visible
warning sign including a warning symbol; must contain and provide
protection from the elements; and shall comply with all applicable building
codes and with the Zoning Bylaws of the Town of Reading. In addition, the
keeper of the dog shall annually provide proof to the Town Cleric of a
liability insurance policy of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)
for the benefit of the public safety.
(2) Banislunent is an order that a vicious dog may no longer reside or visit in
the Town of Reading. (A vicious dog that is confined to a vehicle while
passing through Reading is not "visiting" and therefore is not in violation of
the order of banislunent.)
I Formatted: centered
(3) Destruction is an order that the dog be destroyed in accordance with
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 and Massachusetts Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty of Animals guidelines.
5.6.7 PENALTIES
5.6.7.1 Fines. Any animal keeper who maintains a kernel after the kennel license has
been denied, revoked, or suspended, or who fails to obtain a kennel license; and
any animal keeper who fails to comply with Section 5.6.5 CONDUCT OFANIMALS
shall be subject to penalties as determined by the Animal Control Appeals
Committee, not exceeding $300 per day for every day of the violation.:
5.6.7.2 Reimbursement of costs. If the Animal Control Officer confines a dog and the
animal owner does not pay all fees directly to the kennel or veterinary clinic,
then the dog's keeper -nnust reimburse the Town of Reading for any expenses
incurred in boarding that dog. If the dog has not been licensed, the keeper must
obtain a license and pay any applicable late fee before the dog can be released.
5.6.7.3 Penalties for violating restraint orders. The ACAC shall determine a schedule of
penalties not exceeding $300 for each and every violation of restraint orders.
5.6.8 MISCELLANY
5.6.8.1 Non-criminal disposition of violations. The ACO may, as an alternative to
initiating criminal proceedings, initiate and pursue proceedings for the non-
criminal disposition of any violation of this By-Law, in accordance with the
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40, Section 211), to the
extent of the specific penalty provided therefore.
5.6.8.2 Incorporation of state law. The provisions of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 140, Sections 136A through 156 and 158 through 174D, inclusive, as
may be amended from time to time and except as modified herein, are hereby
incorporated into this By-Law.
5.6.8.3.Severability. The invalidity of one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, sen-
tences, clauses, or provisions of this By-Law shall not invalidate or impair any
other part of this By-Law nor invalidate the By-Law as a whole.
Formatted: centered
5.6 DoLy Control Laws
5.6.1 Every dog owned or kept in this Town shall, at all times while within the Town, be
effectively restrained by some person by means of a leash,. except when such dog is on
the premises of the owner or keeper or another person, with the consent of such person,
or is within the Town Forest and conservation land and accompanied by and under the
effective control of some person.
The owner or keeper of any such dog that is not so restrained shall be punishable by a
warning or fine as follows: In the event the Animal Control Officer is able to ascertain
the owner or keeper of such unrestrained dog, the Officer shall issue a written warning to
such owner or keeper for the first offense within a calendar year. The Officer shall levy a
fine of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for the second offense within a calendar year, Thirty
Dollars ($30.00) for the third offense within a calendar year, and Fifty Dollars ($50.00)
for each subsequent offense within a calendar year.
5.6.2 In the event the Officer is unable to ascertain the owner or keeper of any such unrestrained
dog, or upon one complaint from each of five (5) households of the Town, delivered to
either the Officer or the Board of Selectmen, alleging that the provisions of this section
are being violated, the Board of Selectmen shall, after issuing notice to all interested
parties, hold a public hearing to determine if this section is being violated and by whom.
If the Board determines that such violation exists and it determines the identity or keeper
of such dog, the Board may issue to the owner or keeper a written warning or may levy a
fine of not more than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the first or any subsequent violation of
this section.
5.6.3 Records of all warnings issued shall be maintained by the Officer, who shall enforce this
Bylaw by the issuance of a written warning or by written notice to the person complained
against, setting forth the offense, the amount of any fine and indication that said fine be
paid to the Officer within ten (10) days from the issuance date of said notice. In the event
a fine is not paid within ten (10) days, then the Officer shall bring a complaint in the
District Court pursuant to Sections 173A and 174 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws or
any act in replacement thereof or amendment thereto and, notwithstanding the provisions
of said Section 173A, the schedule of fines shall be that set forth in this Bylaw.
5.6.4 It shall be the duty of the Officer to apprehend any dog not restrained as required by
Section 5.6.1 of this Bylaw, and to confine or cause to be confined said dog as provided
herein. Any unlicensed dog so apprehended shall be confined and otherwise dealt with
by the Officer as required by law. Any dog so apprehended, which is licensed and owned
or kept in this Town, shall be confined until the earlier of its being reclaimed by said
owner or keeper as provided herein or until the tenth day following the day on which
such dog is apprehended. If such a. licensed dog is not reclaimed as provided herein
within said ten (10) day period, the Officer shall take one of the alternative courses of
action which Section 151A of Chapter 140 of the General Laws or any act in replacement
thereof or amendment thereto, requires to be taken with respect to dogs not licensed,
collared or harnessed and tagged within the ten (10) day period provided therein.
5.6.5 Promptly following the apprehension and confinement by the Officer of any such
licensed dog, said Officer shall mail to the licensed owner thereof a notice of such
apprehension and confinement, which notice shall include a statement of the last date on
which said dog may be reclaimed as provided herein. The Officer shall also promptly v
inform the Reading Police Department of such apprehension and confinement and of the
description of such dog. Licensed dogs confined by the Officer pursuant to this Bylaw,
shall be confined in a place suitable for the detention and care of dogs and kept in a
sanitary condition or they may be placed in the care of the holder of a kennel license or of
a charitable corporation incorporated exclusively for the purpose of protecting animals
from cruelty, neglect or abuse.
5.6.6 The owner or keeper of any licensed or unlicensed dog confined as provided for in this
Bylaw may reclaim such dog upon payment of the costs and charges incurred by the
Town for such apprehension and confinement and care of such dog, said charges to be
Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for the apprehension of such dog, plus care charges of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) for each full or partial day of confinement in a pound owned or leased
by or under the control of the Town or the Officer.
If the dog is confined in a place other than a pound owned or leased by or under the
control of the Town or the Officer, the care charges to be paid hereunder shall be the
actual charges incurred by the Town or the Officer for such confinement. No licensed.
dog confined as provided in this Bylaw may be reclaimed until the owner or keeper
thereof shall have paid all such costs to the Officer. The Officer shall pay over to the
Town Treasurer-Collector all sums so paid to him, said sums to be applied to the cost of
enforcing this Bylaw.
5.6.7 The fee for licensing dogs under M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 139, shall be the amount
set forth in Section 2 of Chapter 57 of the Acts of 1985, or such other annual fees as
may be established from time to time by the Board of Selectmen. Licensing eligibility,
dogs not required to be licensed, or refunding license fees shall be determined as
provided in M.G.L. Chapter 140, Section 139.
5.6.8 The owner or keeper of any dog shall be responsible for the prompt removal of any feces
deposited by the dog on public or private property, except on the property of the owner
or keeper or otherwise with the permission of the owner or occupant of the property.
The owner or keeper of a dog who does not comply with this Section 5.6.8 shall be
punishable by warning or fine as follows:
The Animal Control Officer shall issue a written warning to such owner or
keeper for the first offense within a calendar year. The Animal Control Officer shall
levy a fine of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) for the second offense within a calendar year,
Thirty Dollars ($30.00) for the third offense within a calendar year, and Fifty Dollars
($50.00) for each subsequent offense within a calendar year. The provisions of this
Section 5.6.8 shall not apply to a handicapped person who has the charge or control of a
guide dog or helper dog.
~3'
Article 2-3
2006 Annual Town Meeting
To see if the Town will vote to adopt the following Bylaw regulating
construction hours and noise limits, or take any other action with respect
thereto:
5.5.8 - Construction Hours and Noise Limits
5.5.8.1 - Purpose. The intent of the bylaw is to regulate the hours during which
construction and demolition activities may take place within the Town and
otherwise to limit the impact of such activities on nearby residents and business.
5.5.8.2 - Definition.
• "Construction" shall mean and include the construction, reconstruction,
alteration, repair, demolition and/or removal of any building, structure or
substantial part thereof if such work requires a building permit, razing
permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, gas permit, or mechanical
permit. "Construction" shall also include excavation that involves the use
of blasting jackhammers, pile drivers, back hoes and /or other heavy
equipment. "Construction" shall . also include the starting of any
machinery related to the above, deliverys, fueling of equipment, and any
other preparation or mobilization for construction which creates noise or
disturbance on abutting properties.
5.3.8.3 - Hours. No person shall perform any construction within the Town except
between the hours of-
* 7 a.m. and 8 PM, Monday through Friday;
• 8 a.m. to 5 PM on Saturdays;
none on Sundays and legal holidays.
5.3.8.4 - Exemptions. The restrictions set forth in this bylaw shall not apply to any
work performed as follows:
• by any Federal or State Department, Reading Department of Public
Works, the Reading Municipal Light Department and/or any contractors
working directly for these agencies;
• by a resident on or in connection with his residence, without the aid of
hired contractors, whether or not such residence is a detached single
family home.
• in the case of work occasioned by a genuine and imminent emergency,
and then only to the extent necessary to prevent loss or injury to persons or
property.
5.3.8.5 - Permits. The Chief of Police or his designee (the Chief), may in his
reasonable discretion issue permits in response to written applications authorizing
applicants to perform construction during hours other than those permitted by this
bylaw. Such permits may be issued upon a determination by the Chief, in
consultation with the Building Inspector, the Town Engineer, or other Town staff,
that literal compliance with the terms of this bylaw would create an unreasonable `
1
10
hardship and that the work proposed to be done (with or without any proposed
mitigative measures) will have no adverse effects of the kind which this bylaw
seeks to reduce. Each such permit shall specify the person authorized to act, the
dates on which or within which the permit will be effective, the specific hours and
days when construction otherwise prohibited may take place, and any conditions
required by the Chief to mitigate the effect thereof on the community. The Chief
may promulgate a form of application and charge a reasonable fee for each
permit. No permit may cover a period of more than thirty days. Mitigative
measures may include notice to residents in the surrounding area, and other
mitigation as determined by the Chief.
5.3.8.6 - Unreasonable Noise. Regardless of the hour or day of the week, no
construction shall be performed within the Town in such a way as to create
unreasonable noise. Noise shall be deemed unreasonable if it interferes with the
normal and usual activities of residents and businesses in the affected area and
could be reduced or eliminated through reasonable mitigative measures.
5.3.8.6 - Copy of Bylaw. The Building Inspector shall deliver a copy of this bylaw
to each person to whom it issues a building permit, razing permit, electrical
permit, plumbing permit, gas permit or mechanical permit at the time that the said
permit is issued.
5.3.8.7 - Enforcement. The Police Department shall enforce the restrictions of this
bylaw. Fines shall be assessed and collected in the amount of up to $300 for each
violation. Each day or portion thereof that a violation continues shall constitute a
separate offense. Any alleged violation of this bylaw may, in the sole discretion
of the enforcing agent be make the subject matter of non-criminal disposition
proceedings commenced by such agent under G.L. c. 40, § 21D.,
S
L"
2
WAKEFIELD
1. Purpose. The intent of the bylaw is to regulate the hours during which
construction and demolition activities may take place within the Town and
otherwise to limit the impact of such activities on nearby residents and businesses.
2. Definition. "Construction" shall mean and include the construction,
reconstruction, alteration, repair, demolition and/or removal of any building,
structure or substantial part thereof if such work requires a building permit, razing
permit, electrical permit; plumbing permit, gas permit or mechanical permit.
"Construction" shall also include excavation that involves the use of blasting
jackhammers, pile drivers, back hoes and /or other heavy equipment.
3. Hours. No person shall perform any construction within the Town except between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, nor at any time on
Sunday.
4. Exemptions. The restrictions set forth in this bylaw shall not apply to any work
performed.
a. by the Wakefield Department of Public Works and/or the Wakefield
Municipal Gas & Light Department;
b. on or in connection with a detached single family home or any structure
accessory thereto (other than in the context of the construction of a new
subdivision); and
c. by a resident on or in connection with his residence, without the aid of
hired contractors, whether or not such residence is a detached single
family home.
5. Permits. The Director of the Wakefield Department of Public Works or his
designee (the Director"), may in his reasonable discretion issue permits in
response to written applications authorizing applicants to perform construction
during hours and/or on days forbidden by this bylaw. Such permits may be issued
upon a determination by the Director that literal compliance with the terms of this
bylaw would create an unreasonable hardship and that the work proposed to be
done (with or without any proposed mitigative measures) will have no adverse
effects of the kind which this bylaw seeks to reduce. Each such permit shall
specify the person authorized to act, the dates on which or within which the
permit will be effective, the specific hours and days when construction otherwise
prohibited may take place, and any conditions required by the Director to mitigate
the effect thereof on the community. The Director shall promulgate a form of
application and shall charge a fee of $25 for each permit. No permit may cover a
period of more than thirty days. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the
Director to issue or to refuse to issue a permit, or by any conditions imposed by
the Director upon a permit, may appeal to the Board of Selectmen, who shall hold
a reasonably prompt hearing thereon, provided that any permit issued by the
Director shall remain in full force and effect unless and until revoked or altered by
the Selectmen.
6. Unreasonable Noise. Regardless of the hour or day of the week, no construction
shall be performed within the Town in such a way as to create unreasonable noise.
Noise shall be deemed unreasonable if it interferes with the normal and usual
X,
activities of residents and businesses in the affected area and could be reduced or
eliminated through reasonable mitigative measures.
7. Copy of Bylaw. The Building Department shall deliver a copy of this bylaw to
each person to whom it issues a building permit, razing permit, electrical permit,
plumbing permit, gas permit or mechanical permit at the time that the said permit
is issued, and shall obtain from such person and maintain in the said Department's
files a signed receipt acknowledging such delivery.
8. Enforcement. The Police Department shall enforce the restrictions of this bylaw.
Fines shall be assessed and collected in the amount of $50 for a first violation,
$100 for a second violation and $300 for a third or any subsequent violation.
Each day or portion thereof that a violation continues shall constitute a separate
offense. Any alleged violation of this bylaw may, in the sole discretion of the
enforcing agent be make the subject matter of non-criminal disposition
proceedings commenced by such agent under G.L. c. 40, § 21D.,
4
BEDFORD
A. No excavation, demolition or construction work is permitted within the Town of Bedford except
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding holidays as
specified in Massachusetts General Laws), or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Saturday (excluding holidays as specified in Massachusetts General Laws), or except in the case of
work occasioned by a genuine and imminent emergency, and then only to the extent necessary to
prevent loss or injury to persons or property and except in the case of public work performed by
Town of Bedford departments when the public interest, as determined by the department head, is
served.
C. Any violation of this bylaw shall be punishable by a fine of up to Four Hundred Dollars.
Alternatively, the provisions of thus bylaw may be enforced by any Bedford police officer or by the
Bedford Health Director by means of a non-criminal citation pursuant to M.G.L. C. 40 521D,
pursuant to the following penalty schedule:
First offense: Warning
Second offense: $100. penalty
Third offense: $300. penalty
Fourth or subsequent offenses: $400. penalty
For purposes of both judicial and of non-criminal enforcement, any day or portion thereof when a
violation is suffered to exist shall constitute a separate offense.
1~'
BURLINGTON
4.5 Construction Hours
No commercial construction, demolition, repair, paving or alteration of buildings or streets or
excavation shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, except with the
approval of the Board of Selectmen. Anyone who violates this bylaw shall be subject to a fine of
$300, each day to constitute a separate occurrence. This bylaw may be enforced through non-
criminal disposition by the Building Inspector or any Police Officer of the Town of Burlington.
This bylaw shall not apply to emergency activities of Town, County, State or Federal agencies or
to emergency activities conducted by public utilities.
. ~a
Article 24
2006 Annual Town Meeting
To see if the Town will vote to adopt the following bylaw regulating door-to-door
solicitors and canvassers, or take any other action with respect thereto:
5.5.9 Door-To-Door Solicitors and Canvassers
5.5.9.1 - Definitions; applicability.
5.5.9.1.1 As used in this section, the terms "solicit" and "canvas" shall mean and
include any one or more of the following activities conducted at residences
without the previous consent of the owner:
(a) Seeking to obtain the purchase, or orders for the purchase of goods, wares,
merchandise, foodstuffs or services of any kind, character or description
whatever for any kind of consideration whatsoever; or
(b) Seeking to obtain subscriptions to books, magazines, periodicals,
newspapers. and every other type or kind of publication.
5.5.9.1.2 The provisions of this section shall not apply to officers or employees of
the Town, county, state or federal government, or any subdivision thereof when
on official business, or to neighborhood youth and students who solicit for the
shoveling of snow or cutting of lawns or similar services to residents, nor shall it
be construed to prevent route salespersons or other persons having established
customers to whom they make periodic deliveries from calling upon such
customers.
5.5.9.1.3 If any solicitor or canvasser is under the age of 18 years and is selling
goods or periodicals for a commercial purpose, the provisions of M.G.L. c. 101,
§34 shall apply.
5.5.9.1.3 The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person soliciting
solely for religious, charitable or political purposes.
5.5.9.2 - Registration required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or canvas or engage in or conduct
business as a canvasser or solicitor without first having obtained a Certificate of
Registration from the Chief of Police as provided in this section.
5.5.9.3 - Application for Certificate of Registration.
5.5.9.3.1 Application for a Certificate of Registration shall be made upon a form
provided by the Police Department along with a nonrefundable application fee of
$25.00.
5.5.9.3.2 An authorized representative of the sponsoring organization shall apply
to the Chief of Police or his/her designee either in person or by mail. All
statements on the application or in connection therewith shall be under oath. The
applicant shall provide all information requested on the application, including:
V~ ~
4
(a) Name, address and telephone number of the sponsoring organization,
along with a listing of all officers and directors;
(b) State and/or federal tax identification number of the sponsoring
organization..
