Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-04 Board of Selectmen PacketAPPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004 Cultural Council Term: 3 years (6 years maximum) Appointing Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Alison Sloan DaSilva Anne W. Hooker Harold E. Bond Nicole Cain Kaiyn S. Storti Valerie J. Alagero Kathleen Kelly Janet Grace Hatherly (Associate) Vacancy (Associate) 40 Putnam Road 87 Village Street 33 Hartshorn St. 7 Melendy Drive 31 Green Street, #8 28 Smith Ave. 36 Grove Street 9 Smith Ave. Orig. Date (00) (02) (01) (03) (02) (02) (03) (04) 1 Vacancv Term Exp- 2007 2005 2007 2006 2005 2005 2006 2005 2005 Candidates: Amelia Louise Golini *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment 3o- CULTURAL COUNCIL Term Three years Appointing Authority Board of Selectmen Number of Members Seven Members to be appointed to no more than two consecutive terms Meetings Held monthly Authoritv January 1, 1987 revision of the Massachusetts Arts - Lottery Council Guidelines consistent with the Town of Reading Charter and applicable Bylaws. The Cultural Council is established by Chapter 10, Section 58, of the Public Laws. Pursuant to this law, no elected or other official may serve on the Cultural Council. Purpose The Reading Cultural Council is the local agent for the distribution, receipt and evaluation of applications for funds from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. It will also act to serve as a resource for the dissemination of information as well as to encourage activities related to furthering and stimulating interest for the ' arts in the community. 3a:z,- q- %i 26~ APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION Name: Coo ( in; Anne I; a (Last) (First) Address: M A e)-i n r d Occupation: H ► a h School 5+,)d-"t J L ot) se. Date: 10.2,6.0 (Middle) Tel. (Home) (7E 1) ct H ~I -~~l 8 Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed?) 4,-,s # of years in Reading: 17 Are you a registered voter in Reading?__0 o e-mail address: Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse Finance Committee and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Historical Commission Other Drugs _Housing Authority Aquatics Advisory Board Human Relations Advisory Committee Audit Committee Land Bank Committee Board of Appeals MBTA Advisory Committee Board of Cemetery Trustees Metropolitan Area Planning Council Board of Health Mystic Valley Elder Services Board of Registrars Recreation Committee Bylaw Committee Solid Waste Advisory Committee Celebration Committee Telecommunications and Technology Commissioner of Trust Funds Advisory Committee Community Planning & Development Comm. Town. Forest Committee Conservation Commission Water, Sewer and Storm Water Constable Management Advisory Committee Contributory Retirement Board Other Council on Aging 1 Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: 7 veacs - of Schoo I +heG~ re Z y RAf s w J i yo.u nQ Camvc,ri v c,-1- S4one kq m `t lies, . ' p-gicew o~ tM415 DrCY,~a C4ob Hohors Ae4 S+vde vi+ 5;1*4 ke,* S'r,hoic.a. - c, 414- -Awc4c s 20oL-( "12 vQ.~~S ~n R~,d„~~ ~,,bl.c SGI~oUIS (rv~ren~"~v 5 ~e,n~c~ c+`fi ~tMI~S~ Fax: (781) 942-9037 Website: www.ci.reading.ma.us Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 December 30, 2004 Memo To: Board of Selectmen From: Beth KlepeisQ(-- Re: Sale of BANS and Bonds FINANCE DEPARTMENT (781) 942-9032 On December 20, 2004, the Town of Reading sold debt as follows: ➢ $ 8,686,000 in Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) at a Net Interest Cost of 2.267 % to low bidder Eastern Bank (See attached sheets for details) ➢ $ 6,480,000 in Bonds at a True Interest Cost of 3.897562 % to low bidder Fidelity Capital Markets (See attached sheets for details) The bonds will be delivered on January 6, 2005 and the BANS on January 7, 2005. Acceptance of the bids and signing of related paperwork is on the agenda for the January 4, 2005 Selectmen's meeting. ac~usetts ~r Pea,dlagy ass Bond r+inticipatiQ4 fitates 58,686 £}0 ,400• lInUIZa04 , J)ate, it7r2445 pate; Dated : lrrrza4s 115t7,06 Date Delivery 36f1 13ut: Date. 35S Da5's per year Clay Count Coupon premium gate .zzr O Co r Co u-. O v E^ W 1✓ Q Ul E--' t.s., d c0 CO o~ ct' 0 o C~ O N 1 w PcinelPw Bidder )1) S8 686,00{} Bastern Bank Southwest Carnpany Sovereign securities C1BC parked flnnter ~A,~ard~`otals $9,06,000 58,636,0011 $$,686,000 58,686000 53 68(,000 $8,686 000 Sg06,000 $3,686,040 First Southwest GamPen f: X. Peter Frazier 3.250Q1a $$,1;g09A3 3.540°I° 5143,102-82 3 254°!0 $80,366.66 3.250% $I ,60'5.04 3,504°fo- 8+4.04 0.000% $0,00 0.000% $0.00 0.000°1, 50.40 0.040°f° Interest $280,726.69 5302,321.06 $280,726.69 $2$4,726.69 ..3302,321.06 50.00 $0.00 SO-00 $0.00 Net Interest proraia MIC Premium Si95,317.66 2.2670% 346401% 2 $199,218.24 $60.03 5199 - 2.3i38% ° , 121.69 $202, i° 2.3400 3439°f° 2 $207,4606 , o040°1° a $4.04 $0.40 . 0-040011/6 $0.00 4.00ow/. $0.04 0.00011", 584,909.03 geo€fer'sng~ Prorata Yield A~~d Interest $284,726.69 $3,6$6,000 $84,909.03 5280,7260 ,,i5'86,00() ~ CRS " 'T .igwd Average i~1et Interest t2r2Q12t111,, 2.2674% Readin0 BAN 05-1-1-XIS Reading, Massachusetts $8,686,000 Bond Anticipation Notes Sale Date: 12120/2004 Dated Date: 117/2005 Delivery Date: 1(7/2005 Due Date: 11512006 Vote Purnose Dates Reference Sunset Rock School 1101999 7(3) High School 1113/2003 7(3) 8 7(3A) Sunset Rock School 1113/2003 7(3) Barrows School 12/10/1998 7(3) Water Mains 4/22/2002 8(5) Water Mains Birch Meadow 11/13/2003 8(6) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Totals ' Premium associated with exempt debt. First Southwest Company FA Peter Frazier MUNICIPAL PURPOSE LOAN 1F~ST~:iJT(3i4~ Q~~~P~1'!' ♦ 25iJiaYfS.Y ~+iO~ Srl J'~ifi'" Renewal New Total Original Article Amount Previous Bonds and This This This Balance Issue Prorate Prorata Number Authorized Issues Pavdowns Issue Issue Issue Unissued Date Interest Premium 14 $8,466,000 $8,400,000 $6,377,725 $2,022,275 $66,000 $2,088,275 $0 6/1/2000 $67,491.89 $20,413.70 5 $54,305,000 $650,000 $0 $650,000 $0 $650,000 $53,655,000 6/2412003 $21,007.64 $6,354.00 ' 6 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $1,250,256 $1,249,744 $0 $1,249,744 $0 1/812004 $40,391.03 $12,216.73 ' 5 $6,585,000 $1,715,500 $2,883,150 $1,247,350 $2,453,631 $3,700,981 $869 6/1/2000 $119,613.65 $36,178.53 11 $1,000,000 $680,000 $290,000 $510,000 $0 $510,000 $200,000 119/2003 $16,482.92 $4,9B5.45 13 $487,000 $450,000 $0 $487,000 $0 $487,000 $0 1/8/2004 $15,739.57 $4,760.61 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NIA $0.00 $0.00 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $73,343,000 $14,395,500 $10,801,131 $6,166,369 $2,519,631 $8,686,000 $53,855,869 $280,726.69 $84,909.03 12/20/2004 Reading BAN 05-1-7.xls T ]~iG'ra'k x.y'_ COMPETITIVE BIDDING RESULTS Town of Reading, Massachusetts $6.480,000 General Obligation Bonds Dated January 1, 2005, Payable April 15, 2006 through 2024 DATE OF SALE: December 20, 2004 BIDS RECEIVED: Five AWARD: Fidelity Capital Markets BID: 100.776778 TIC: 3.897562 Due Principal Interest April 15 Amount Rate Yield/or Due Principal interest 2006 $400 000 Price April 15 Amount Rate , 4.00 °10 2007 395,000 3.00 2.15 % 2 25 2016 $285,000 4.50 2008 395,000 3.00 . 2 38 2017 285,000 4.00 2009 395,000 3.00 . 2 64 2018 285,000 4.00 2010 390,000 3.30 . 2 93 2019 285,000 4.00 2011 390,000 3.50 . 3 15 2020 285,000 4.10 2012 390,000 3.60 . 3 32 2021 285,000 4.125 2013 390,000 3.70 . 46 3 2022 285,000 4.20 2014 385,000 4.50 . 3 57 2023 285,000 4.25 2015 385,000 4.50 . 3.72 2024 285,000 4.30 BID: 100.77161 TIC; 3.910684% Roosevelt & Cross, Inc. BID: 101.291313 TIC: 3.936815% UBS Financial Services Inc . BID: 102.205577 TIC: 4.030615% Corby Capital Markets, Inc. BID: 100.771605 TIC: 4.158800% Eastern Bank Yield/or Price % 3.82 % 3.92 4.02 4.08 4.14 4.21 4.28 4.35 4.42 c,,l Authorization of the Bonds and Use of Proceeds The following sets for the principal amount, purpose, statutory reference and dates of the Town approval for the current offering of Bonds: $2,855,000 Wood End at Sunset Rock Elementary - Authorized pursuant to Chapter 44 section 7(3) of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended, and a vote of the Town on November 8, 1999. . (Article 14) and amended on April 2, 2004 in the total amount of $8,466,000. A portion of the bond proceeds, $2,088,275 bond anticipation note proceeds and $3,522,725 grant proceeds will retire bond anticipation notes due January 7, 2005, originally issued January 11, 2000 ($800,000), January 9, 2003 ($100,000), June 24, 2003 ($6,400,000) and January 8, 2004 ($1,100,000). $210,000 Wood End at Sunset Rock Elementary - Authorized pursuant to Chapter 44 section 7(3) of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended, and a vote of the Town on January 13, 2003 (Article 6) in the total amount of $2,500,000. A portion of the bond proceeds, $1,249,744 bond anticipation note proceeds and $1,040,256 grant proceeds will retire $2,500,000 bond anticipation notes due January 7, 2005, originally issued January 8, 2004. The debt service associated with the additional appropriation of $2,500,000 was voted exempt from proposition 2 1/2 on February 25, 2003. $2,415,000 Barrows School - Authorized pursuant to Chapter 44 section 7(3) of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended, and a vote of the Town on December 10, 1998 (Article 5) in the total amount of $6,585,000. Coincident with this issue of Bonds, grant proceeds and bond anticipation note proceeds will retire $1,715,500 of bond anticipation notes due January 7, 2005, originally issued June 1, 2000 ($345,000), April 