(c) Name, residential and business address, length of residence at such
residential address, telephone number, social security number and date of
birth of each representative of the sponsoring organization who will be
soliciting or canvassing in the Town;
(d) Description sufficient for identification of the subject matter of the
soliciting or canvassing in which the organization will engage;
(e) Period of time for which the Certificate is applied (every Certificate shall
expire within one year of date of issue);
(f) The date of the most recent previous application for a Certificate under
this section;
(g) Any previous revocation of a Certificate of Registration issued to the
organization or to any officer, director or representative of the
organization by any city or Town and the reasons therefore;
(h) Any convictions for a felony, either state or federal, within five years of
the application, by the sponsoring organization, any of its officers or
directors, or any representative who will be soliciting or canvassing in the
Town;
(i) Names of the three communities where the organization has solicited or
canvassed most recently;
(j) Proposed dates, hours and method of operation in the Town;
(k) Signature of authorized representative of the sponsoring organization.
5.5.9.3.3 A photograph or an acceptable photocopy of a photograph of each
representative of the sponsoring organization who will be soliciting or canvassing
in the Town shall be attached to the application.
5.5.9.3.4 No Certificate of Registration shall be issued to any person, or to any
organization having an officer or director, who was convicted of commission of a
felony, either state or federal, within five years of the date of the application, nor
to any organization or person who's Certificate of Registration has previously
been revolted as provided below.
5.5.9.3.5 Fully completed applications for Certificates shall be acted upon within
five business days of receipt. The Chief of Police shall cause to be kept in his
office accurate records of every application received together with all other
information and data pertinent thereto and of all Certificates of Registration
issued under this section and of all denials.
5.5.9.3.6 Upon approval of an application, each solicitor or canvasser shall be
issued a Certificate of Registration to carry upon his/her person at all times while
soliciting or canvassing in the Town and to display the Certificate whenever asked
by any police officer or any person solicited.
5.5.9.4 - Revocation of Certificate.
5.5.9.3.1 Any Certificate of Registration issued hereunder may be revoked by the
Chief of Police for good cause, including conviction of the holder of the 1
r~ J
v\
2
Certificate of violation of any of the provisions of this section or a false material
statement in the application. Immediately upon such revocation, the Chief of
Police shall give written notice to the holder of the- Certificate in person or by
certified mail addressed to his/her residence address set forth in the application.
5.5.9.3.2 Immediately upon the giving of such notice, the Certificate of
Registration shall become null and void. In any event, every Certificate of
Registration shall state its expiration date, which shall be no later than one year
from date of issue.
5.5.9.5 - Deceptive practices.
No solicitor or canvasser registered or exempt from registering may use any plan,
scheme, or ruse which misrepresents the true status or mission of any person
conducting the solicitation or canvas in order to gain admission to the home,
office or other establishment of any person in the Town.
5.5.9.6 - Duties of solicitors and canvassers.
5.5.9.6.1 It shall be the duty of every solicitor and canvasser going onto any
premises in the Town to first examine whether there is a notice posted stating that
no solicitors are welcome. If such notice is present, then the solicitor or canvasser
shall immediately and peacefully depart from the premises.
5.5.9.6.2 Any solicitor or canvasser who has gained entrance to any residence,
whether invited or not, shall immediately and peacefully depart from the premises
when requested to do so by the occupant.
5.5.9.7 - Lawful hours to conduct solicitation or canvas.
All canvassing or soliciting under this section shall be confined to the hours
between 10:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. throughout the year.
5.5.9.8 - Penalty for violations.
Any solicitor or canvasser who violates any provision of this section shall be
punishable in accordance with §1-6 of Chapter 1, or, in certain cases, by arrest as
provided in M.G.L. c. 101.
a~
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867-2683
Phone: 781-942-6612
Fax: 781-942-9071
Email: creilly@dreading.ma.us
Community Planning and Development Commission
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given, under the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 40A, Section 5, to consider Zoning By-Laws amendments for inclusion in
the Annual Town Meeting for Spring 2006: the Community Planning and
Development Commission (CPDC) shall hold a public hearing on Monday,
February 13, 2006, at 7:40 PM, in the Police Station Community Room, 15 Union
Street, for consideration of the following amendments to the Zoning By-Laws
text:
Section 4.3.2.8 Accessory Apartments:
1. The language of Section 4.3.2.8.2a is deleted and replaced with the word
"Reserved"
2. The phrase", as it existed on August 1,1982" is deleted from Section
4.3.2.8e
These language amendments are available for public inspection at the
Community Services Department in the Reading Town Hall, Monday through
Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, and on the internet at
www.ci.reading.ma.us/planning. This notice shall be posted conspicuously for
at least 14 days prior to the hearing date at the Town Clerk's office.
by CPDC
Chairman - John Sasso
Secretary - Dick Howard
Please publish this notice for two consecutive weeks, on or before
fanuary 30, 2006 and February 6, 2006.
Please send bill to:
Maureen Knight
Town of Reading-Community Services Dept.
16 Lowell St.
Reading, MA 01867
AP
C:\Documents and Settings\phechenbleikner.TOWN\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LKIAB\spring061ega1.doc
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
Health Insurance Agreement
March 1, 2006 through May 31, 2006
The following is the understanding of the teens of agreement on the issue of health
insurance for the employees and retirees of the Town of Reading.
Effective March 1, 2006, the Town of Reading will provide through MIIA to its
active and retired employees, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Blue Care Elect
Preferred" PPO product, the "HMO Blue" HMO product, and Medex III Medicare
supplement for a period of three months, subject to renewal. The Town will elect
the chiropractic rider to the HMO Blue program for the insurance year beginning
March 1, 2006. The cost of the rider will be shared the same as the general cost
sharing of the insurance program. There is no guarantee as to future continuation
of the rider.
2. Effective March 1, 2006, the Town will from that time forward pay 70% of the
cost of the insurance plan, subject to negotiations as may be requested in writing
prior to March 1, 2006. If neither the Town nor the coalition bargaining
committee submits a timely written request for negotiations, the 70/30 split will
remain in force. If either party submits a timely written request, negotiations on
cost sharing after May 31, 2006 will begin no later than March 7, 2006. If
negotiations are not successful by May 1, 2006, then both parties would agree to
mediation. During the mediation the current negotiated 70/30 split will remain in
effect. This time table may be modified by mutual agreement of the Town and
the coalition bargaining committee.
The Health Insurance Advisory Committee, made up of representatives of each of
the Town's Bargaining Units (including RMLD Units), plus a non-union
employee appointed by the Town Manager and a retiree also appointed by the
Town Manager, will continue to meet during the term of this agreement. The
committee will monitor health insurance claims and other data provided by MIIA,
with a focus on current trends and all other items that may affect premiums. The
Committee may recommend periodic rebidding, or changes or modifications in
the health insurance program for employees and retirees of the Town to be
effective at the Town's open enrollment. No later than September of each year the
Committee will make recommendations regarding the issue of renewal of the MIIA
Blue Cross Blue Shield program, and no later than September of each year the
Committee. will report to the Town Manager regarding their recommendations on
health insurance.
4 The Town will allow retirees to re-enter the insurance program on an open
enrollment basis every 24 months, starting with even years, thereafter at the open
enrollment period, and provided that the retirement date is within 10 years of the
open enrollment effective date. A retiree and/or his/her family may exercise this
right only once. If a retiree opts to take Town coverage under this paragraph and
then drops the coverage he or she will not be permitted to re-enroll.
L
5 The Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen agree to request a health
insurance budget for each year in an amount not less than the rate required to
cover currently insured employees and retirees, at the rate specified in this
agreement. If additional State Aid becomes available to the Town over and above
the prior years levels of State Aid, and such funds are available on a non restricted
basis, at the request of the coalition bargaining unit the Town agrees to reopen
negotiations on the percentage of Town contribution to the health insurance
program. The Town will consider as part of that negotiating process, the use of a
portion of the increased Aid for health insurance purposes not to exceed the
percentage of that increase that the current health insurance expense item
represents of the total budget. In the event that this paragraph applies, it is subject
to Town Meeting approval.
6 This agreement shall become effective upon ratification by all represented
bargaining units (excluding the RMLD), and by the Board of Selectmen.
This settlement shall be effective March 1, 2006 and shall remain in fiill force until May
31, 2006 unless the provisions of Paragraph 2 are instituted as to renegotiation and/or
mediation.
Board of Selectmen:
ar ai n Unit:
~IMC I~Lti~G`~
sl h
rl~c4i6l
J
J
Camille Anthony
Chainnan
j ~ d ' 4 3's
4Z& f In
Board of Selectmen Meeting
January 9, 2006
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting' Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Richard
Schubert, Secretary Joseph Duffy, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Ben Tafoya, Town
Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Paula Schena and the following list of interested parties:
Attorney Bill Solomon, Verizon Representatives Peter Bowman, Paul Trane and Tom Antonucci.
Discussion/Action Items
Continued Verizon Hearing - Attorney Bill Solomon and Verizon representatives Peter
Bowman, Paul Trane and Tom Antonucci were present.
The Town Manager noted that the draft Minutes from the December 19, 2005 Meeting were in
the packet. The purpose of the meeting is to follow up with Verizon on three items the
definition of a cable system, an accelerated schedule for installations, and how businesses will be .
addressed. He is not anticipating any decision tonight, and he recommends to continue the
hearing to January 25, 2006 as a final continuation.
Attorney Bill Solomon noted that the Town has negotiated and made compromises. If an
agreement cannot be reached, then the Selectmen need to decide what to do.
Chairman Camille Anthony asked how many times they have met since the last hearing.
Attorney Solomon noted that there have not been any in person meetings but teleconference
calls. There is no agreement on the three above mentioned issues. If these issues are addressed,
then the rest falls into place. Chairman Anthony noted that the deadline is February 3, 2006.
Verizon Representative Paul Trane noted that Verizon would jointly seek a waiver of the 12
month rifle if the Town was amenable to it. He also noted that they are continuing discussing the
definition, and that the issue of getting cable to businesses is more a definition of build out.
Verizon Representative Peter Bowman noted that this is a multi-million dollar investment for
Verizon. They built the fiber and brought it to the Town. He feels that this is an economic
development engine for the Town. It is a reliable network with 100 megabits. The overlay is
existing in the aerial network with fiber in 98% of the Town. The other 4% of the Town is
buried so they are going past those. They are negotiating the property owners of Summit
Towers, Peter Sanborn and Frank Tanner.
Board of Selectmen Meeting - Januarv 9. 2006 - Page 2
Mr. Bowman noted that in the Downtown area, the lateral connections will need to be done when
the Downtown project is done so the street won't need to be dug up afterwards. He also noted
that he will look at all of the buried developments, and work with the Town Manager to set up a
schedule.
Selectman Ben Tafoya asked if any resident, except for Downtown and Sanborn Village, can call
tomorrow and set up a time for installation. Mr. Bowman noted that multi-dwellings and buried
developments will take longer.
Attorney Solomon noted that it is important that if they don't do something, then the license tell
them they have to do something. For instance regarding businesses, the proposal is "may"
provide services to businesses and that is not enforceable. He also noted that there are some
locations that don't have a certain density that Verizon won't provide to if they are not required.
Mr. Trane noted that there has to be a level playing field. There is nothing in the incumbent
agreement to provide to all businesses.
Chairman Camille Anthony noted that it is a good idea to set a schedule by type of installation;
i.e., air, buried and multiple dwellings.
Mr. Trane noted that there is a caveat in the license for certain areas. Attoorney Solomon
indicated that clause gets them out of providing service when the development or buildings have
no access within their reasonable determination, or for technical reasons or non-standard
conditions or due to excessive costs, then they don't have to provide service.
Mr. Trane asked if there are properties not receiving service now, and the Town Manager
indicated that the parsonage at the Old South Church and the house next to the Fire Station
because it exceeds the 100 foot limit. Comcast can provide the service but the property owner
will have to pay extra for installation.
Mr. Trane noted that they have negotiated three years to provide service to the whole Town. If
they can do it quicker than that, they will. They are willing to develop a schedule with the Town.
Chairman Camille Anthony asked about customer service. Mr. Trane noted that there are certain
customer service items in the contract. They are committed to providing the best service, and
they feel that they will win in the market place. Attorney Solomon, suggested that Paul Trane
prepare a one page summary on how Verizon will serve the subscribers versus the federal
regulations.
Vice Chairman Richard Schubert asked about the definition of a cable system. The Town
Manager noted that the ball is in Verizon's corporate court. The Town wants to reference the
federal law, and Verizon wants to make changes to it. The Town Manager noted that the gross
revenue is based on the cable system and it is referenced in other places in the contract.
,.av `
Board of Selectmen Meeting - January 9. 2006 - Page 3
Mr. Trane noted that there is also the issue of Title 2. Attorney Solomon noted that we are not
trying to regulate the infrastructure - Verizon is seeking -a definition to shape the future. Verizon
feels that if they provide service through the internet, then they don't have to follow the cable
regulations. Mr. Trane noted that Verizon was given permission as a non-cable provider in New
York.
The Town Manager asked if Verizon will have a firm position on January 25, 2006. Mr. Trane.
indicated that what is in the contract is their firm position. He also noted that they are here to
negotiate and, hopefully, can reach an agreement. He also submitted a transcript of the last
hearing.
On motion by Schubert seconded by Tafova. the Board of Selectmen voted to continue the,
hearing on the Verizon application to Januarv 25. 2006 at 7:00 u.m. in the Police Station
Communitv Room. 15 Union Street was auuroved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Review the Ston and Shon Plans - The Town Manager reviewed the Stop and Shop plans with
the Board.
The Board had concerns that the location of the building behind a sea of parking may not be the
best layout for the site. They suggested moving the building closer to Walkers Brook Drive with
the parking located to the east and to the south.
The Board concurs with the Development Review Team's comments that the access drive on
Walkers Brook Drive needs to be moved to a location more equidistant between General Way
and New Crossing Road.
The Board indicated that they feel very strongly that access from the Danis property to the New
Crossing Road property must be achieved as part of this site development. The Board noted that
an equitable arrangement would need to be made between the property owners.
Review Action Status Report - The Town Manager reviewed the Action Status Report.
Policv of Detours - The Town Manager noted that the Police Chief, the new Safety Officer and
DPW will work together on this.
Ash Street Crossing,- The Town Manager noted that Jiffy Lube is not interested in giving up any
property. The Board may have to take a sliver of property, and then it would have to go to Town
Meeting. The Town Manager noted that the MBTA will help out with funding to eliminate the
grade crossing. An appraisal needs to be done.
Gazebo Circle - The Town Manager noted that CPDC held back $30,000 to address drainage
issues. The Town Engineer noted that there is a solution, and he will meet with the consultant
engineer.
Pitman Bike Path - The Town Manager noted that this is still in the concept stage. He will find
out if funding is still available. 3
W
Board of Selectmen Meeting - Januarv 9. 2006 - Page 4
Downtown Improvements - The Town Manager noted that borings are being done for the mast
arms. Money is available. Mass Highway is reviewing the final plans. When it is approved,
they will go out to bid, and then the Town will meet with the contractor to work out a schedule.
Vice Chairman Schubert asked if this will be done in one construction season, and the Town
Manager indicated that it will not.
Downtown Parking - The Town Manager noted that there have been a number of changes
requested. There will be a workshop meeting on February 21, 2006 to deal with this issue. He
will get an update from the Police Chief on the number of reserved parking spaces that have been
sold.
Imagination Station - Selectman James Bonazoli noted that sample materials are being tested.
Chairman Anthony noted that we need a plan. Selectman Bonazoli noted that the Recreation
Department funds are self supporting. The Town Manager noted that we need to get a group to
do fundraising for Imagination Station.
Lost Dogs - Chairman Camille Anthony asked what other communities do, and the Town
Manager noted that he thinks most use private kennels.
Chairman Camille Anthony reviewed the procedure for the January 17, 2006 Addison-Wesley
meeting.
A motion by Tafova seconded by Bonazoli to adiourn the meeting of Januarv 9. 2006 at
9:50 mm. was auproved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
57el-I
Board of Selectmen Meeting
January 25, 2006
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which
the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which
any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Station Community Room, 15 Union Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Vice Chairman Richard
Schubert, Secretary Joseph Duffy, Selectmen James Bonazoli and Ben Tafoya, Special
Counsel Bill Solomon, Verizon Representative Paul Trane, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner
and the following list of interested parties: James Ruszkowski, Cheryl and Michele Eason,
Susan Nicolosi, Theresa Boucher, Ed Parish, Sheila Poschman, Patricia Harty, Keith Berker,
Dom LaCava, Theophslos Kuliopoulos, Philip Morris Jr., Paul Boudette, Bill Toomey, Paul
Powell, Dick Curtis, Harry Wheeler, Paul Cain, Marie Lasota, Eric Edgington, Mike DiNatale,
Ruth Kennedy, G. Augustine.
Discussion/Action Items
Continued Verizon Hearing - The purpose of this meeting is to review and potentially approve a
Cable TV franchise with Verizon New England. The Town Manager reviewed the proposed
final agreement that was distributed to the Board of Selectmen this evening. Verizon has
committed to snaking contact with all multiple dwelling units by the end of this year for
installation. They have committed to providing a schedule to the Town Manager for installation
of all underground service. They have committed to connecting the underground service in
Reading Square to the laterals into the buildings as part of the Town's construction season.
Special Counsel Bill Solomon asked Verizon whether their intent was to abide by this license
fully, and Verizon Representative Paul Trane indicated that they did.
Vice Chairman Richard Schubert noted that the number of e-mails they received stated that there
was interest in having Verizon as a competitive cable service in Reading. These were helpful.
On motion by Tafova seconded by Bonazoli, the Board of Selectmen approved the
following Resolution drafted by Bill Solomon:
WHEREAS, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, as Issuing Authoritv.
pursuant to Chauter 166A of the Massachusetts General Laws and the anDlicable
r_gulations promulgated Dursuant thereto (207 CMR 3.00 - Licensing'), has determined
that the grant of a non-exclusive Cable Television Provisional and Final License to Verizon,
New England, Inc. is consistent with the public interest: and
WHEREAS. based upon all relevant materials submitted by Verizon New England. Inc. in
accordance with 207 CMR 3.00. the Board of Selectmen deems both Verizon and the,
application of Verizon New England. Inc. as amended, to be qualified with respect to the
grant of a Cable Television License in the Town of Reading
s,~
Board of Selectmen Meetinp, - Januarv 25. 2006 - Paae 2
NOW. THEREFORE. the Board of Selectmen grants a Provisional/Final Cable Television
Final License to Verizon New England., Inc. (said License shall be entitled "Cable
Television Final License").
by a vote of 5-0-0.
Five copies of the license were signed by the Board of Selectmen and given to Verizon for their
signature.
On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Tafova. the Board of Selectmen voted to adiourn the
meeting of Januarv 25. 2006 at 7:30 u.m. by a vote of 5-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
47,
THE LICENSING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF READING
HEREBY GRANTS A RESTAURANT LICENSE
to Expose, Keep for Sale, and to Sell
All Kinds of Alcoholic Beverages
To be Drunk on the Premises
License No. 101600025
TO: THE BOLAND GROUP, III, L.L.C. d/b/a FUDDRUCKERS, 50 WALKERS
BROOK DRIVE, READING, MASS.
on the following described premises: The premises contains approximately 6,500
sq. ft. and is situated at ground level. There is an exterior door directly to the outside
and an interior door to the remainder of the floor of the building into common area.
This license is granted and accepted upon the express condition that the
licensee shall, in all respects, conform to all the provisions of the Liquor Control Act,
Chapter 138 of the General Laws, as amended, and any rules or regulations made
thereunder by the licensing authorities. This license expires December 31, 2006, unless
earlier suspended, cancelled or revoked and is subject to the following conditions:
♦ All Bylaws, Rules and Regulations of the Town of Reading and of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts shall be followed;
♦ All alcohol is delivered to the customer by an employee;
o No televisions or similar devices;
No carafes, pitchers - single serving only;
♦ Patron must be seated to be served;
♦ There will be no bar;
o There will be a barrier not less than 3' in width between the seating area and the outer
lobby or the tables next to the lobby area will be moved;
♦ There will be no alcohol placed on the service counter top.
In Testimony Whereof, the undersigned have hereunto affixed their official si natures
this 23rd day of January, 2006.
The hours during which
Alcoholic Beverages may be
w f
7/1
sold are: _
From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 W W"
midnight on weekdays, and
12 noon to 12:00 midnight on
Sundays.,,
ri
LICEN AR
THIS LICENSE SHALL BE DISPLAYED ON THE PREMISES IWA
CONSPICUOUS POSITION WHERE IT CAN EASILY BE READ.
v v v v v®~ . tee, ~ • v , ~ ~ . ~ , ~ , v , ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ , ~
~z
is
It:' i
1
cce
Maio 6~ f1f1 9B/LLCL~G(/E9 J
°rv. r a c ~
Zmb JAN 27 AN 10, 47'
!QI P SJS
201^ MIDDLESEX DISTRICT
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING
STATE REPRESENTATIVE LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON
ROOM 124
MINORITY LEADER TEL. (617) 722-2100
January 26, 2006 Rep.BradleyJones@hou.state.ma.us
Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner:
Yesterday, Governor Romney released his budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 2007. Due to increasing
tax revenue growth the Governor's total budget increased about 5.3% from FY'06 to $25.2B.
We are pleased to report that the Governor's budget increases local aid to cities and towns by about $197.9
million or 17% over last year's spending plan and increases education aid by 7%. The budget proposes to increase
local aid distribution by the immediate 100% uncapping of the lottery giving cities and towns an additional $158.7
million. There is no increase in additional assistance, however, the overall appropriation for PILOT accounts increased
by 57% from $16.1 million to $25.3 million. Chapter 70 funding increased this year to $3.45 billion, an increase of
$163.7 million for local cities and towns with a large amount dedicated to increases in inflation and enrollment.
The budget dedicates about $95M:to the Governor's, education reform initiative, including:. Targeted .
Intervention in turnaround schools ($25M), Teacher Pe>formaiice Pay ($25M), Laptop Computers for every student in
grades six and seven ($18M), Differential Pay for AP math & science and those in the Commonwealth Teaching
Corps. In addition, $15 "million will go to fund pilot programs for extended learning time. It is important to note that
these education reform initiatives that the Governor has' proposed would only be distributed locally if the Legislature
decides to implement these reforms in the final budget.
Locally, the Town of Reading would see an increase in these accounts alone of 10.95% in local aid from last
year if approved. Even though they are only preliminary . and are subject to legislative revision, the Governor's local
aid figures for the town are as follows:
Governor's Local Aid Proposal - Town of Reading
1 FY'06
{ Chapter 70 Aid 1 $6,290,157
{ Lottery Distribution ti $2,083,179
Additional Assistance ( $1,534,901
{ State Owned Land (PILOT) 4 $53,780
{ FY107
$ 'Chanae ( % Change
$6,939,462
{ $649,305 10.32%
$2,461,971
5 $378,792 18.18%
{ $1,534,901
1 {
$44,914
1 ($8,866) { -16.49%
The next few months will involve much analysis of the Governor's Budget proposals as the Legislature
prepares and then debates its own version of the budget. •Though nothing is: guaranteed, it is our hope the Legislature
will'adopt final local` aid~riit.bbers at or above the. Governor's proposals. -.We trustthese proposals come as welcome
news to the'town-as you prepare.your municipal budgetTor next year:
As always,. we will strive to keep you updated of_any.budget developments here on Beagon Hill Should you
have any`questions,please do not hesitafe to contact us at your convenience.
Richard R. Tisei
Senate Assistant Minority Leader
t(
Ccomcast Comcast Cable
676 Island Pond Road
Manchester, NH 03109
603.695.1400 Tel
603.628.3303 Fax
www.comcast.com
c.
e..-
January 18, 2006
Board of Selectmen c
Town of Reading
16 Lowell St.
Reading, MA 01867
Re: Annual License Fee for 2005
Dear Chairman & Members of the Board:
In accordance M.G.L.c.166A §9, enclosed please find the Town of Reading 2005 license
fee payment equal to $0.50 per subscriber as of December 31, 2005. The payment is
being submitted in the amount of $3,793.50, therefore reflecting 7,587 subscribers as of
such date.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-207-2264 should you have any questions in
regards to this or any other cable related matter.
Sincerely,
1: ?~el2a
Jane Lyman
Manager of Government & Community Relations
/dmm
Enclosure
8l %
COMCAST FINANCIAL
@10mcast AGENCY CORPORATION
A Comcast Cable Communications Group Company
Eastern Division
200 Cresson Blvd.
Oaks, PA 19456
Date : 11-JAN-06 Vendor Name : READING TOWN OF MA
INVOICE NO. INVOICE DATE DESCRIPTION
010466FF 04-JAN-06 2 MARC LOCKARD/304/2005/.50 ANN
TOTAL
0239540?8311' 1:044 L i5443i: 6?5 5 28 3 4 311'
REMITTANCE ADVICE
No. 239540783
Vendor•No.: 154878
DISCOUNT AMOUNT NET AMOUNT
0.00 3,793.50
0.00 3,793.50
bj(~~
2W JAN 26 AM 11: LJO Robert J. Levy Jr.
5 Washington Street
Reading, MA 01867
January 24, 2006
Selectpersons:
I am writing to you, because I am concerned about the project that was proposed
at the Addison Wesley site. I was watching the rebroadcast of the meeting that the
citizens of Reading were voicing their concerns for their neighborhood. I live on
Washington Street and I would like to express a few points against the project.
1.) I can tell you that the traffic that will spill onto Woburn Street from
that proposed Mall will cause more accidents and will make it harder to
exit my street than it is now.
2.) It will take revenue away from the businesses in the center and the
surrounding areas of the town and cause them to close.
3.) It inhibits the police and fire departments from getting to emergencies
in those neighborhoods around the proposed project site. Just look at
the traffic jam that occurred during the elections that were held at
Addison Wesley that should give you some indication of what it would
be like.
4.) There are five malls within a two mile radius right now, ( Walkers
Brook, Woburn Mall, Kohl's Mall, Redstone and the Lowe's Mall)
another mall is not needed. An office park would be more practical.
5.) Reading would not be the respected town it is now. I grew up in
Chelsea in a time where we used to walls down the square said hi to our
neighbors. We had a very friendly and prosperous city until they put in
the malls. The malls put several or more fine establishments out of
business. The owners knew people by their first names, gave donations
to the local schools, and held different contest for the local youths to
help their talents to be enhanced. That all was gone when the malls
were built and Chelsea was soon changed and not for the better.
Please do not let this project become a reality, be patient for something a little more
worthy of the people of Reading.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I hope as a community we can all
make Reading a better place to live.
Aob y
- / 11
fcI
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety
One Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Tel: (617)7 27-7775
TTY Tel: (617) 727-6618
Mitt Romney Fax: (617) 727-4764 Edward A. Flynn
Governor www.mass.gov/eops Secretary
'ED
Kerry Healey
Lieutenant Governor
January 20, 2006 x,.
Chief James Cormier
Reading Police Department -
0
15 Union Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Chief James Cormier,
Thank you for your dedication and hard work in performing address audits on registered sex
offenders in your jurisdiction. Your department's commitment to public safety and sex offender
management, and its cooperation with the Sex Offender Registry Board, has yielded phenomenal
results for the sex offender registry address verification program. In calendar year 2005:
97% of the police departments with jurisdiction over Level 3 offenders conducted address
audits, and 85% of the departments also conducted address audits on Level 2 offenders;
3,492 address verifications were conducted; and
108 registered sex offenders were identified through the audit as in violation.
Sex offenders are the most difficult population to manage in the community. Public safety is
best served by our combined efforts to track these individuals, and to ensure that sex offender
registry data is accurate and up-to-date.
I am pleased that you have made sex offender address verification a priority for your
department, and I am proud to work with you on this program. I look forward to future
collaborations on sex offender management initiatives, and to the continued implementation of
the address audit program.
Sincerely,
Edward A. Flynn
Secretary of Public Safety
cc: ' Mayor/Board of Selectmen
C~-
0 PRINTED oN RECYCLE) P"m
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Chief James Cormier
Reading, Town of
15 Union Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Chief Cormier:
b t
c 3~, s
sd~C
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Grants Administration Division
January 23, 2006
I would like to thank you for your grant application under the COPS in Schools program (CIS).
The COPS Office received an overwhelming response to the open solicitations for CIS applications
during 2003' and 2004. During those solicitations, the COPS Office received nearly 1,800 individual CIS
applications requesting over $400 million in federal funds. Due to the high demand, unfunded
applications were carried forward.through subsequent fiscal years in anticipation of funding as many as
possible. Unfortunately, as of this date, COPS has only been able to fund 185 CIS 2003 and 2004
applications for $69.6 million. In other words, only 10% of the total number of applications received
were actually funded.
For FY 2006, no additional funds were appropriated. to the COPS Office for CIS. With no CIS
funding available, we regret to inform you that we will be unable to fulfill your request for additional
officer positions. Please note that the overwhelming demand and limited funding meant that the COPS
Office was forced to make many difficult funding decisions. Funding selections were ultimately based
on a number of factors, including the number of previous COPS hiring awards applicant agencies
received, application completeness and accuracy, and statutory mandates which govern how CIS and
other COPS hiring funds are to-be allocated. Ultimately, however, there simply was not enough CIS
funding available'to fund all legitimate, quality requests such as yours. .
While we do not know.what lever of funding will be appropriated for CIS in future years, we
encourage your agency to re-apply for the program should CIS funding become available.
Again, thank you for your interest in COPS in Schools funding. We sincerely regret that we
were unable to fund your application. If you have any questions about this letter or future COPS funding
opportunities, please feel free to contact your Grant Program Specialist at 1.800.421.6770.
Sincerely, .
Robert A. Phillips
Deputy.Director for Operations
January 27, 2006
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Members of the Board:
y jfU ?,o l}ii 11: 42,
~omcast
Attached please find a copy of the 2005 Annual Consumer Complaint Form "Form 500" as required by Chapter 166A
of the General Laws of Massachusetts. As you will see from the overall summary, customer complaints continue to
decline which is an indicator that consumers are relatively if not highly satisfied with Comcast's products and services.
We believe this to be primarily attributable to the many improvements Comcast initiated throughout 2004 and 2005.
Notwithstanding the demands and complexities we consistently face including handling - more than 3 million
interactions with our Massachusetts customers monthly - overall customer complaints continue to trend downward as
captured by the Form 500. Customer complaints alone were down by 11% compared to 2004 - and complaints about
customer service have decreased by almost 31 Please be assured the company will continue to focus on its "Think
Customer First" initiative in hopes of further reducing customer complaints while increasing consumer satisfaction.
Every employee in New England has been charged with thinking about the customer first and foremost while fording
new and innovative ways to make the customer experience with Comcast the best it can possibly be. Throughout 2006
we will continue to reach out to our customers for their feedback as to our performance.
The Form 500 requires operators to report how they respond to customer's concerns about the operation of their cable
system, including the time it takes to resolve a complaint.
As you may be aware the Division defines "complaint" for Form 500 purposes as:
Any written or verbal contact with a cable operator in connection with subscription in which a person
expresses dissatisfaction with an act, omission, product or service that is (1) within the operator's control, and
(2) requires a corrective measure on the part of the operator.
Comcast is proud of the commitment it has made in customer service, which continued to improve despite a year of
constant change. We are proud to offer such important products such as: Video on Demand, High Definition, Digital
Video Recorders, and new services such as: Comcast Digital Voice. We will continue to work on "Best Practices " to
farther enhance the customer experience with Comcast.
A copy of this Form 500 has been forwarded to the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunication and Energy,
Massachusetts Cable Division.
If I can be of further assistance to you on any matters related to this report, please feel free to contact me at
978-207-2264.
Very truly yours,
C~~~-M . Ar",
41ane M. Lyman
Manager of Government & Community Relations
Enclosure
Form 500 Complaint Data Comcast Cable Communications 676 Island Pond Road,
Manchester, NH 03109-
26z/an-06 (978) 848-5476
Code Key: Avg. Resolution Time Code Key: Manner of Resolution
<1> Less than 1 Day <2> 1-3 Days <3> 4-7 Days <4> 8-14 A. Resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Days <5> 15-30 Days <6> >30 Days B. Resolved, customer dissatisfied. C. Not Resolved.
Town READING Av Manner of Resolution (see code key above for the manner represented
Avg by the letters below) The number below each letter indicates the number of complaints
Year 2005 I Total Resolution resolved in that manner.
Complaints Time (see
Subscribers 7587 code above) A. B. C.
Advertising/Marketing
1
<3>
1
0
0
Appointment Service Call
40
<2>
38
2
0
Billing
27
<2>
24
3
0
Customer Service
1
<2>
1
0
0
Equipment
55
<2>
53
2
0
Installation
163
<2>
160
3
0
Service Interruption
124
<2>
117
7
0
N
9
Form 500 Service ComcaS$ Cable Communications 676 Island Pond Road,
Interruption Data Manchester, NH 03109-
26-Jan-06 (978) 848-5476
Code Key: Duration of Service Interruption I <1> Less than 1 Day <2> 1-3 Days <3> 4-7 Days <4> 8-14 Days <5> 15-30 Days <6> >30 Days
Town ( READING
Year 2005 (
Subscribers 7587
Date of Service Interruption I
I Duration of Service Interruption (see Code Key above)
READING
12/04/2005
( <1>
READING
11/25/2005
~I <1>
READING
11/12/2005
<1>
READING
09/04/2005
( <1>
READING
08/2012005
( <1>
READING
08111/2005
I <1>
READING
07/08/2005
II <1>
READING
06/16/2005
<1>
READING
05/12/2005
~I <1>
READING
0 4/1 812 0 0 5
<1>
READING
03/21/2005
<1>
READING
03/1512005
<1>
READING
02/14/2005
<1>
READING
12/2612004
~I <1>
.a
V V
1
Massachusetts
M11A
Interlocal Insurance Association
January 28, 2006
Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell St.
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Peter,
a
-z,
r V1
1
vti
We are pleased to inform you that your application for a MIIA Loss Control Grant
has been approved for the following items and amounts.
Safety Equipment- gas detector unit $1600
You may choose to have the vendor/supplier invoice MIIA directly or MIIA will
reimburse you upon receipt of a copy of a paid invoice. All grant monies must be
invoiced by June 15, 2006 or award may be forfeited.
Please contact myself or Mary Ann Marino if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
effrey J. Siena
Loss Control Manager
t ~ c Qc~
One Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110 C. C-
(617) 426-7272 or (800) 374-4405
Facsimile (617) 426-9546
3 1
An Interlocal Service of the Massachusetts Municipal Association
Ll C QD_S
From: Gary Phillips [gdphillips@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:28 PM
To: Pat Schettini (PSchettini@Reading.k12.ma.us)
Cc: Rob Spadafora (rspadafora@comcast.net); Elaine Webb (elwsail@yahoo.com); Carl McFadden
(cmcfadden@ftmc.net); John Carpenter (carpenter114@yahoo.com); Lisa Gibbs
(lisa@samanthasharvest.org)
Subject: Request for Public Information of January 13, 2006
On January 13th I requested a copy of the Barrows @ Wood End daily Nursing Incident Logs
showing the number of incidents and treatment received by students or staff for the last week
of May 2005 until the end of the school year, June 2005. 1 also requested the names treated
be redacted so not to impede my request within the 10 day legal limit. On January 25, 1
received your response by mail. All significant log information was blotted out except for the
nurse's signature and time of each incident. Of course this eliminated the most important
element of my request. You stated, "certain information has been redacted on the advice of
counsel". I am requesting you please provide me with a written copy of the unnamed counsel
you referenced in your January 23 letter supporting your action to delete and withhold that
public information from me. I am aware, from first hand accounts and 2 letters received by the
Town's Health Department, that several students and some staff were treated for heat related
illnesses, despite denials from school and town officials. The public information on the school
health logs will reveal which findings are of fact.
As I stated previously, data from school health records or logs are used to show evidence of
student health problems - like the heat related illnesses that occurred last spring at Wood End
that should be addressed, and are regarded as public information. An example of the use of
that kind of general non-personal public information can be found in the RMHS High Flyer
Newsletter, in the "Focus on Health" column which makes note of "585 students visited the
health office, 190 more than last September. There were 142 more absences this September
as compared to September `04". This information should be used to frequently monitor air
quality in the high school during construction and is considered public information or it would
not have made public by the nurse at that school facility.