1, 2001 ($80,000), January 11, 2002, ($25,000), January 8, 2004 ($565,500) and November 23, 2004 ($700,000). $1,000,000 Water Treatment Plant - Authorized pursuant to Chapter 44 section 8(4) of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended and authorized on November 13-2003 (Article 11) in the total ` amount of $1,500,000. A portion of the bond proceeds will retire a like amount of bond anticipation notes due January 7, 2005, originally issued January 8, 2004. Maturity Schedule By Purpose Fiscal Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 '2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Totals Barrows Wood End School (Non- School Exempt) 155,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 $ 2,855,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 2,415,000 Wood End School (Exempt) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $ 210,000 Water Treatment $ 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $ 1,000,000 Total $ 400,000 395,000 395,000 395,000 390,000 390,000 390,000 390,000 385,000 385,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 285,000 $ 6,480,000 Ne,r to FAX: (781) 942.9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Legal Notice (Seal) Town of Reading To the Iiihabitants of the Town of Reading: TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Please take notice that the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading will hold the following public hearings on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts: Parking Regulations - No parking on one side of Stulset Rock Lane 8:00 p.m. and Roma Lane ® Policy on Park Improvements 8:30 p.m. e Policy on Grant Applications 8:45 p.m. ® DPW Policies 9:00 P.M. All interested parties may appear in person, may submit their comments in writing, or may email towmnanager@ci.reading.ma.us. By order of Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager To the Editor: For insertion on December 28, 2004 Please send bill and tear sheets to: Town Manager, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, MA 01867 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 L' 6' LOCATION ORDER LISTING #LOC. LOCATION NAME MAP PLOT OWNER II qS 0 " 919VANc4nn ruco rni~T 0003 ROMA LN 0222 0011 GASS MICHAEL T 0012 ROMA LN 0222 0022 KAVJIAN ANDREW JR 0019 ROMA LN 0222 0012 INDICIANI ADELE 0022 ROMA LN 0222 0021 GERRIN JOHN J III 0029 ROMA LN 0222 0013 D'AMBROSIO THOMAS E 0034 ROMA LN 0222 0020 ANDREWS WILLIAM 0037 ROMA LN 0222 0014 CONNOLLY MARK M 0044 ROMA LN 0222 0019 WALSH KEVIN M 0047 ROMA LN 0222 0015 PERRINA LUCID 0054 ROMA LN 0222 0018 DANNEMILLER EILEEN M 0055 ROMA LN 0222 0016 VENTURA ROBERT R 0061 ROMA LN 0222 0017 JOHNSON DAVID P 0066 ROMA LN 0222A 0001 KELLY PAUL D 0070 ROMA LN 0222A .0020 -BLAIS WILLIAM J (1 L1?~- -'ii ---rsf --ff+S'J 3 0 07 N-11nr.r~v nnFnl M 0A-1-Y'Ft[JSTIC LN 01830.6'7 GREEN THOMAS H JR 019/' a04 r a DY P N bZ- LOCATION ORDER LISTING #LOC. LOCATION NAME MAP PLOT OWNER lz - 8 9£ 5 O'0'2b 0011 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0052 BEAUREGARD DAVID 0012 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0041 SALAZAR EUGENIO A 0019 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0051 WALSH MICHAEL R 0020 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0042 DICARA MARK C 0025 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0050 RICKLEY MICHAEL E 0026 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0043 BECKMAN ROBERT J 0031 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0049 RODRIGUES JOHN 0039 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0048 ANTHONY GLENN W 0040 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0044 40 SUNSET ROCK LN REALTY TRU 0046 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0045 CATALDO JOHN A 0047 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0047 PARANJAPE VARSHA V 0052 SUNSET ROCK LN 0206 0046 FALLICA MICHAEL C -0909 E SAN DR_ - 0012---S'GSAN DR 0190 0023--M;4fttSCALCHI ALBERT JR 0078 SUSAN_MR 01ap nn24 BOOTH FREDERICK W 0020 StJbAN DR 0190 0025 DENNIS _ RT' E-E 'yam 024 SUSAN DRDR 01.9.6 0026 BELL RICHARD E q63 Memo Date: 12129/04 To: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager CC: Patrick Fennelly, Recreation Committee Chairmen Nancy-Linn Swain, Recreation Committee Vice-Chairmen From:John Feudo, Recreation Administrator 9K~ RE: Recreation Committee/ Board of-Selectmen The Recreation Committee discussed Section 4.14 - Approval of Park Improvements at the December Recreation Committee meeting. Below are some of the recommendations they have made for discussion at the public hearing on January 4, 2005. Attached is a redraft of what was discussed. Please contact me at X074 if you have any questions. The Recreation Committee recommends: ➢ breaking the language of the proposed policy further