I find it peculiar and frustrating that a public official is willing to seek interference from counsel
to deny parents and taxpayers what is in their interest and right to know. I am amazed at the!
length to which some of our public officials will go to conceal construction deficiencies and
unhealthy conditions at the brand new Wood End Elementary School.
According to the information you provided me when I requested a copy of the most recent
nurses' contract, the nurses are currently working without a contract because it expired June
30, 2005? Gary Phillips
l I - Lr- -
D r 1~e
Afl ac k
1/31/2006 5 S 1-T IC-n b 1 D V
8l
Patrick A. Schettini, Jr.
Superintendent
January 23, 2006
Mr. Gary Phillips
42 Willow Street
Reading, MA 01867
Dear Mr. Phillips,
RMAIDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
82 Oakland Road, Post Office Box 180
Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0280
Telephone 781-944-5800
Fax 781-942-9149
John E Doherty
Assistant Superintendent
Mary C. DeLai
Director of Human .Resources
and Finance
In response to your request for information dated January 13, 2006, please find attached, copies
of the daily nursing logs for the period of May 2005 to June 2005 for Barrows @ Wood End as
well as a copy of the current nurses' contract and school nurse and Director of Nurses job
descriptions. Certain information has been redacted on the advice of counsel.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Patrick A./Schettini, Jr.
Superintendent of Schools
c: Reading School Committee
The Reading Public Schools does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age or disability.
From: Gary Phillips [gdphillips@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:07 PM
To: Pat Schettini (PSchettini@Reading.k12.ma.us)
Subject: Request for Information
Please provide me with a copy of the Barrows @ Wood End'daily nursing incident logs that
are kept at each school that shows the treatment received or incident requiring the students,
and/or staff to receive attention from ariy and all school nursing staff who were on duty during
the last week of *May 2005 until the end of the school year, June 2005. Please redact the
names of the students and/or staff treated so not to impede my request within the 10 day legal'
limit. I understand through first hand accounts from students and some staff that they were
treated for heat related issues over that time period, contradicting previous statements made
by school personnel
I understand through the National Health, Mental Health and Safety Guidelines for schools
that the Federal law know as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) only
applies to personal student health records such as immunization records and student medical
conditions information that is transferred from the student's health care providers and the
school nursing staff, and does not apply to daily school nursing incident logs.
Please provide me with a copy of nursing guidelines that delineates the handling of personal'
student information as required by HIPPA, and the date that the School Committee approved
that policy.
Also provide me with a copy of the latest nurses' contract in effect, and a copy of the nurses';
job description, including the head nurse/health coordinator for the district.
Data from school health records are used to show evidence of student health problems like
the heat related illnesses that occurred last spring at Wood End that should be addressed, and
are regarded as public records information. An example of use of that kind of information can
be found in the RMHS High Flyer in the "Focus on Health" column which makes note that "585
students visited the health office, 190 more than last September". "There were 142 more
absences this September as compared to September'04". This information should be used to
frequently monitor air quality in the high school during the construction.
Thank you for your help in accessing this public information. Gary Phillips
r vv -r
a
Into pounG
0
i 1
a
'
i
'rM
W.
.:r
i((
i
1 ~
i~
ry fi T y e". - - -
DATE. N--aA4-- 3
TIME
DISPOSITION OUT
4
MEMO
i PAP:ENTS
)TALS= VISITS:_
VISITS:
DIS.
llS: 1 CONECORES MEDS: ' ,cam 1
DIS.
SCHOOL IMALTH LOG BARROWS ELEMMTARY
GR REASbN
TIME NAME
IN
Ct
2
3
4
5
b
-
7
8
14
l
11
l2
t3
7 4
5
f
~
Q
U
❑
i
)TALS: VISITS;
'AFF;-- VISITS;
DATE: g- i-`',
Tlww DIS.
DISPOSITION OUT
1
- MEDS: l pOf PORES PARENTS
xr 1.
WDS
*RSE
1
i
_00L HEALTH LOG BARROWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME NAME GR REASbN
&cv~ cl-~
DATE: w.S
✓ DISPOSITION
2
3
V
4 L ~Y
5-k3
6 cl` ,t
7
8
9 ~o
10 ~Wa
11
-
f 2
13 o 10
ig P-
14 `
i G
_
I5
16
.
►TALS:
VISITS: MEDS: - -s DIS
AFF:
VISITS: MEDS: CONF:
i
NURSE
CORES PARENTS
9 )
~ ev-c~~ i
,fna Dille
6JT
1 ~
31
i r
iTALS:
DIS_
VISITS ~~~gSE
1~ U r5 jo~'
DATE: 61cilocs-
/ ) DISPOSITION
TIME DIS.
OUT
- MEDS: - - DIS:
OTALS: VISITS; PARENTS
I'AFF: VISITS: MEDS: i CONF: CORES
E
'RCIi--OL HEALTH LOG BARROWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TIME NAME GR REASON
IN '
1
2
3
4
5
6
17
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15-
[6-'
?
8
9
0
1
i
:)T .LS:
CAFE: - -
DATE: 4 r~ l 0,. A G Z~ i
DISPOSITION f TIME DIS.
I 6~F-~
n .A
PARENTS
VISITS: MEDS: ! CONF: CORES
i
1 URSE [VAIA -40
,Nc;H.-~OL HEALTH LOG BARROWS ELEMENTARY !CHOOL
TIME
NAME GR REASON
IN
,
1 ~t
2
^
3
4
f
5 '
6 .
-
i
y
7
1
18
9
10
I1 ,
12
L
13 j
14
15
L6
77
8
r Q~
\
1
.
4
:)TALS: VISITS: MEDS: - i DIS:
GAFF: - - VISITS: MEDS: i CONF:
4 < t `~`~4
NURSE
CORES
PARENTS
SUHO3
NOIUSOdSIQ, fi
3S~
I
;SIQ -
I- -
:SQHl+1t
:SGaK
:SJUSIA
:SLISIA
c~
ZOOHO~XWVJ S M SMOWW9
I
gwvK
- -:33d3
: S'Id1.0
z
o~
6
L1
3AT 91
SI
ti~~~1 trt
ch1~ ZI
Oi
` 6
QD r 8
lldl(A? L
Z
III
~II.L
JO'I H.Lly H 110OHaS
-!~Yjl-61 - -~DISPOS'Tlo"'
}
_VISITS~-
ct~TALS~ VISiTS~--
iDIS:_ 'Coo
"S: CC4*-
~'(3RSE
PA~~~'TS
L / C~cs
Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading
Save The Date
The congregation of the
Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading
Invites you to attend
. The installation of
Rev. Timothy A. Kutzmark
as minister
Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 3:00 PM
In the church sanctuary
239 Woburn Street
Reading, MA 01867
Further details to follow.
239 Woburn Street, Reading, Massachusetts 01867
tel: 781-944-0494 fax: 781-944-1777 email: uucr@uureading.org web: http://www.uureading.org
U/
lC
~4vyr. 60 ct r~F
s
4 hrWRA ce
a VOL S
ADVISORY o
\v BOARD r, ..\-ews t
The Case for Debt Service Assistance
Forty-seven MWRA communities, representing
97.5% of the service area have endorsed a Resolution
requesting that the Commonwealth provide a
minimum of $25 million in Debt Service Assistance
(DSA) for FY07. A complete list of the communities
supporting the Resolution, as well as a presentation
on the need for Debt Service Assistance, can be
viewed on the Advisory Board's website at
www.mwraadvisolvboard.com.
MWRA Advisory Board
2005 Legislator of the Year Award.
Speaker of the House Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senator Robert A.
Havern were presented with the MWRA Advisory Board 2005
Legislator of the Year Award on Januaiy 19, 2006 at the State House.
MWRA Chair Katherine Haynes Dunphy noted the efforts made by
both on behalf of ratepayers.
DEP Issues Revised Water Management Act
Permitting Policy (One Size Fits All)
The MWRA Legislative Caucus led a successful The Department of Environmental Protection's revised Water
effort in FY06 to restore DSA, securing $12.5 million Management Act Permitting Policy ignored the concerns raised by
for the Program. water supply communities, the MWRA and the Advisory Board at the
Advisory Board's October 2005 meeting.
In addition to the community Resolutions, Advisory
Board staff will be circulating a Legislators' The Advisory Board will continue to work closely with the
Resolution requesting that DSA be doubled to at least Massachusetts Water Works Association to change the policy.
$25 million for FY07. Water System Expansion
Appropriation Discontinued
Governor Mitt Romney's recently filed fourth State
Budget has the same amount allocated for Debt
Service Assistance Funding as his last three budgets:
zero.
Budget Review Underway
Advisory Board staff have begun to review the FY06
Current Expense Budget Amendment proposed by
the MWRA. The budget amendment primarily
addresses increases in energy costs. Comments and
Recommendations will be discussed at the February
23'd meeting of the Advisory Board.
The MWRA Enabling Act empowers the Advisory
Board to review and comment on the Authority's
Proposed FY07 Capital Improvement Program. Staff
will provide draft Comments and Recommendations
at the Advisory Board's March 16`h meeting in
Canton.
In a presentation to the MWRA Board of Directors, MWRA staff
identified a minimum of 36 million gallons per day available for sale.
Staff identified 25 communities who may require MWRA water in the
future.
The MWRA Board of Directors intends to provide staff with
parameters for water system expansion at its March 2006 meeting.
EPA Chief Sees $500 Billion Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure as Top Priority
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, at a
panel discussion marking the agency's 35`h Anniversary, stated the
agency's top priority is fnid ng innovative ways to pay for costly
upgrades to the nation's aging wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure. Mr. Jolmnson estimated the cost of these upgrades to be
$500 billion. However, federal fimding for the Clean Water State
Revolving Loan Fund has been declining; funding in FY06 fell below
the $1 billion mark to $900 million. Further reductions are under
.onsideration for the next budget.
Upcoming Meetings/Events
February 2 - System Expansion Committee - 10 am - Adv Brd office
Advisory Board staff will outline its February8 - MWRA Board of Directors Meeting - 10 am -Charlestown
recommendations for the Authority's Proposed FY07 February 17 - Advisory Board Executive Committee Meeting
Current Expense Budget at the May 18`h Advisory 8:30 am at Advisory Board office
Board meeting in Boston. February 23 - MWRA Advisory Board Meeting
11:30 am at the Wellesley Free Library
If you have any questions regarding topics raised in this newsletter or any other MWRA issue, please contact:
Mary Ann McClellan, Executive Assistant • Phone: 617-742-7561 • Fax: 617-742-4614 ■ Email: marvann.mcclellan ra.st. te.ma.us
Web Site: www.inwraadvisoryboard.com
News. Release
For Immediate Release
BOSTON, MA 02I08-5170
617-720--I000
FAX 61~-720-0799
November 22, 2005
MTF Calls on State to Dedicate 40 Percent of Tax
Revenues to Local Aid, Benchmark Municipal Costs
In order to help address the relentless
squeeze on municipal finances, the
state should dedicate 40 percent of
annual revenues from income,
corporate, and sales taxes to local aid,
according to the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation's 35th annual
analysis of local revenues and
spending. The Foundation also
recommends that the Commonwealth
develop a new system for
benchmarking municipal costs in
order to ensure that the state's 351
cities and towns a e using taxpayers'
dollars effectively.
Total Reduction in Local Aid
Below Fiscal 2002
$250 -
$0
-$250
C
;n?r
-$500
-$750 _
_
-$1,000
2003 2004 2005 2006
The MTF study, Municipal Financial Cl Nominal ® 2004 $
Data, paints a picture of continuing
stress on local finances in fiscal 2005
even with modest increases in state aid: Municipal stabilization reserves declined for the first time in a
decade; excess taxing capacity under Proposition 2'/2 fell for the fourth year in a row; and local operating
surpluses decreased as well, contributing to an almost $150 million, or 25 percent, drop since 2002.
While the recent sharp rise in health care costs has added to the pressure on municipal budgets, state aid
policy has been the primary contributor to local fiscal stress, according to the N4TF study. Despite
additional aid dollars in 2005, assistance to cities and towns remained $750 million, or 14 percent, below
2002 after adjusting for inflation, with aid levels well below 2002 in almost every community in the
Commonwealth. Even with increases in aid in 2006 as well, most of that progress will be wiped out by
inflation.
"Although municipal leaders have raised property taxes, hiked fees, tapped reserves, and cut services in
order to maintain fiscal balance over the last four years, local finances are still deteriorating in many, if
not most, communities," said MTF President Michael J. Widmer.
To address the chronic squeeze on local finances - and to bring constancy to the state's efforts to support
municipal budgets - the Foundation recommends that the Commonwealth dedicate an amount equal to 4
percent of annual revenues from the state's three major tax sources to formula aid for cities and towns.
E/
L C l ( 333 WASHINGTON STREET
The 40 percent commitment would restore overall funding for the three major local aid accounts -
Chapter 70, additional assistance, and Lottery - to its 2002 level (after adjusting for inflation) and
provide a modest increase of about five percent. Had this policy been in place in 2005, it would have
resulted in additional aid to cities and towns of over $1 billion. This proposal builds on a key
recommendation of the Municipal Finance Task Force, a statewide group of elected officials,
business leaders, and local fiscal experts led by John Hamill, chairman of Sovereign Bank New.
England.
• Given the magnitude of the dollars involved, the new revenue-sharing policy would need to be
phased in over several years; the policy would also need to be coupled with a serious re-examination
of the formulas used to distribute state aid, in order to avoid perpetuating the existing inequities in
the distribution of dollars among communities.
• As with the recent financial reforms of the MBTA and the School Building Authority, the
Foundation recommends that the 40 percent commitment be implemented by dedicating portions of
specific axes, an approach that would establish for cities and towns a reliable stream of revenues that
would be determined outside the state budget process.
• The new funding approach would also need to include additional provisions to buffer annual aid
levels from future declines in the state economy.
In light of this major investment of tax resources, the Foundation also recommends that the state develop
a comprehensive new system for benchmarking municipal costs. Although the recent thoughtful study by
the Municipal Finance Task Force found no evidence of a municipal spending spree, it was unable to
conduct any detailed analysis of how effectively localities are using taxpayers' dollars due to a lack of the
basic data needed to make apples-to-apples comparisons of spending among communities. Such a system
would make it possible to compare local costs across the Commonwealth and could also prove invaluable
in realizing another of the Task Force's recommendations: to distribute non-school aid to municipalities
using a formula that takes into account both local fiscal capacity and local service needs, an approach that
was at one time used to allocate so-called additional assistance.
The 35th edition of Municipal Financial Data was supported by a grant from First Southwest Company.
In addition to the analysis of overall trends in local finances, the report provides a series of statistical
tables that detail basic financial information-expenditures, revenues, tax rates and debt characteristics-
for each of the state's 351 cities and towns. For the first time, the report includes town-by-town
comparisons of per capita income, equalized values and expenditures, as well as comparisons of average
residential tax bills and the percent 416w income students.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is an independent, nonprofit organization that conducts
research on state and local taxes, government spending, and the economy. Founded in 1932, MTF ranks
among the largest and most effective organizations of its kind in the country. The quality and impact of
the Foundation's work is reflected in a series of prestigious national awards earned for research on
business costs, capital spending, state finances, governmental reform, and health care.
The full version of the report, including community-by-community statistical tables, is available online at
www. inassta.xpayel s. org.
MMA Action Alert 111: January 25, 2006 L, ` C ~
r
2001 JAH
f
Governor's Budget Would End Lottery Diversion In Fiscal 2007
Proposes Ch. 70 Increase and Formula Changes; PILOT Increase; New Rousing Incentive
Please Call on Your Legislators to Pledge Support for Returning 100% of Lottery to Cities and Towns
ENDING THE LOTTERY DIVERSION: Gov. Mitt Romney today filed his $25.2 billion fiscal 2007 budget
plan (House One), honoring his promise to the MMA to submit a budget proposal that would fully end the diversion of
Lottery funds away from cities and towns. Based on the Governor's projection of Lottery revenues, this would provide
an increase of $157.8 million in Lottery distributions to municipalities in fiscal 2007, if the Legislature agrees with the
proposal. Under current law the Lottery diversion would not be phased out until fiscal 2009, and, using the same
revenue projection as in Housc One, the fiscal 2007 Lottery increase would be only $68 million. (Please so to the
MMA's website at www.mma.ora to see the Governor's oronosed local aid numbers).
It will take hard work, a huge effort, and an aggressive campaign to win the fight to immediately uncap the
Lottery. PLEASE CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY AND ASK FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE PLEDGE TO
SUPPORT THE END OF THE LOTTERY DIVERSION IN THE FISCAL 2007 BUDGET:
• Local Lottery revenues should not be used by the state to balance the state budget;
• State revenues are coming in at record levels, and there is no justification for continuing the diversion;
• Local property taxes have exploded, and continuing the diversion will make them skyrocket even higher;
• Cities and towns in Massachusetts have cut services more deeply than in any other state;
• Under House One, inflation-adjusted local aid would still be $400 million below fiscal 2002 levels.
GOVERNOR PROPOSES CHAPTER 70 FORMULA CHANGES & $163.7M INCREASE: House One
would revamp the Chapter 70 distribution formula and provide an overall $163.7 million increase, bringing Chapter 70
aid to $2.452 billion in fiscal 2007. The MMA is working to analyze the impact of the Governor's proposal, which was
unveiled in his budget. The Administration's plan would add residential income in the community to the "ability to
pay" determination, and would provide more money for enrollment growth and inflation. 305 districts would see at
least some increase in aid, while 23 districts would be cut. The Governor's plan does not include minimum aid or hold-
harmless provisions, two items that the MMA supports. Even under this plan, scores of school districts throughout the
state would still receive less Chapter 70 aid than they did in fiscal 2002.