into sections to help clarify; ➢ clarification on what is considered major maintenance; The Recreation Committee will be on hand at the Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 4th to discuss their recommends and ask questions for clarification of where they fit into the process of Park Improvements. Nom' Interoffice Memo Section 4.14 - Approval of Park Improvements The operation of public parks in Reading is the responsibility of the Board of Selectmen pursuant to the Reading Home Rule Charter; except that the scheduling of parks is the responsibility of the Recreation Committee; and the Department of Public Works has the responsibility for routine maintenance of the parks. Projects to make improvements or modifications to public parks through the expenditure of Town or other funds require approval by the Board of Selectmen. Section 4.14.1 Aparoval of Imorovements or Modifications to existinq amenities Approval of projects to replace in kind, or to maintain existing improvements in parks, is hereby delegated to the Recreation Committee and/or the Department of Public Works as appropriate. No such replacement or major maintenance will be made without prior notice to the Town Manager. The Town Manager will, in turn, advise the Board of Selectmen in advance of any such replacement or major maintenance. In the event of a question as to whether any project falls into this category, the Town Manager will make that determination. Section 4.14.2 Aparoval of New Proiects Requests for other improvements to parks that do not fall into the category that has been delegated to the Recreation Committee and/or the Department of Public Works will be made to the Board of Selectmen through the Town Manager. The proposed project(s) will be scheduled for a presentation to the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen may then refer such projects for comment and recommendation to the Recreation Committee for programming, scheduling impacts, financial impact, public input and/or the Department of Public Works for maintenance impacts. Following adequate time for the comment period, the Board of Selectmen will then schedule the matter for action, and may hold a public hearing, prior to taking action on the project. Town funded projects that are included in the capital improvements program may be constructed without the above process if the Board of Selectmen determines that adequate Recreation Committee and Department of Public Works input has been received, and that adequate public discussion has been held with respect to the project(s). q G~ 12/29/04 2 Section 1.4 - Authorization for the Town Manager to Sign Grant Applications and Acceptances The Town of Reading from time to time makes application for grants from various State, Federal and private sources. Since the Town Manager is authorized to execute contracts for the Town, the Board of Selectmen authorizes the Town Manager to sign grant applications and acceptances for such grants. It shall be the responsibility of every Department to report to the Town Manager that all operating requirements and resources are in place to properly implement the grant, including personnel policies, labor contract provisions, availability of resources, equipment, and all other things that will be needed. This review shall include an analvsis of the impact on the Town of all expenses related to receipt of the grant. including the impact on emplovee benefits both durinL emvlovment and upon retirement (health insurance. pension, unemplovment, etc.) This action should take place prior to application for the grant if possible, but in all cases shall take place prior to the acceptance of any grant, unless the Board of Selectmen waives this requirement, Adopted 11-3-86, Revised 12-13-94 YCI Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Klepeis, Beth Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 9:13 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Policy on Grants Hi Pete, I think we should also require a review to see whether a grant will have implications for retirement, health insurance, etc, which will ultimately cost the Town more than the grant is worth. Other departments could be asked to review the issues prior to application. Thanks. Beth K. -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:16 AM To: Schena, Paula; Burns, Greg;'Elizabeth Dickinson'; Foley, Richard; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Klepeis, Beth; McIntire, Ted;'Schettini, Pat; Silva, Bob Subject: Policy on Grants This is the proposed amendment to the policy on acceptance of grants. Please review it and snake any comments back to me. The BOS will hold a hearing on the policy on December 14. Paula, please post the hearing. Pete Section 1.4 - Authorization for the Town ManaLrer to Sign Grant Applications and