NEW $30M HOUSING INCENTIVE: The Governor's budget also proposes a one-time additional $30 million
distribution to certain cities and towns through a new housing incentive program, which is listed in Section 3 of the
budget and allocated via the Lottery formula. The funds would only be accessible to those communities which increase
the number of dwelling units by 1% above January 1, 2006 levels, as certified by the state Office of Commonwealth
Development. Initial estimates are that 100-200 communities may be able to qualify. Of course, the program needs to
be understood and adopted by the Legislature before communities can count on it.
$21M COMMUNITY POLICE FUNDS REDIRECTED: House One proposes to end current Community
Policing Grants and redistribute the funds to all communities through the Lottery formula. The MMA will oppose
cutting the existing program, as this would seriously undermine public safety for current grantees, and will call for any
expansion or redistribution to be funded with new dollars. $9.2M PILOT INCREASE: The Governor's budget
includes a $9.2 million increase in the Payment-in- lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) program, raising it to $25.3 million, a very
important account for those communities with state-owned land. OTHER KEY ACCOUNTS: House One adds $5
million more for Regional School Transportation Accounts, but underfunds the Charter School Reimbursement line
item by $10 million.
PLEASE GO TO MMA WEBSITE FOR MORE MMA BUDGET UPDATES AND INFORMATION 49
♦ PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO COMMIT TO UNCAPPING THE LOTTERY NOW 45
PLEASE REVIEW CH. 70 CHANGES TO SEE IF THEY BENEFIT YOUR COMMUNITY 4s
THANK YOU!
Massachusetts Municipal Association, Sixty Temple Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02111; (617) 426-7272 J
(Please note that as of January 23, 2006 the MMA's offices have relocated to One Winthrop Square, Boston, MA 02110- all telephone and e-mail address remain the same.) .X
U1/4U/4UUU lIlU 1001) PdA JU0 400 UJOJ rAV U.Ul/UUl
1r ' C 60S
\iw
January 24, 2006
On February 12, at 11:00 a.m. the Massachusetts National Guard will be
holding a welcome home ceremony for approximately 400 members of the 42Md
Division Artillery. Units represented are Headquarters and Headquarters Battery,
42"d DIVARTY from Rehoboth, MA; Battery E, 101St Field Artillery (TA) also'from
Rehoboth, MA; 272 Chemical Company from Reading, MA; and the 42nd Military
Police Company from Chicopee, MA
The members of these units received mobilization orders and were deployed
overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their duties included performing.
force protection missions and providing nuclear, biological and chemical
reconnaissance and decontamination in support of Central Command.
A formal homecoming ceremony is scheduled at 11:00 am. at Taunton Aigh
School, 50 Williams Street, Taunton, MA 02780.
You are cordially invited to attend this event.
Please R.S.V.P. by calling the State Public Affairs Office at (508) 233-7260
or (508) 958-5651..
In your response, please notify us if, you plan on addressing the soldiers and
their .families. 'We are trying to keep this event focused on soldiers and family and
would appreciate short speeches of around 3-5 minutes or less.
Sincerely,
Oliver J. Mason, if:
Brigadier General; MA.NG
The Adjutant General
St -1 ~
Page 1 of 1 ~ f ( ~d
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Camille Anthony [canthony@ftmc.net]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:58 PM
To: Bjcro10086@aol.com; Reading - Selectmen
Subject: RE: Suggestion for the Addison Wesley property
Barbara:
Thanks for your comments. The idea of residential is being talked about. However, Addison Wesley is
negotiations with the Lifestyle developer. The current negotiations will need to be terminated before the town
can approach Addison Wesley about looking at alternative uses.
Stay involved!
Camille Anthony
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjcrol0086@aol.com [mailto:Bjcrol0086@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:01 PM
To: selectmen@ci.reading. ma. us
Subject: Suggestion for the Addison Wesley property
As I listened to the meeting on Addison Wesley, it came to me that perhaps the town could perhaps
look into developing the site for the future needs of Reading's growing senior population (not over 55
housing). Maybe a small grocery store/pharmacy to meet the residents daily needs could be included
as well as other space to address any other needs. We strive for award winning schools..how about an
award winning senior center?
Thank you. Barbara Crosby, 16 Dustin Road.
1/20/2006
L (c~,~r
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From:
Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us]
Sent:
Friday, January 20, 2006 3:11 PM
To:
Corey, John; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey,
Paul; Clarke, Dennis; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim;
Grover, Robert; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley;
Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; McLaughlin, Tom;
Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith,
Suzanne; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster,
Bill; Woelfel, Steve
Cc:
Blaustein, Joan; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen,
Mark; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Town Manager; Lindstrom, Mike; Lucas,
Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; McKinnon, Anne; McLaughlin, Thomas; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth;
O'Rourke, Carmen; Pap, Mary; Purdy, Jim; Pyke, Keri; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein,
Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail
Subject:
Upcoming Activities for 1-93/1-95 Interchange Study
Greetings Task Force Members,
A few brief words about upcoming study activities:
As we discussed at the last ITF meeting (1/11), the Congestion Subcommittee will indeed be
meeting next Wednesday, 1/25 11AM - 1:30PM at Woburn City Hall (a notice has been sent to
subcommittee members). The subcommittee will review the detailed traffic simulations
related to most of the geometric options presented at the ITF meeting, as well as begin a
traffic review of the future year (2025) "no-build" conditions. The subcommittee will
report its findings at the next full task force meeting.
In terms of other activities, we are still doing further research into accident data and
rates, as well as working on the details of a TDM-related plan for Anderson RTC. These
efforts are not quite ready yet for presentation and further consideration. Accordingly,
we have NOT planned discussions of accident data/rates/research or of TDM strategies/data
at next week's subcommittee meeting - it will focus primarily on traffic
operations/congestion. Further data and TDM issues will be taken up again at future task
force and subcommittee meetings.
The next full task force meeting will be held on February 15th in Stoneham Town Hall. Let
me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
- Bob
Bob Frey
Manager of Statewide Planning
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
(617) 973-7449
bob.frey@state.ma.us
D .
L~C
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: Michelle Hopkinson [michelle.hopkinson@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:02 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: Town Manager
Subject: What else- Addison Wesley development
Dear Selectmen & CPDC:
I am a Reading resident and parent of three children, who lived on South St for 7 years before moving to my
current address on Sherwood Rd. Since moving to Reading, I have had the opportunity to serve on a variety of
Reading organizations, including the Young Women's League of Reading, PRESERVE, and the Recreation
Dept. Presently I am the President of the Joshua Eaton PTO. Through this participation, I have gained an
enormous appreciation for the time, energy, and generosity many of our residents, including all of you, devote to
the Town. The decisions we make must be in the best interest of our community. And they are not always easy
ones.
I have thought long and hard about the present issue at the former Addison-Wesley site. I can clearly state that I
do NOT want this "mall" development to go through. My concern goes beyond the issues of traffic, safety, and
crime. It has concerned me that the town is quickly developing beyond its means. Back in 2002 during the
town's exhausting battle with Mass Highways over the Route 93/95 Interchange, Archstone developers were
applying for a permit for the rezoning of Spence Farm. The developers were using the 40B (law?) to get special
permitting to build housing that would include "affordable housing". Yes, this would be good for Reading since it
had not met the state standards. The abutting neighbors to Spence farm and town residents did attend the CPDC
planning meetings at Town Hall. There just was not enough opposition or concern and I'm sure it seemed to be a
good decision at the time. I think few realized that this development would ultimately be the monstrosity that
exists now. We now have a sense for what a developer can do once it gets approvals. Can we take from this the
need to review zoning laws to protect abutting neighbors through buffers or height restrictions? I will leave that
one to the experts!
I also realize that the recent retail development on Walkers Brook Drive has been very beneficial to the town.
Still, I understand the concerns of those abutting residents. They have to deal with the traffic and light issues, not
to mention the Reading police needing to be at Home Depot almost every day. There will be 4x as many stores in
this potential development bringing in 4x the amount of problems but potentially not 4x the tax revenue.
I think it is a fair assumption that the negative impacts will be felt most by the residents who live closest to the site
while many of those more removed may tend to focus more on the potential tax revenue. It is worth noting the
proximity of this proposed development to the Archstone complex. The combination of these two developments .
would certainly change dramatically the character of the Southwestern portion of our Town and this change is not
a positive one. This mall has the potential of dividing this town in two.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity here to make great changes for Reading. If only Reading could
purchase this property we could take control of over what goes in there. I personally envision desperately needed
playing fields, a sports complex, walking paths, trees! Many people I know share.this vision. I realize it is an
enormous amount of money but this is also a huge opportunity. l ask you all, is this feasible? Can we bring this
question to the town during elections? If not, do we have.the right to go out and seek Corporations that we see as
a 'Good Fit' for Reading? I would be more than willing to work with a committee and investigate any possibilities.
I think it is worth it. This development will have a tremendous impact on this town. Many people feel that they are
not being heard and are concerned with the direction the Town is heading. This challenge could really bring-our
community together to work for something positive-Our "Lifestyle Center"!
Thank you for giving the citizens of this town the opportunity to speak on Tuesday night. They needed to be
heard. I was also pleased to hear that you share our concerns. I realize that you cannot stop the rezoning.
process. Please, please hold another open forum for Town Meeting members. I don't want all their information
coming from the newspapers'., I want them to make educated decisions in the best interest of our town.
Thank you for all your time and all you do for the town!
Michelle Hopkinson
21 Sherwood Rd
8f
Page 1 of 2
G / C ~I
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Everson, Jeff Deverson@foster-miller.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:52 AM
To: Bob.Frazier@srweiner.com; Reading - Selectmen
Cc: blatham@latham-lamond.com; Everson, Jeff
Subject: MEETING AT ADDISON WESLEY 1-19-06
Mr. Frazier:
The purpose of this email is to make four requests regarding technical information concerning the
Lifestyle Retail Center (LRC) at the Addison Wesley site. I have one demand regarding an apology.
My demand stems from the public meeting last night at the Addison Wesley site. You employed the
services of a woman, who acted as a meeting co-moderator. I don't recall her name. During the
meeting, when I was discussing a technical issue, she publicly claimed that I am not a "real" traffic
engineer. By what means did she make this decision? Was this a Weiner, group-inspired tactic or
hers alone? Such a sleazy maneuver will not help your case in the Reading community. My
transportation engineering resume is attached. I demand both'a written and public apology from this
woman.
Per the request of Ben Tafoya, Reading Selectman, I reviewed the Edwards & Kelcey (EK) traffic
study (August 2005) regarding the development of a LRC at the Addison Wesley site. My review is
attached. My findings, that I presented during the meeting at the Parker Middle School on Tuesday,
January 17, 2006, state that EK trip generation results are unfounded, the oriain of vehicles is
unfounded, and, further, the distribution of vehicles on Readina roadwavs is unfounded. Therefore,
the entire EK traffic study is flawed. My requests are as follows:
Request #1: written response from EK regarding Trip Generation (item A, my review)
Request #2: written response from EK regarding Origin of Vehicles (item B, my review)
This item pertains to the EK claim that 80 percent of the vehicles entering the LRC originate from
Route 128 and the south (e.g., Stoneham), another 15 percent from the north of the Addison
Wesley property and the remainder from the east.
Request #3: written response from EK regarding Distribution of Vehicles on Reading Roadways
(item C, my review). This response may entail rerunning the traffic flow computer program.
A response to Request #2 will entail a marketing analysis that you folks should have done to
determine the residual unmet retail consumer demand regarding LRC products/services originating
from within Reading and the adjacent communities of North Reading, Lynnfield, Wilmington, and
Wakefield. I am aware of such studies and have copies in my files. If you didn't undertake such a
retail study, then one can infer that you are "winging it," and will accept whatever LRC tenant can
pay the rent at the LRC. .
Request #4: a copy of your marketing analysis/retail study related to the LRC at the Addison
Wesley site.
r
i
You might expect a request from the Reading Board of Selectmen (BoS) and the Community
1/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
Planning Development Commission (CPDC) for items 1-4 to properly evaluate your request for a'
permit and zoning change.
Please email me your responses to these requests and also send them to the BoS and the CPDC.
You timely response to this matter is appreciated.
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, Reading First
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com
1/20/2006
G CC
Hechenbiefter, Peter
From: Linda LaFranca [linda.m.lafranca@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. I know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating
an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
I commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more technology choices to our
community. I am proud to live in this town and pleased that Reading is one of the first
communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Linda LaFranca
4 Carnation Cir # C
Reading , MA 01867
A %
1
ale
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Catherine Houston [cathy.houston@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
We wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. We know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into
creating an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local
consumers.
We commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more technology choices to our
community. We are proud to live in this town and pleased that Reading is one of the first
communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Timothy and Catherine Houston
4 Orchard Park Dr
Reading, MA 01867
QS'
1
L k -
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: John Devaney Dohn.e.devaney@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. I know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating
an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
As a Reading resident, I commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more
technology choices to our community. Also as a VERIZON employee, I am proud and pleased
that Reading is one of the first communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for listening and giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
John Devaney
603 Main St Apt 4
Reading , MA 01867
1
I,C
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Susan Nicolosi [susan.p.nicolosi@verizon.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:23 AM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I had the opportunity to attend the Town meeting that voted in favor for Verizon to
provide cable services and I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the approval. I
know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating an agreement that
benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
I am truly pleased that the citizens-of Reading have a choice of cable provider. As you
are aware, competition is beneficial to all. I commend you for your leadership and
willingness to bring more technology choices to our community. I am proud to live in this
town and pleased that Reading is the first town in Massachusetts to provide FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Susan Nicolosi
6 Clover Cir
Reading , MA 01867
A .
1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Beth Boucher [boucher7@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:27 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. I know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating
an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
I am an employee of Verizon and actually work on the Video product offering. I assure you
Verizon (and I) are working to provide a quality, competitive product.
I commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more technology choices to our
community. I am proud to live in this town and pleased that Reading is one of the first
communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
(Sidenote - My husband and I are strongly in favor of the new shopping area at Addison
Wellesley.... we believe it will mean very positive things for Reading)
Sincerely,
Beth Boucher
23 Lynn Village Way
Reading, MA 01867
I \ %
1
L/C
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Nancy Leary [nancy.w.leary@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video franchise!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video license in Reading.
Having followed the case closely, I know that our town officials spent a lot of energy to
ensure that the agreement reached would benefit our town as well as Verizon, and most
importantly, local consumers.
I thank you for your leadership on this issue and willingness to bring more technology
choices to Reading. I am pleased that Reading is one of the first communities in the
nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Nancy Leary
23 Jessica Cir
Reading , MA 01867
g~.
1
WC
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Robert Hunt [robert.v.hunt@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:37 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. I know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating
an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
I commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more technology choices to our
community. I am proud to live in this town and pleased that Reading is one of the first
communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Robert Hunt
24 winter st
reading, MA 01867
g - %
1
/C
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Jeanne Hartnett [jean ne.hartnett@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:54 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Thank you for bringing cable choice to Reading!
Dear Town Manager Hechenbleikner:
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for approving Verizon's application for a video
license in Reading. I know that town officials put a lot of time and effort into creating
an agreement that benefits the community, Verizon, and most importantly, local consumers.
I commend you for your leadership and willingness to bring more technology choices to our
community. I am proud to live in this town and pleased that Reading is one of the first
communities in the nation to have FiOS TV.
Thank you for giving us a choice!
Sincerely,
Jeanne Hartnett
21 Timberneck Dr
Reading , MA 01867
1
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Anthony, Camille
Subject: RE: MWRA debt relief - correction!
Language correction - that last part should read 'at least at the same level as FY06'.
My apologies for leaving out the 'at least' portion!
Bob
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:58 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Anthony, Camille
Subject: MWRA debt relief
The Governor's budget contains no debt relief for the MWRA for FY07.
L/c
Rep. Jones thinks it is likely that MWRA debt relief will eventually be in the final FY07 budget, at the same level
as FY06.
Bob
~ Z.
1/26/2006
Page 1 of 1
l~
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Spadafora [fspada50@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: RE: Sofia Brina
Thanks but I think I am ok for right now. I am waiting for the insurance company to take all the clothes and I get all
new inventory in. What happened was the smoke odor got into the clothes so the insurance company does cover
that -thank goodness. It is just unfortunate that I will be closed until that happens and they have service master
come in and clean to get all traces of the odor. It really wasn't that bad but.... I can't sell the clothes like that. I can't
complain- at least I still have the store- it is just more a nuisance. I hope they are all doing better and have found
new offices. Fran Spadafora
-----Original Message-----
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [mailto:phechenbleikner@ci.reading. ma.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Spadafora
Subject: RE: Sofia Brina
Fran
Is there anything we can do to assist? We have been meeting with the fire victims, but it had looked to me
like you escaped unscathed - sorry that is not the case.
Pete Hechenbleikner
From: Spadafora [mailto:fspada50@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:45 AM
To: rnrchambercom@aol.com
Subject: RE: Sofia Brina
Hi Carol- I just want you to get the word out to everyone that Sofia Brina is temporarily closed due to
smoke damage. I hope to be open anywhere from 2 -4 weeks according to the insurance people. I
am hoping it will be more the 2 weeks than the 4 weeks. I will have any announcements posted on
my web site Sofiabrina.com., and will be running ads on my Grand Reopening. Thanks - Fran
Spadafora
6LOL
1/27/2006
LIC,
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: Fred Alexander (Hotmail) [fjalexander@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:24 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: message from Fred Alexander
Dear Peter,
A few months ago you were kind enough to spend a few minutes talking with me about the
issue of speeding in Reading. Specifically, I was asking about the process for changing
the speed limit on Wakefield St. You had mentioned that the town had looked at a mobile
unit that would server as a photo enforcement camera. I think we both agreed this type of
action might be viewed too much like "Big Brother."
While the list of challenges for Reading is now formidable, i.e., Park Square at Reading,
waters sources, and Verizon's contract, I think traffic enforcement is a long term item
that must be addressed at some point. There is much talk now of Reading's character in
the context of new commercial development. I think one of the key components of that
character is a family-friendly town; one that will not allow vehicles to endanger
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other drivers.
The purpose of my e-mail is to forward the news article below from the Arizona Republic.
While I agree that camera enforcement will be viewed initially as "Big Brother", maybe
it's an idea whose time is coming.