Acceptances The Town of Reading from time to time makes application for grants from various State, Federal and private sources. Since the Town Manager is authorized to execute contracts for the Town, the Board of Selectmen authorizes the Town Manager to sign grant applications and acceptances for such grants. It shall be the responsibility of every Department to report to the Town Manager that all operating requirements and resources are in place to properly implement the grant, including personnel policies, labor contract provisions, availability of resources, equipment, and all other things that will be needed. This action should take place prior to application for the grant if possible, but in all cases shall take place prior to the acceptance of any grant, unless the Board of Selectmen waives this requirement, ARTICLE 4 - POLICIES RELATED TO PUBLIC WORKS Section 4.1- Delegating the Hearine and Approval Process for Municipal Consent to Constructor Alter Utilitv Lines Chapter 166, Section 22 of the Massachusetts General Laws requires that the Board of Selectmen provide for a public hearing on petitions to construct or alter utility lines in the Town of Reading. The Board of Selectmen hereby delegate to the Director of Public Works the responsibility for holding public hearings as required by Chapter 166, Section 22, and for granting or denying any such petitions for line location or alteration. Adopted 11-3-86, Revised 12-31-94,1105 Section 4.2 - Acceptance ofPrivate Wavs and Establishment of Betterments Therefore The Town has developed this policy for the acceptance of Private Ways as Public Ways. This is done for several reasons. Two of the more important reasons are: 1. Roads built by Developers may be accepted before they begin to deteriorate, and 2. Full Town services may be legally granted on roads that have been previously private ways. After a public hearing, the Board of Selectmen will decide whether or not to recommend acceptance to the Town. If the decision is to recommend acceptance, the Board of Selectmen will support a Warrant Article before the next Annual Town Meeting requesting an appropriation of finds for the construction. Costs of construction are borne 100% by the abutting property owners on a pro rata per front foot basis. Under the provisions of the Betterment Act, the assessment may be apportioned over a period not exceeding twenty years, with annual payments of not less than five dollars, with interest at a rate determined by the Board of Selectmen annually on the unpaid balance. These apportioned payments appear annually on the real estate tax bill. Comer lots are subject to a corner lot exemption which is computed by a formula adopted by the Board of Selectmen and which is detailed in Section 5.2.2 below. Street construction is generally completed the same calendar year that the street acceptance is voted at the Annual Town Meeting. 4.2.1- Process The Board of Selectmen will consider, based on petitions of residents owning property on a private way, based on staff recommendations or based on the Board's own initiative, the acceptance of private ways under the Betterment Act. The process will be: 1. Consideration at a public meeting of the Board of Selectmen, and decision as to whether to go forward with the process. 2. Upon a determination to go forward with consideration, the Board will refer the matter to the Director of Public Works with direction to hold a public hearing in accordance with the Betterment Act within 3 months. 4-1 y0 3. The Director of Public Works will hold a public hearing in which all abutters present will be given a copy of the estimated costs of construction of the street and any other improvements considered, and the estimated costs of construction of the projects. In addition, a copy of this material will be sent to all abutters not present at the hearing. A breakdown will be supplied at the same time of the individual lot frontages, and the costs of the improvements to each property owner based on front footage. Final assessments are based on actual costs but cannot in any event exceed the estimated assessment. The final assessments may be less than the estimate. 4. At the public hearing, which may be continued by the Director to a date certain, an opinion questionnaire will be distributed to all abutters with return request within 10 days of the end of the hearing. The questionnaire will also be mailed to all abutters not present. Based on the testimony at the hearing(s), the Director of Public Works will provide input and. make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen regarding the acceptance and improvement of the private way. The input will include minutes of the hearings, a copy of materials presented at the hearings, and a recommendation as to whether and in what mamler acceptance and improvement take place. This input and recommendation will be made within 30 days of the completion of the last date of the hearing: 5. Upon receipt of the recommendation from the Director, the Town Manager will set a date for the review and action by the Board of Selectmen on the Director's report. All abutters will be notified at least 2 weeks before the date of this review and the recommendation. The notice will include a summary of the Director's recommendation. 