Best regards,
Fred Alexander
172 Wakefield St.
Cameras flashed hundreds of Loop 101 speeders in hours
Carol Sowers
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2006 01:30 PM
Photo enforcement cameras along a stretch of Scottsdale's Loop 101 flashed thousands of
drivers Sunday in a trial run of the nation's only digitally patrolled state freeway.
Officials couldn't say immediately how many of the 1,000 to 2,000 flashes caught actual
speeders on Sunday, the first day of a month-long test which will result in only warning
letters to lead-footed motorists. But beginning Feb. 22, drivers exceeding the 65 mph
speed limit by 11 miles or more will be issued citations averaging $157.
Mary O'Connor, Scottsdale's transportation boss, said the cameras on six locations between
Scottsdale Road and 90th Street, may have malfunctioned.
She said it is more likely that they also caught emergency vehicles legally allowed to
exceed the speed limit.
She said Redflex Traffic Systems, which also operates other enforcement cameras on
Scottsdale streets, will "weed through the Loop 101 data this week to get a picture of how
many people were speeding."
Warning letters will be issued sometime,after that.
Arizona Department of Public Safety officers will continue their patrols of the Scottsdale
stretch of Loop 101.
Concerned about high speeds and rising number of
from the Arizona Department of Transportation to
whether the cameras reduce speed and collisions.
1
accidents, Scottsdale received permission
operate a nine-month program to determine
Page 1 of 2
Hechenblelkner, Peter IC
From: Tina Brzezenski [tina@statefn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:42 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: FW: Redevelopment of Addison Wesley property
This e-mail was bounced back to me. I apologize if you are receiving it twice.
From: Tina Brzezenski [mailto:tina@statefn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:33 PM
To: 'canthony@ci.read ing.ma.us'; Jbonazoli@ci.reading.ma.us'; 'jduffy@ci. reading. ma. us';
'btafoya@ci.reading. ma.us'; Tschu bert@ci. reading. ma. us'
Subject: Redevelopment of Addison Wesley property
Dear Board of Selectmen:
I am writing in reference to the proposed development at the Addison Wesley site. I live in Precinct 8 and
have been a town meeting member for 4 years.
I attended the hearing that you held last week. This is the first meeting that I have attended on this
issue. I went into the meeting without a set opinion on the matter, hoping to learn more so that I could
make an educated decision.
First, let me commend Selectwoman Anthony, she did an excellent job of both trying to keep people on
point and running the meeting. Obviously the meeting was stacked with people against the project. I
believe that many people do support the project but they don't feel the need to attend these meetings nor
do they understand the importance of providing their opinion.
Second, I would like to give my opinion on the matter.
I uneauivocallv support a retail development for this location.
Based upon the success of the retail development at the former landfill, I am confident that Reading and
nearby communities could support a retail development. A commercial or retail use helps keep Reading's
tax base from being entirely dependent on residential taxes. As we have learned over the past few years,
the commercial tax base requires less support from town services than residential. Accordingly it benefits
the town to maintain a commercial tax base. As Reading's commercial tax base is already small, I think it
would be detrimental to the town to allow a non-residential parcel to become residential. I also like the
developer's proposal for addressing the traffic concerns. The reality is that the existing buildings, when
fully occupied, had their own traffic problems. Of course a vacant parcel has less traffic than an occupied
one - it doesn't matter what is put there, there will be additional traffic. There were legitimate concerns
that were brought up at the meeting that need to be addressed (such as the question of the rte 128
overpass on Main. St.) and the traffic engineer should do so.
However. I do feel that the oroiect. as proposed. is too larae. I believe that the Board of Selectmen
should propose to the developer that he reduce the size of the project by at least 25%. 315,000 square
feet of retail is plenty for that location. 420,000 would be excessive. By proposing a compromise article,
it would show that the Town of Reading is friendly to controlled development and the understanding that
the parcel will be developed in a way that works for the town.
At the public hearing a town meeting member suggested that the Board of Selectmen allow this
development to go through the process and present an article at town meeting this spring. I agree with
that suggestion. Perhaps two articles should be presented, one as proposed and a second one,
supported by the Board of Selectmen, that reduces the size and scope to 315,000 square feet.
Town meeting members represent every portion of the town, not just the abutters. I understand why the
neighbors are concerned and the concerns should be addressed as best possible by the developers.
Change is difficult and it will be a big adjustment for neighbors when the property is redeveloped after
1/25/2006
qcc,l
Page 2 of 2
being vacant for approximately 6 years. However, the Addison Wesley buildings have been there for
many years, long before the majority of the neighbors lived in their homes. Something will happen with
the property as it should. I believe that Town Meeting will provide a better representation of how Reading
residents feel on the matter and it will allow due process to work as our Town Charter intended it to be.
Thank you for all of your hard work.
Sincerely,
Tina Brzezenski
60 Terrace Park
Reading
G~
1/25/2006
t/c 6&S
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: peter.t.bowman@verizon.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:55 PM
To: Rick Schubert Multiple Addresses; Anthony, Camille; James Bonazoli forwarding account;
jduffy@ci.reading.ma.us; Ben Tofoya; Town Manager
Subject: Thank You
Dear Board of Selectmen and Peter Hechenbleikner
Thank you for your leadership in working with Verizon to bring Reading
consumers another choice for cable TV. We appreciate your diligence and
persistence in working with us to develop a strong, fair agreement that works for all
parties, and most importantly, benefits consumers.
Because of your commitment to bringing Reading residents and businesses another choice for
video services, they will soon have access to the full benefits of our FiOS network
including FiOS TV. Verizon's state-of-the-art network puts Reading at the forefront of
the country in terms of this fiber infrastructure which is a great place to be in
today's technology-driven world.
Again, thanks for issuing Verizon a video license. We are eager to start offering FiOS TV
in Reading, and are committed to working with you to bring FiOS TV to the entire
community.
It's been a pleasure working with you. We truly appreciate your leadership and commitment
to this effort. If you have any questions or need anything else as we move forward,
please let me know. I can be reached at 617-743-8874.
Regards,
Peter Bowman
Verizon Vice President
External Affairs - MA/RI
S A d- %
1
Page 1 of 1
Hechenblefter, Peter
From: cnj4@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; Schubert, Rick; canthony@cdmtitle.com;
jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us;
dac@cummings.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us;
rep. mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us;
Josh u a. G rzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us;
rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net;
akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; tmclaughlin@cityofwoburn.com;
woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov;
rep. patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com;
sueandmikes@comcast.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us;
dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us;
billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com
Cc: jbiaustein@mapc.org; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net;
dcooke@VHB.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us;
rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom@state.ma.us; blucas@mapc.org;
elutz@hshassoc.com; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; thomaslmclaughiin@comcast.net;
John. Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth. Miller@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us;
mary.pap@hou.state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; kpyke@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris;
wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya; Ben;
frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; mossywood@juno.com
Subject: BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE: REDUCED FEDERAL FUNDING, STATE PROJECTS
Bob,
A few days ago, the Boston Globe printed an article indicating that Federal funding for state
transportaton projects would be significantly reduced. To what extent, if any, is the I93/95
interchange feasibility study impacted, along with subsequent environmental and engineering
studies related to that interchange?
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force, Reading First
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); enj'4@aol.com
Ef-11 I
1/30/2006
Page 1 of 1
I _ r 6GS
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent:
Friday, January 27, 2006 3:36 PM
To:
'JSeagrams@aol.com'
Cc: 'TMLatTLA@aol.com'; 'Ed Shaw'; Reilly, Chris
Subject: RE: Jordan's
Dick
Sorry for the delay - I've also gotten a couple of emails from Scott, so I assume you are in touch with him also.
Ed Shaw and Tom Lemons have met on site twice since the 2 of they and Camille and James and I met with
them on site. Tom and Ed have agreement on a plan of action that Tom agrees will eliminate most of the
problem - a combination of re-aiming lights so they meet the manufacturers standard, plus replacement of
some fixtures with shoe-box type fixtures, and shielding others. I would anticipate that this work will be done, in
large part, over the next couple of weeks.
I'd appreciate it if you could let the others know of this strategy.
Pete
From: JSeagrams@aol.com [mailto:JSeagrams@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:40 PM
To: Town Manager
Cc: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Jordans
Hi Peter,
I have not heard anything about the discussions that the selectmen have been having with Jordans and
Dickinson concerning the lighting problem. I have been recieving inquires. Can you update me on the status of
the discussions ? Thanks
Dick Nazzaro
Greenhouse Acres
4 .
1/27/2006
Page 1 of 3
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Askin, Richard [Richard.Askin@srweiner.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:52 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: RE: DEVELOPMENT AT ADDISON WESLEY: INCREDIBLE TRAFFIC CLAIMS AND POTENTIAL
FRAUD
Hi Pete:
Thank you for sending this correspondence.
We approeciate all inquiries and will continue to respond appropriately to all questions posed by Mr Everson and
others.
Best Regards, Richard
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [mailto: phechenbleikner@ci.reading. ma.us]
Sent: Mon 1/30/2006 1:25 PM
To: Askin, Richard
Subject: FW: DEVELOPMENT AT ADDISON WESLEY: INCREDIBLE TRAFFIC CLAIMS AND POTENTIAL FRAUD
From: Everson, Jeff [mailto:jeverson@foster-miller.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:37 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen; Jonathan Barnes
Cc: canthony@cdmtitle.com; Ben; tunacat@comcast.net; Jay Lenox; Michelle Hopkinson;
theresapetrillo@aol.com; Christine Brungardt; heidijerry@verizon.net; mwilson@grassrootscampaigns.com; Lori
Presho
Subject: DEVELOPMENT AT ADDISON WESLEY: INCREDIBLE TRAFFIC CLAIMS AND POTENTIAL FRAUD
Members, Reading Board of Selectmen and the Community Planning Development Commission:
This email is a formal petition to the Reading Board of Selectmen (BoS) and the Community Planning
Development Commission (CPDC) to request documentation from the Addison Wesley property
developer, W/S Development Associates LLC (affiliated with S. R. Weiner and Associates, Inc.), to
substantiate certain claims made in their traffic study, dated August 2005.
Based on this traffic study, W/S Development Associates would have us believe that only 15 percent of
the Lifestyle Retail Center (LRC) traffic heading to the Addison Wesley site stems from north of this
site, 80 percent from the south (i.e., Route 128, Stoneham, and Woburn) and 5 percent from the east.
These numbers will be referred to as the 80-15-5 traffic split.
The developer's assertion is massively contradicted by the demooraohic data I presented in January
17, 2006. Those slides are attached for your review.
The developer's claim is also contradicted by the S. R. Weiner website that lists mall properties under
their control in New Enaland. In 10 cases, properties with available leases are touted to be within
and/or adjacent to local communities with significant populations and high incomes. A listing of these
developer properties is attached. The affluence and population count (~100,000) for Reading and
towns adjacent to Reading and north of Route 128 are totally ignored in the developer's traffic study. A
C ~
1/31/2006
Page 2 of 3
copy of my review of that studv is attached.
Furthermore, a LRC at the Addison Wesley site would be in competition with other malls offering
upscale stores, including Burlington Mall, North Shore Mall and a new LRC under construction
immediately adjacent to Route 128 near the Winn Street exit. This competition suggests that 80 percent
of the traffic originating from Route 128 to the LRC at Addison Wesley is not necessarily correct.
Reading officials need to know whether the developer is giving them one story line while providing
would-be LRC tenants something entirely different. It's quite likely that the developer commissioned a
Trade Area Study (TAS) that ought to have information about that 80-15-5 traffic split. As an example, a
website for such a TAS is
http://www.uwex.edu/CES/CCED/dma/odf/ladvsmith report.pdf
This website shows how it is possible to estimate the local area retail demand in terms of store square
footage versus supply, again, in terms of store square footage. Further, one can estimate the source of
potential customers radially outward from a perspective mall location (see pages 3-11 and 3-12).
A check of the TAS would have the following outcomes:
1. There never was a TAS (i.e., no proof of the 80-15-5 traffic split assertion)
2. The TAS claims 80-15-5 and is consistent with the developer's assertions.
3. The 80-15-5 split, claimed in the TAS, may be incorrect. I may be able to determine the source of
that error, assuming that there is one.
4. The TAS cites an entirely different traffic split, totally at odds with the developer's publicly proclaimed
80-15-5 traffic split. This would mean the developer lied to us and could care less about congestion and
public safety in Reading. This revelation would mean that the developer may have committed fraud.
Given the pivotal nature of the alleged 80-15-5 traffic split, it is imperative that we/I obtain a copy of the
TAS and other related documentation, assuming that there is such documentation. Since sending my
letter to the developer on Friday, January 20, 2006, 1 have received no reply for a requested copy of
that TAS. Here is what I propose:
The Reading BoS and the CPDC request a copy of that Trade Area study or other documentation that
could support the developer's claim that the alleged 80-15-5 traffic slit is, in fact, legitimate. This
information could be obtained under protection afforded by a mutually acceptable non disclosure
agreement (NDA). Such NDA's are routinely used in industry. Another means of protecting the
developer's alleged proprietary information would be to sanitize certain sections of a Trade Area
study, while providing mutually acceptable information that could be used to verify the 80-15-5 traffic
split.
This request could be strengthened under the provision that the Reading BoS, acting as road
commissioners, could not possibly sanction a development based on incredible, unsubstantiated traffic
claims that may be fraudulent and detrimental to traffic flow and safety.within Reading. The CPDC
could make similar assertions within their domain of authority.
Please keep me informed about your interaction with the developer regarding this request for
information. If you are not successful, appropriate'legal means will be considered in order to investigate
whether or not fraud may have been committed by the developer.
1/31/2006
B9`-
Page 3 of 3
Regards, Jeff
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193195 Task Force, Reading First
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4e-aol.com
January 30, 2006
This message (and any associated files) is the property of
S. R. Weiner and Associates Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC
and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this
message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify us immediately by calling our corporate office
at 617-232-8900 and deleting this message from'your computer.
Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, S. R. Weiner
and Associates, Inc. and W/S Development Associates LLC do not accept
responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this
message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy
version of this message.
Any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
g 993
1/31/2006
December 17, 2005
Ben Tafoya, Member, Reading Board of Selectmen
40 Oak Street
Reading, MA 01867
Subiect: Preliminary Review of "Park Square at Reading, a Traffic Study," August 2005,
Redevelopment of The Addison-Wesley Office Park, One Jacob Way, Reading, MA;
Prepared by Edwards & Kelcey (EK), Boston, MA
Dear Mr. Tafoya:
Per your request, I reviewed the report referenced above. This review treats the following
subjects: (A) trip generation of vehicles attracted by a facility proposed in the above
report, (B) origin of these vehicles, (C) distribution of the vehicles along roadways to the
proposed-facility (D) vehicle parking at this facility, and (E) accidents. Other topics
treated in the EK report were not reviewed nor was the Supplemental Traffic Study
considered in detail. The reason for focusing on items A-E is that these items are
seriously flawed, and, thus, there was no reason to spend time on other issues. The basis
for this statement is given below.
A. Trip Generation
1. The number of vehicles that the proposed facility (i.e., Lifestyle Retail Center)
might attract (i.e., trip generation) depends primarily on the nature of the facility
and its area in square feet.' In many cases, trip generation values can be found in
the Trip Generation Manual compiled by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)
based on so-called Land Use Codes (LUC). There are dozens of LUCs for
facilities such as hotels, hospitals, churches, movie theaters, shopping centers,
warehouses, condos, etc.
2. When using this Trip Generation Manual, it is critically important to determine
which of three ITE methods should be used to calculate the trip generation rate for
a given facility type.2 These methods involve the use of either a (1) regression
equation, (2) ITE weighted average, or (3) local trip generation data collected by
the developer when proposed land use is not compatible with ITE land use codes.
3. The report by EK referenced above employed the LUC 820, which pertains to
general commercial (i.e., shopping mall) usage according to the 7th edition of the
ITE Trip Generation Manual. There was no justification given by EK that the
unique Lifestyle Retail Center has the same trip generating characteristics as a
shopping mall. It appears that EK used LUC 820 merely for convenience:
"...Land Use Code 820 has been utilized for computational analysis because the
volumes of data from the industry are more readily available." (2°a paragraph,
page 9). The burden of proof is upon EK to either clearly demonstrate that LUC
820 is appropriate for this application, or that EK should collect sufficient trip
generation data for Lifestyle Retail Centers, and analyze this data based on
statistical significance tests.
K ,
9
Since 2002, 101 Lifestyle Centers have been built in the US. 'It is quite likely that
trip generation traffic counts.were acquired as part of the planning process for these
centers and could be obtained by contacting the developers. This is the data that
should be used by Edwards & Kelcey, not trip generation data for traditional
shopping malls (i. e., land use code 820).
The Reading Board of Selectmen cannot draw valid conclusions about traffic impacts
based on this report due to unfounded trip generation assumptions by EX
B. Origin of Vehicles
1. The EK report (page 14) assumes that 80 percent of vehicles heading to the Park
Square Lifestyle Retail Center originate from either the south or from Route 128.
Another 15 percent are derived from the north, while the remaining 5 percent
come from the east. Due to a proposed EK redesigned roadway geometry in the
vicinity of the Addison-Wesley complex, there is no vehicular traffic stemming
from the west along South Street. These numbers (i.e., 80, 15 and 5 percent) are
given without justification or references.
2. In reality, the number of vehicles originating from easterly, northern and
northwest directions with respect to the Lifestyle Retail Center at the Addison-
Wesley complex could be considerably greater than 5 and 15 percent cited in item
#1 above. Conversely, the 80 percent figure could be less. Reasons for this
observation are based on average household incomes. "The averace household
income of a lifestvle center shopper, for instance, is $75,000." 3 According to the
Boston Globe, Community Profiles,4 the average household income in Reading is
$95,019. for North Reading, $94,962; for Wakefield, $80,732, for Lynnfield,
$116,914 and for Wilmington, $82,650. Clearly, these communities are not south
of the Addison-Wesley complex and have average incomes above the average
income of those shoppers drawn to Lifestyle Retail Centers. As a point of
comparison, shopping traffic from Stoneham and Woburn may be less than
shopping traffic from the towns cited above because the average household
incomes from this town and city are $71,260 and $67,878, respectively.
3. The distribution of traffic assumed by EK heading toward the proposed center is
totally without foundation. Further, motorists traveling along Route 128 have two
other significant shopping choices, namely Burlington Mall and the North Shore
Mall that offer upscale shopping opportunities similar to those found in a
Lifestyle Retail Center and could otherwise detract from the traffic flow to the
proposed Lifestyle Center in Reading.
The Reading Board of Selectmen has no basis to assess the impact of traffic related to
the proposed Lifestyle Retail Center due to the unfounded traffic distribution assumed
by EK.
2
g9`s
C. Distribution of Vehicles on Reading Roadways
The distribution of vehicles addressed by the EK report on pages 13-15 is incorrect due to
the unsubstantiated assumptions regarding the origin of vehicles discussed in Section B.
EK should re-exam the vehicle distribution based on a well grounded market survey
related to the likely origin of shoppers heading toward the Lifestyle Retail Center at the
Addison-Wesley site.
The market survey should be used as input to the computer simulation "SYNCHRO"
and new results (e.g., Level of Service) generated for review by the Reading Board of
Selectmen.
D. Vehicle Parlung at the Lifestyle Center
Lifestyle Retail Centers feature an architecture where shoppers can park conveniently
near stores of interest. This approach features a direct line of sight to a desired store
without walking through a large parking lot that may be unsafe at night. The EK report
does not address parking availability in general, the architectural difference in parking
between Lifestyle Retail Centers and traditional malls and does not account for an
adequate level of parking space that may or may not be available at the Addison-Wesley
site given the proposed Lifestyle Retail Center is expected to occupy 400,000 square feet.
The traffic study by Edwards & Kelcey did not consider parking accommodations needed
for delivery trucks. Further, parking needed for employees of upscale stores was
neglected. Lifestyle retail centers have 60-80 stores and each store may have 2-4
employees, for example. Thus, employee parking may require 210 (i.e., 70 x 3) additional
spaces.
Specific calculations should be provided by EK to convince the Reading Board of
Selectmen that adequate parking would be available at the Addison-Wesley site.
E. Accidents
The EK report discusses accidents on pages 31 and 32 with an accident data table on page
32. The Mass Highway accident data from 1995-1997 is the subject of a legal inquiry by
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in Washington, DC. The basis for the legal inquiry
is alleged fraud that Mass Highway may have committed in the use of accident data
known by them to be seriously flawed (i.e., accidents with no known locations). A
decision from the OIG may be announced in January 2006. Thus, accident data from
Mass Highway should not be used until allegation of fraud is ascertained.
The Reading Board of Selectmen is cautioned against assuming validity of any
accident data used in the EK report until the matter is resolved by the OIG.
3
g~5
F. Editing Comments on the EK Report
The reader of this assessment regarding the EK report is invited to examine Section 4,
Traffic Volumes from pages 9-13, for example. This section features many numerical
quantities without references. Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify these
numbers. These mistakes represent poor technical writing.
EK is urged to correct these writing errors so that the Reading board of Selectmen can
verify statements made in the report.
G. Action Items for EK
Write a completely new report and address items A-F. It may not be possible to treat item
E because the OIG accident fraud case is still pending as of this writing. Even when this
case is settled it is not clear that the Mass Highway would have adequate accident data
available for EK to use.
EK should write a new report from scratch and submit it to the Reading Board of
Selectmen for their review.
H. About the Author of this Letter
The author of this review is a program manager in the field on Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) and has directed several programs funded by the US Department of
Transportation (DOT). He is an author of a dozen technical papers and reports. His
resume is available upon request.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D., ITS Program Manager
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); 339-227-0585 (cell)
` Jha, M. and Lovell, D., "Trip Generation characteristics of Free Standing Discount Stores: A Case Study,
ITE Journal on the Web, May 1999 htto://www.ite.ore/membersonlv/iteioumal/ndf/JEA99A85.1)df
2 Development Assistance Brochure, Trip Generation Guidelines, Public Works, Kent, Washington.
htio://www. ei.kent.wa. us/nermitcenter/oubl icworks/trineenerationeuidelines.odf
3 The new face of retail, Mimicked Main Streets, mall makeovers seek to lure shoppers, San Francisco
Chronicle, May 3, 2005. httn://sfaate.com/cLi-bin/article.cai?f--/c/a/2005/05/03/BUGN9CIU491.DTL,
4 httn://re.boston.com/Community/rank detail.aso?RankField=INCCYMEDD
4
S. R. WEINER PROPERTIES THAT TOUT AFFLUENT TRADE AREAS
SURROUNDING THEIR PROPERTIES
Information acquired from httr)://wWw.srweiner.com/
January 27, 2006
Compiled by Jeffrey Everson, Ph.D.
1. CANTON, CT:
"Largest retail center in affluent trade area of Canton, Avon, Simsbury, Farmington;
Tremendous discretionary income."
2. DARMARISCOTTA,ME:
"Affluent coastal Maine community."
3. BELLINGHAM, MA:
"Fast growing, affluent population base."
4. CHESTNUT HILL, MA:
"Tremendous demographic strength: density and high discretionary income."
5. HINGHAM, MA:
"High income and population density."
6. MANSFIELD,MA:
"Fast growing, affluent community."
7. MARLBOROUGH, MA:
"Serves rapidly growing and affluent Metro-west trade area."
8. NATICK, MA:
"Extremely high population and incomes."
9. NEWTON, MA:
"Primary trade area encompasses high population/high income communities of Newton,
Needham, Wellesley, Weston and Brookline."
10. STONEHAM, MA:
"Serving dense customer base of Stoneham, Wakefield and Reading; Tremendous
population density: 153,000 within 5 miles; Very high sales performance."
Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force, Reading First
21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867
781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com
~g~
Park Square at Reading, a Traffic Study,
Redevelopment of The Addison-Wesley Office Park,
Reading, MA, August 2005
Prepared by Edwards & Kelcey (EK), Boston, MA
Reviewed by
Jeffrey Everson, Ph.D.
Reading, MA, December 2005
Issues Reviewed to Show
EK Traffic Study Flaws
• Origin of motorists traveling to a Lifestyle Retail
Center (LRC)
• Number of motorists attracted by LRC (i.e., trip
generation)
• Distribution of motorists on Reading roadways
• Accident data
Origin of Motorists Traveling to LRC: The Facts
• Average household income of LRC shoppers is $75,000
• Average household incomes for
- Reading: $95,019
- North Reading: $94,962
- Lynnfieid:$116,914
- Wilmington: $82,650
- Wakefield: $80,732
• Total population ofabove towns: 95,988
Oueslion: This aMuent population contributes only 15%oflhe traffic to
the LRC at Addison Wesley?
Conclusion: Expect considerable traffic now through Reading!
About the Reviewer
• Reading resident since 1978, 21 Pine Ridge
Circle, married, raised two sons here
Principal Investigator, transportation
engineering, US DOT programs
• Reviewed Edwards & Kelcey traffic study
at the request of Selectman, Ben Tafoya
Origin of Motorists Traveling to LRC
EK claimed:
• 80 percent from Route.128
• 15 percent from the north through Reading
• 5 percent from the east
No references cited by EK for these numbers.
Number of Motorists Attracted by LRC
(i.e., Trip Generation)
EK claimed:
LRC significantly different from. traditional retail
mall ...but:
• Used same trip generating formula for traditional mall
from engineering handbook
Correct nrocedure: Collect traffic data from other LRCs (101
LRCs have been built since 2002)
Conclusion: EK calculation was inconsistent
it~~
Distribution of Motorists on Reading Roadways
EK used computer simulation to determine
traffic flow in Reading
Inputs to simulation:
- Trip generation: invalid input
- Origin of LRC shoppers: invalid input
Conclusion: computer simulation results are invalid
Conclusions
• Results of EK traffic study are totally invalid
• A Lifestyle Retail Center at the Addison
Wesley site will cause significant traffic
congestion throughout Reading
Question: how could anyone vote for this
development based on a flawed traffic study?
EK Study Cites Flawed Accident Data
• Accident data used by Mass Highway is under legal
inquiry by Office of Inspector General in Washington, DC
by reason of Fraud
• A primary problem with accident data: accident location
frequently unknown
• This problem may affect intersection of Main and South
Streets
Conclusion: do not use Mass HighNiay accident data
Everson Contact Information
cnj4@aol.com
Sg 5 ~0
Page 1 of 1
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: TMLatTLA@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:52 AM
To: edshaw@dickidsondev.com; Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Re: Jordan's Lighting
Missing from your report of our meeting last night is the downward aiming of the left fixture on the left pole at the
Rt. 128 end of the parking lot which is aimed towards the Carnation Circle complex. You had indicated that the
snow bank had kept you from previously lowering the aiming of that unit. With this correction your summary of our
meeting is correct and with these changes the direct glare and beams of light towards the Carnation Circle and
Lakeview/Eaton homes will be corrected. Upon your completion of this work, I will document the results by making
light measurements at (or near) the property line to answer any further questions by the neighbors.
Torn Lemons
ti
1/26/2006
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
Ed Shaw [edshaw@dickinsondev.com]
Sent:
Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:11 AM
To:
tmlattla@aol.com; Hechenbleikner, Peter
Cc:
Mark Dickinson
Subject: Re: Jordan's Lighting
Peter, Tom and I met in Jordans parking lot last night and I will attempt to document the resolution of various
items.
1. the one light on the 5th pole at the top of the driveway will be reaimed down 13 degrees to meet the IES cutoff
criteria.
2. Tom's explaination of the proposed side shieds was very helpful. He is recommending a tapered side shield
which still will allow light to be distributed to the side but will reduce the visibility of the light source from the GA
neighborhood. I will have these shields made and installed on the fixtures along the rear property line.
3. the parking lot lights along the front of the building exceed the 13 degree minimum tilt required to meet IES
cutoff criteria and are acceptable.
4. the (6) 400 watt lights at the top of the Jordans driveway will be changed to a forward throw shoebox fixture.
These fixtures will have side shields as needed.
5. 1 will need to get Jordans to agree to the modifications.
Please feel free to comment on anything I may have missed.
I will check on the availability of the shoebox fixtures and side shields and get back to you.
Thanks for your assistance
Original Message
From: Hechenbleikner. Peter
To: tmlattla(d)aol.com ; edshawO.dickinsondev.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: Jordan's Lighting
I am not available but would like the 2 of you to meet if possible, and iron out this issue.
Pete
From: tmlattla(cbaol.com [mailto:tmlattla@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:12 AM
To: edshaw@dickinsondev.com; Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Re: Jordan's Lighting
Are you available tonight to meet at the site at 5:30. I would suggest meeting at the location
where we parked at our last meeting which was just inside the first entrance from the road into
the parking area. My next available date would be next Monday or Tuesday since tomorrow
afternoon I fly off to Atalanta for a Friday meeting with a client.
Tom Lemons
---Original Message-----
From: Ed Shaw <edshaw@dickinsondev.com>
To: TMLatTLA@aol.com; phechenbleikner@ci. reading. ma. us
Sent: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:42:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Jordan's Lighting
Tom, Thank you for taking the time to review the recently enacted lighting revisions for Jordans parking lot.
My only comment relates to the adding of side shields. I attempted to install side shields on the lights along the
1/26/2006
Page 2 of 2
rear of the property. This produced unacceptable light levels along the rear parking and drive aisle and I
removed the following day. I'm not sure you noticed, but, I did leave one shield in place to show the effects on
the lighting levels.
Tom, Let me know if it makes sense to meet at the site one more time to review...... thanks
Original Message
From: TMLatTLA(a)aol.com
To: phechenbleiknerCo)ci.read ino.ma.us
Cc: edshawOdickinsondev.com
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Jordan's Lighting
On Friday I had a phone conversation with Ed Shaw about the changes he made in the parking lot fixtures
and his proposal to replace 6 roadway units with shoe box units. At his suggestion I visited the parking lot to
observe the changes and viewed the results from the neighborhood locations. At the time of our January 3rd
visit, there were 10 units not working. During last night's visit only 2 units were not working which included one
of the 3 lights at the north west corner of the building (it is aimed almost straight down towards the ground
which would not be a concern if it was on) and one of the units at the north side of the parking lot aimed
towards the building which is also not a concern.
When I viewed the lighting from the neighborhood location at the junction of Lakeview and Eaton, I saw that
one light on the 5th pole up t he driveway is aimed towards these houses and has not been aimed down the
13, degrees which should be done. When I viewed the lights from the Smith Street location the correction that.
has been made eliminates most of the concern and the replacement of the 6 roadway units with shoe box
units should further improve the results. When I viewed the lights from the location on Carnation Circle where
we viewed them on January 3rd, the downward aiming has improved the results except for the roadway units.
With the replacement of the roadway units with shoe box units I believe that the results will be further
improved but the last 2 units aimed north, may require a side shield since this location is so close and so far
below them. When I viewed the lighting from 2 driveways further down Carnation Circle I saw light directed to
the side of one unit on the last pole on the north side and from one unit on the two poles at the Rt. 128 end of
the parking lot. I believe that these could be corrected by side shields that should not remove light from the
parking lot. If I walked the back yards of the residences along Carnation Circle, I would probably find at least 1
or 2 more of the parking lot units that could be corrected with side shields.
Definitely the aiming down of some of the parking lot fixtures and a plan to replace the 6 roadway units with
shoe box units has and would help the spill light results. Aiming the one unit directed towards the corner of
Lakeview and Eaton, adding a few side shields to other parking lot units, replacing 6 roadway units with shoe
box units and adding side shields to about 2 of the shoe box units; should reduce the spill light to an
acceptable value.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Tom Lemons
I
/v3
1/26/2006
L (C
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From:
Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent:
Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:25 AM.
To:
'Conroy, Mark'
Cc:
Reilly, Chris
Subject:
RE: LRC
Mark
The "formal" process, once the. applicant files for a zoning amendment, is a hearing by the
Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC). They publish the legal notice in
the paper, .and by law notify everyone within 300 feet.
There will be articles in the local newspapers, and the announcements will be on the town
web site - www.ci.reading.ma.us - go to the Planning Department web page. Unfortunately
we cannot set up any other notification process with a certainty that it will work.
I will pass your comments along to our Town Planner for the CPDC, and to the Board of
Selectmen.
Thanks for taking an interest and being informed.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: Conroy, Mark [mailto:Mark.Conroy@pioneerinvest.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:04 AM
To:. Town Manager
Subject: LRC
Pete, can we have an invite sent to us for the next meeting on the LRC? I think most
people were thinking it was about 8-10 stores coming in, but am I right that's it's more
like 50? This will affect many more people than the 50 houses they invited to the meeting
(houses within 200 feet), it will affect the entire town. In the history of earth, there
has never been an addition of a strip mall that has helped a town in the long run (see
Peabody, Woburn, Burlington, Route 1, etc.) Every town where one of these exists has
created a disastrous load of traffic, local businesses out of business., more trash, and an
overwhelming characteristic of just another trashy town on the North Shore. Not to mention
how absolutely absurd the traffic will be getting on/off route 128 (just 100 yards from
the busiest interchange in the state). I was appalled by the weak efforts of the
developers and zero back-up to any of their research and plans. They clearly figure that
simply 'money talks' and they came off as not caring about anyone in Reading let alone the
people on South street, but also the character of the town.
It is a bad direction to head into with strip malls. It amazes me that after the past 50
years of malls in the towns mentioned above that we are considering this yes they look
nice for a year, but eventually businesses leave and the owners need to have someone fill
the space (aka taco bell, wendy's, KFC), it's inevitable (double the amount of people shop
online this past holiday compared to last year,, these boutiques will go out of business).
It 'also amazes me.that they can compare Hingham, Burlington and any other Mall with this
one when it comes to traffic. Even with online shopping, driving up 128 past the north
shore mall is always a disaster.
A strip Mall - what an awful entranceway into the town of Reading, there's no other word
to describe it than 'embarrassing' to any resident of the town, regardless if you live
south or north of'town. At least people won't have to drive too far to see what the 'new
Reading is all about' we'll sell our souls for some extra dough...money talks.
Mark Conroy
8 Bolton Street
Reading, MA
"The information in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely
for. the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to
legal, professional or other privilege and further distribution of it is strictly
prohibited without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
authorised to and,must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part
of it, and should notify us immediately. 11 This footnote also confirms that this email has
been automatically scanned for the
presence of commuter viruses, profanities and certain file types."
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:55 PM
To: 'Janet Ehl'
Cc: McIntire; Ted; Delaney, Joe; Fink, Fran; Schettini, Pat
Subject: RE: Franklin Street Sidewalks and Speed limit sign
Hi Janet,
Congratulations on your "promotion".
Here is an update for the Wood End Community
• We have taken delivery on the flashing school zone signs with the speed-boards. We will install
them as soon as weather permits. We were going to get solar powered ones but the order time
was too long, so we need to wire them up. The locations and connections to poles are all set.
• There is an additional $325,000 in the State proposed supplemental budget, for sidewalks on
Franklin Street. That along with the $100,000 that I have in the current year budget should be
adequate to do the job. We were waiting for the supplemental budget to pass before we bid the
sidewalk construction, but since that hasn't happened yet, we are going ahead with plans to build
the Fox Run Lane to William Street section with Town funds, as soon as we can this spring -
probably April or May.. Then, if the state funds come through, we'll bid another contract to do the
remainder, again depending on timing of state approval, hopefully starting in the spring or
summer.
• We will be doing stone dust this spring on the pathway from Dividence Road into the school site
this spring to make it passable for the spring. In the summer the DPW will be doing this as a hot-
top project - we are applying to the Conservation Commission this winter for approval.
• Sometime during the spring I hope to be doing design work on the Fox Run Lane connector to
the school, again we hope with construction this summer.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Pete Hechenbleikner
From: Janet Ehl [mailto:janehl@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:27 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Franklin'Street Sidewalks and Speed limit sign
Hi
My name is Janet Ehl and I was a member of the Wood End Working Group that
Peter Heckenblecker ran last spring. I have now joined Richard Davidson's safety committee
at Wood End. I have been asked to bring updated information on the status of Franklin Street
sidewalks and the flashing speed zone sides (solar powered?)