6. The Board of Selectmen will decide at a public meeting whether they recorrunend acceptance to the Town. 4.2.2 - Method ofAssesshz2 The usual method of assessing street betterments will be as follows: 1. For each particular street, the total cost of construction shall be divided by the calculated abutting frontage to derive a unit cost per linear foot. The calculated cost per linear foot of frontage shall be arrived at by dividing the total cost of construction by the calculated abutting frontage. The calculated abutting frontage shall be arrived at by deducting from the total abutting frontage the abated frontage as described herein. 2. All lots, except corner lots, shall be assessed at the rate of the lderived unit cost described in Section 1. (A corner lot, to qualify for exemptions, must be a lot having one side located on a accepted street.) (Public Way) 3. When street construction improvements are made at different times, corner lots shall be assessed at the rate of the total derived unit cost per linear foot of abutting frontage on the first side constructed, and at a rate of one-quarter the derived unit cost per linear foot for each foot of abutting frontage on the second side constructed or as otherwise determined by the Board. 4. When all street construction improvements are made simultaneously, corner lots shall be assessed at the rate of the total derived unit cost per linear foot of abutting frontage on the longest side or sides constricted, and at a rate of one 4-2 quarter the derived unit cost per linear foot for each foot of abutting frontage on the shortest side constructed or as otherwise determined by the Board. 5. A comer lot shall be defined as a lot having two or more sides on one or more streets, having an interior angle of 45 degrees or more between two of the sides, or at the tangents thereof, and a total abutting street frontage on two or more sides of 160 feet or more, and the frontage to be assessed shall be derived by adding one-half the length of are or curve at the intersection of the two streets to either side of the frontage assessed, or as otherwise defined by the Board. 6. A comer lot, in order to be assessed as above, shall not be divisible into two or more lots under the applicable Town Zoning Regulation unless, in the judgment of the Board, the land is unsuitable. for division into two more lots. When a corner lot is devisable into two or more lots, the Board shall apportion the abatement at its discretion. Adopted 1-12-87, Revised 12-13-94,1105 Section 4.3 - House or Building Movine No house or building shall be moved within the Town of Reading without prior approval of the Director of Public Works. It is the intent of the Board of Selectmen that: o All costs associated with such a move be borne by the benefiting party; o The Town be held harmless from any event arising out of such a move through the posting of appropriate performance bonds and/or insurance certificates; ♦ Adequate public notice regarding all of the aspects of the move be given to all effected parties along the route of the move. Adopted 9-28-87, Revised 12-13-94,1105 Section 4.4 -Street Liehtinva The Board of Selectmen; acting through the Town Manager or his designee, shall determine the placement, frequency and size of all public street and public parking lot lighting. The Town Manager or his designee shall review the street lighting scheme with the Reading Municipal Light Department and the Police Department, and advise the Selectmen annually on the quantity and illumination level required. The RMLD will advise the Selectmen on the estimated lighting budget required to provide such lighting. 4.4.1 - Placement: General Lights shall be placed at curves, intersections and heavily treed areas and at locations of severe topographical changes. Lights will also be considered at locations of high incidence's of accidents, and at locations of high pedestrian activity. Lights will be considered at public parking lots, recreation areas, etc. on the basis of identified public safety needs. The frequency of lighting fixtures on straight runs of street length shall be at every third pole and shall be on alternate sides of the road where possible. The type of street, considering width, traffic, zoning and background may 'affect frequency and size. In all cases, the Reading Municipal Light Department shall make the final decision within plus or minis 25 feet on the specified physical location subject to field installation conditions. L4 E3 4-3 4.4.2 - Petition(s) Requests for new or added lights in an already lighted area shall be made to the Town Manager or his designee for action. The Town Manager or his designee shall consult with the Police Department and shall have thirty (30) working days to respond to the petitioner. A petitioner not satisfied with the Town Manager's decision may appeal to the full Board of Selectmen. 