I would be happy to phone in if that is easier for you - just please send me a number and time I should call.
Our next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 6, 2006.
The information we are seeking is
1.) When will sidewalk construction start?
2.) Is it going to be built in segments as prioritzed in the working group or have funds been designated to do all at
once?
3.) When will the new speed limit signs be put into place.
Thank you for your assistance. I can be reached via e-mail or home phone 781-942-7924 or cell phone 781-439-
904b.
Janet Ehl
Page 1 of 1
L
Hechenbleikner, Peter /C
From: Brad Latham [blatham@ltham-lamond.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 7:42 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen; jebarnes@MIT.EDU
Subject: W/S Development; Traffic
I have just received a copy of the 1/30/06 e-mail from Jeff Everson to members of the CPDC and Board
of Selectmen. I am troubled by the rhetoric used in that e-mail. In our Town, we may strenuously
disagree on an issue, but have always dealt respectfully with each other. Accusing someone of "fraud"
because of disagreement over data is not only unproductive but is also slanderous.
Contrary to the allegations in that e-mail, our client's traffic engineer has shared information, including
data regarding trip distribution, with the Town's traffic consultant. We also need to be mindful that both
the traffic engineer engaged by the Town and the traffic engineer engaged by W/S Development are
professional engineers (PE) licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are certified as a
Professional Traffic Operations Engineers (PTOE).
As previously stated, W/S Development looks forward to making a complete presentation regarding
traffic and other important issues to the CPDC as part of the rezoning process. W/S is confident of its
position and data and does not intend to engage in personal attacks.
0. Bradley Latham
Latham, Latham & Lamond, P.C.
643 Main Street
Reading, MA 01867
1-781-944-0505
FAX 1-781-944-7079
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may
contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to
the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections.
If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or
distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify
the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
g
2/3/2006
MWRA Preliminary FY07 Assessments Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Norton, Leo [Leo. Norton @mwra.state. ma. us]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:19 AM
To: maguire113@aol.com; mamurphy@town.dedham.ma.us; manneringvg@bwsc.org;
mbertino@town.winthrop.ma.us; mbishop@town.belmont.ma.us; mcullinan@nahant.org;
mdriscoll@ci.watertown.ma.us; mikem@wakefield.ma.us; mkleckner@ci.winchester.ma.us;
mpakstis@ci.wellesley.ma.us; mpillsbury@mapc.org; mryan@ci.norwood.ma.us;
mtrotta@town.canton.ma.us; mtwogood@ci.winchester.ma.us;
mwoods@townofwilmingtonma.com; ngalkowski@town.arlington.ma.us; obrienwj@bwsc.org;
ooriordan@ci.cambridge.ma.us; pcamilli @town.winthrop.ma.us;
pcastanino@town.belmont.ma.us; peter.sellers@framinghamma.gov;
peterc@town.bedford.ma.us; phurley@townofmilton.org; piacenzanw@bwsc.org;
Plemnios@natickma.org; pmarshall@ci.watertown.ma.us; Tassi, Peter;
pwd@holbrookmassachusetts.us; rangelo@townhall.westwood.ma.us;
rantico@town.wilmington.ma.us; rdawe@lynnwatersewer.org; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us;
rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; richardw@town.bedford.ma.us; riewis@town. need ham. ma. us;
rmattson@th.walpole.ma.us; rna@framinghamma.org; rredquest@town.canton.ma.us;
rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; Ryan Ferrara; schaudhuri@burlmass.org; schofieldam@bwsc.org;
sewercommission@hingham-ma.com; skoty@ci.somerville.ma.us; snowd@marblehead.org;
sodonnell@ci.quincy.ma.us; spittorino@city.waltham.ma.us; sswymer@ci.winchester.ma.us;
stamber@ci.watertown.ma.us; stevef@wakefield.ma.us; sullivanjp@bwsc.org;
tambrosino@revere.org; tmacdonald@cambridgema.gov; tmagno@city.waltham.ma.us;
McIntire, Ted; tmh@framinghamma.org; tom_demaio@town.brookline.ma.us;
toni.pollak@ci.boston.ma.us; Town Manager; twhalen@townofbraintreegov.org;
vitalehf@bwsc.org; waterdeptl@comcast.net; whadley@ci.lexington.ma.us;
wkeegan@town.dedham.ma.us; wputnam@city.waltham.ma.us; wscac@javanet.com
Subject: MWRA Preliminary FY07 Assessments
Attachments: MWRA Preliminary FY07 Assessments xIs
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Charlestown Navy Yard
100 First Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02129
February 3, 2006
Dear Local Official:
Attached are MWRA's preliminary FY07 water and sewer assessments that will be presented to the
Board of Directors on February 8, 2006. The preliminary assessments reflect a combined water and
sewer rate revenue increase of 9.8% over FY05 assessments. This includes a 7.4% increase for water
assessments and an 11.0% increase for sewer assessments, and reflects MWRA's continued investment
and upgrades to the region's water and wastewater infrastructure. The increase is primarily driven by
the debt service on the bonds issued to build the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant and other large 4
capital projects, as well as rising interest rates, and extraordinary increases in energy costs. i
2/3/2006
MWRA Preliminary FY07 Assessments Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1 details the preliminary FY07 water and/or sewer charge for each MWRA community. As
always, assessments for individual communities may be higher or lower than the average water and
sewer assessments, depending primarily on each community's share of CY05 water usage, changes in
share of averaged CY03, CY04 and CY05 wastewater flow, changes in total and sewered population,
and changes in high strength and septage contributions. Please note that Attachment 1 can also be found
on the MWRA website at www.mwra.com.
Final assessments for FY07 will be determined with the approval of MWRA's FY07 CEB by. its Board
of Directors in June. MWRA's final budget will incorporate changes resulting from the MWRA
Advisory Board's recommendations, the Board of Directors' budget deliberations and decisions on the
use of rate stabilization funds in FY07 and beyond.
If you have any questions regarding MWRA assessments please feel free to contact me at (617) 788-
2256, or Patricia Filippone at (617) 788-2206.
Sincerely,
Leo Norton
Assistant Manager, Rates, Revenue and Finance
Finance Division
MW RA
(617)788-2256
1norton@rnwra.state.rna.us
<<MWRA Preliminary FY07 Assessments .xls>>
~v
~r
2/3/2006
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Attachment 1 - Preliminary FY07 Water and Sewer Assessments
1-Feb-06
Final FY06
'
'Preliminary FY07
Percent
Final FY06,
Preliminary FY07'
Percent
Final FY06
Preliminary FY07
Percent
-
'MWRA Combined Water and.SewerCustoniers
iWater
_
Water Assessment
Change from
Sewer
Sewer
Change from
Combined
Combined
Change from
Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FYOS
Assessment
- Assessment
FY06
ARLINGTON
$3,389,266
$3,633,782
7.2%
$5,663,185
$6,496,799
10.8%
$9,252,451
$10,130,581
9.5%
BELMONT
1,697,163
1,876,847
10.6%
3,502,437
3,909,193
11.6%
5,199,599
5,786,040
11.3%
BOSTON
60,867,841
64,595,853
6.1%
90,597,554
98,990,648
9.3%
151,465,394
163,586,501
8.0%
BROOKLINE
4,557,527
4,834,029
6.1%
9,083,147
10,085,237
11.0%
13,640,674
14,919,266
9.4%
CHELSEA
2,713,184
2,737,607
0.9%
4,364,162
4,695,099
7.6%
7,077,346
7,432,706
5.0%
EVERETT
3,698,994
3,779,002
2.2%
5,616,895
6,124,099
9.0%
9,315,889
9,903,101
6.3%
FRAMINGHAM
5,988,784
6,292,387
5.1%
7,969,891
8,800,218
10.4%
13,958,675
15,092,605
8.1%
LEXINGTON
3,775,505
4,154,148
10.0%
5,257,126
5,910,874
12.4%
9,032,631
10,065,022
11.4%
MALDEN
4,894,929
5,081,802
3.8%
8,407,046
9,178,547
9.2%
13,301,975
14,260,349
7.2%
MEDFORD
4,267,816
4,514,710
5.8%
8,394,421
9,108,784
8.5%
12,662,237
13,623,494
7.6%
MELROSE
1,750,441
2,077,908
18.7%
4,244,637
4,781,952
12.7%
5,995,078
6,859,860
14.4%
MILTON
2,010,574
2,331,388
16.0%
3,912,142
4,368,602
11.7%
5,922,716
6,699,890
13.1%
NEWTON
7,383,431
7,850,390
6.3%
13,884,034
16,208,121
16.7%
21,267,465
24,058,511
13.1%
NORWOOD
2,493,692
2,658,835
6.6%
5,011,913
5,558,512
10.9%
7,505,605
8,217,348
9.5%
QUINCY
7,599,337
8,417,117
10.8%
13,214,808
15,166,915
14.8%
20,814,145
23,584,032
13.3%
REVERE
3,471,732
3,602,763
3.8%
6,801,118
7,302,452
7.4%
10,272,850
10,905,216
6.2%
SOMERVILLE
4,961,259
5,335,699
7.5%
10,325,026
11,450,879
10.9%
15,286,285
16,786,578
9.8%
STONEHAM
2,397,052
2,593,482
8.2%
3,206,627
3,568,020
11.3%
5,603,678
6,161,502
10.0%
WALTHAM
5,826,373
6,477,418
11.2%
9,260,965
10,376,003
12.0%
15,087,338
16,853,421
11.7%
WATERTOWN
2,565,976
2,522,208
-1.7%
4,185,181
4,682,339
11.9%
6,751,157
7,204,547
6.7%
WINTHROP
1,182,037
1,286,965
8.9%
2,231,158
2,401,375
7.6%
3,413,195
3,688,340
8.1%
TOTAL
$137,492,914
$146,654,340
6.7%
$225,333,471
$249,164,570
10.6%
$362,826,386
$395,818,910
9.1%
Final FY06
Preliminary FY07
Percent
Final FY06
PrellminaryFY07
Percent :
'Final FY06
Preliminary FV07
Percent
MWRASewer and Partial Water Customers
Water
Water Assessment
Change from
Sewer.
Sewer
Change,from
Combined
Combined.,
Change from.
Assessment,
FYOS
Assessment
Assessment
FYOG
Assessment
Assessment
:
.
FY06
CANTON
$1,667,312
$1,671,864
0.3%
$2,881,231
$3,209,248
11.4%
$4,548,542
$4,881,112
7.3%
NEEDHAM
351,877
830,009
135.9%
4,640,239
5,125,624
10.5%
4,992,116
5,955,633
19.3%
READING'
0
0
0.0%
2,980,493
3,364,700
12.9%
2,980,493
3,364,700
12.9%
STOUGHTON
312,178
412,219
32.0%
3,311,405
3,709,167
12.0%
3,623,583
4,121,386
13.7%
WAKEFIELD
1,438,399
1,581,111
9.9%
4,095,541
4,577,578
1118%
5,533,940
6,158,689
11.3%
WELLESLEY
382,538
698,830
82.7%
4,006,430"
4,572,655
14.1%
4,388,968
5,271,485
20.1%
WINCHESTER
827,854
917,132
10.8%
2,973,549
3,253,305
9.4%
3,801,403
4,170,437
9.7%
WOBURN
1,767,015
2,156,603
22.0%
7,814,649
8,901,380
13.9%
9,581,664
11,057,983
15.4%
TOTAL
$6,747,174
$8,267,768
22.5%
$32,703,536
$36,713,658
12.3%
$39,450,710
$44,981,426
14.0%
Final FYOG
Percent
FinalFY06
Preliminary FY07
Percent
Final FY06
Preliminary FY07
Percent
MWRA Sewer-only Customers
Water
Preliminary FY07
Change from
Sewer
Sewer
Change from
Combined-
Combined
Change from
"Assessment
Water Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FY06'
Assessment.
Assessment-
FY06
ASHLAND
$1,505,621
$1,728,664
14.8%
$1,505,621
$1,728,664
14.8%
BEDFORD
2,379.363
2,678,662
12.6%
2,379,363
2,678,662
12.6%
BRAINTREE
5,890,315
6,533,085
10.9%
5,890,315
6,533,085
10.9%
BURLINGTON
3,440,952
3,849,037
11.9%
3,440,952
3,849,037
11.9%
CAMBRIDGE
15,774,594
17,678,616
12.1%
15,774,594
17,678,616
12.1%
DEDHAM
4,348,563
4,891,238
12.5%
4,348,563
4,891,238
12.5%
HINGHAM SEWER DISTRICT
1,155,018
1,326,803
14.9%
1,155,018
1,326,803
14.9%
HOLBROOK
1,119,106
1,241,326
10.9%
1,119,106
1,241,326
10.9%
NATICK
3,895,604
4,270,656
9.6%
3,895,604
4,270,656
9.6%
RANDOLPH
3,976,809
4,525,746
13.8%
3,976,809
4,525,746
13.8%
WALPOLE
2,396,186
2,742,556
14.5%
2,396,186
2,742,556
14.5%
WESTWOOD
1,872,424
2,088,009
11.5%
1,872,424
2,088,009
11.5%
WEYMOUTH
8,063,924
9,011,651
11.8%
8,063,924
9,011,651
11.8%
WILMINGTON
1,828,634
1,870,931
2.3%
1,828,634
1,870,931
2.3%
TOTAL
$57,647,112
$64,436,982
11.8%
$57,647,112
$64,436,982
11.8%
Final FYOG
Preliminary FY07
Percent
Final FYOG
Preliminary FY07
Percent
-
Final FYOG
Preliminary PY07
Percent
MWRA Water-only Customers
Water
Water Assessment
Change from
Sewer
Sewer
Change from
Combined
Combined
Change from
Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FY06
LYNNFIELD WATER DISTRICT
$357,721
$375,522
5.0%
$357,721
$375,522
5.0%
MARBLEHEAD
1,525,030
1,680,694
10.2%
1,525,030
1,680,694
10.2%
NAHANT
295,158
323,014
9.4%
295,158
323,014
9.4%
SAUGUS
2,606,493
2,668,344
2.4%
2,606,493
2,668,344
2.4%
SOUTHBOROUGH
562,422
710,486
26.3%
562,422
710,486
26.3%
SWAMPSCOTT
1,501,614
1,682,392
12.0%
1,501,614
1,682,392
12.0%
WESTON
1,246,761
1,419,145
13.8%
1,246,761
1,419,145
13.8%
TOTAL
$8,095,198
$8,859,597
9.4%
$8,095,198
$8,859,597
9.4%
Final FY06
Percent
Final FY06
Preliminary -FY07
Percent
Final FY06
Preliminary FY07
Percent
MWRA Partial Water-only Customers
Water
Preliminary FY07
-
Change from
Sewer
Sewer
Change from
Combined
Combined'
Change from
Assessment
Water Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FY06
Assessment
Assessment
FY06
DEDHAM-WESTWOOD WATER DISTRICT
$0
$0
0.0%
$0
$0
0.0%
LYNN
173,718
200,452
15.4%
173,718
200,452
15.4%
MARLBOROUGH
2,832,771'
2,458,651
-13.2%
2,832,771
2,458,651
-13.2%
NORTHBOROUGH
691,108
785,160
13.6%
691,108
785,160
13.6%
PEABODY
502,797
956,060
90.1%
502,797
956,060
90.1%
TOTAL
$4,200,395
$4,400,324
4.8%
$4,200,395
$4,400,324
4.8%
SYSTEMS TOTAL
$156,535,681
$168,182,028
7.4%
$315,684,120
$350,315,210
11.0%
$472,219,801
$518,497,238
9.8%
' The Dedham-Westwood Water District and the Town of Rcading will be MWRA water communities as orFY07.
Ok 3
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Vasily-Cioffi, Jodie pod ie.VasilyCioffi@genzyme.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Addison Wesley site
Dear Board of Selectmen:
I am writing in reference to the proposed development at the Addison Wesley site. I live in Precinct 8 and would
like to give my opinion on the matter.
uneauivocally suooort a retail develooment for this location. Based upon the success of the retail development
at the former landfill, I am confident that Reading and nearby communities could support a retail development. A
commercial or retail use helps keep Reading's tax base from being entirely dependent on residential taxes. As
we have learned over the past few years, the commercial tax base requires less support from town services than
residential. Accordingly it benefits the town to maintain a commercial tax base. As Reading's commercial tax
base is already small, I think it would be detrimental to the town to allow a non-residential parcel to become
residential. I also like the developer's proposal for addressing the traffic concerns. The reality is that the existing
buildings, when fully occupied, had their own traffic problems. Of course a vacant parcel has less traffic than an
occupied one - it doesn't matter what is put there, there will be additional traffic. There were legitimate concerns
that were brought up at the meeting that need to be addressed (such as the question of the rte 128 overpass on
Main St.) and the traffic engineer should do so.
However. I do feel that the oroiect. as proposed. is too larae. I believe that the Board of Selectmen should
propose to the developer that he reduce the size of the project by at least 25%. 315,000 square feet of retail is
plenty for that location. 420,000 would be excessive. By proposing a compromise article, it would show that the
Town of Reading is friendly to controlled development and the understanding that the parcel will be developed in
a way that works for the town.
I understand why the neighbors are concerned and those concerns should be addressed as best as possible by
the developers. Change is difficult and it will be a big adjustment for neighbors when the property is redeveloped
after being vacant for approximately 6 years. However, the Addison Wesley buildings have been there for many
years, long before the majority of the neighbors lived in their homes. Something should and will happen with the
property - it should not remain vacant. In closing, I wanted to offer you the opinion of a Reading resident that is
not a neighbor to the site and therefore has a different view than those whose voices you are hearing most loudly.
Thank you for all of your hard work.
Sincerely,
Jodie Vasily-Cioffi
16 Kurchian Lane
Reading
Jodie Vasily-Cioffi, Esq.
Senior Counsel, Securities and Corporate Operations
Genzyme Corporation
500 Kendall Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617.768-6847
Fax: 617.252.7553
E-mail: iodie.vasilvcioffna zerazvnre.com
This e-mail message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message.
,X~r_ ff