4.4.3 - Subdivision Liehtine The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works shall review the lighting scheme in review of subdivision plans in accordance with this policy. The Director of Public Works will then advise the Developer and Community Planning and Development Commission of lighting standard locations. The Town of Reading will not be responsible for subdivision lighting costs until at least 50% of the proposed lots within 300 feet of a planned street light are built and are occupied. Adopted 6-25-91, Revised 12-13-94,1105 Section 4.5 - Installation, Construction and Reconstruction of Curbs and Sidewalks This policy has been developed in order to provide guidance to future Boards of Selectmen in their role as Highway Commissioners, and to provide direction to the Community Planning and Development Commission and the Department of Public Works. Any variance from this policy will require the specific action of the Board of Selectmen. As the Town has grown, there has developed a disparate pattern of curbing and sidewalks throughout the Town. While recognizing and wanting to preserve the character of different areas of, the Town, it is also in the Town's interest to develop and adhere to certain standards of the type of improvements installed either through private initiative or through public action. 4.5.1- Curbing Curbing that is installed in all areas of Town shall conform to the following: ♦ At all intersections, vertical granite curbing will be installed, meeting all requirements as specified in the Subdivision Control Policy of the Town and as specified in applicable State and/or Federal law at the time; ♦ Along rural roads in locations where vertical granite curbing is unnecessary or where it is inconsistent with the character of the roadway, bituminous "cape cod berm" type of curbing will be permitted; ♦ Where a new development takes place along a rural road, vertical granite curbing will be used within the. new development streets and along the existing rural road for the entirety of its frontage; In all other locations, and including "infill" locations along existing streets, vertical granite curbing shall be used; ♦ Where a single lot or lots on an existing street is being developed, even though the construction may not require approval from the Community Planning and Development Commission, the owner shall install vertical granite curbing along the full frontage of the property on the existing street prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy; 4-4 NE4 ♦ The CPDC may, as part of an application for Scenic Road approval and with the recommendation of the Board of Selectmen, approve an alternative fonn of curbing. 4.5.2 - Sidewalks It is the intent of the Board of Selectmen that, over time, all areas of Reading will have sidewalks on at least one side of every street, and that on busier streets, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the street as follows: ♦ In areas that have intermittent sidewalks, sidewalks shall be installed of a type (either cement concrete or bituminous) that is predominant in the area; ♦ In the area generally bounded by Lowell, Salem, John, Washington, Willow, Summer and Prescott Streets, sidewalks shall be constructed of cement concrete; ♦ In other areas of the community where there is no predominant. type of sidewalk, bituminous sidewalk will be pennitted; ♦ Where sidewalks are repaired or replaced, they will be repaired or replaced with the same type as previously existed, unless the previously existing sidewalk is not of the type that predominates in the area; ♦ Where a single lot or lots on an existing street is being developed, even though the construction may not require approval from the Community Planning and Development Commission, the owner shall install sidewalks along the full frontage of the property on the existing street prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. The type of sidewalk shall be consistent with the remainder of this policy; ♦ As new areas of the community develop and the issue arises as to the need for sidewalks within a development, the Board of Selectmen urges the Community Planning and Development Commission to evaluate the need for sidewalks on both sides of the proposed street(s). In instances where the CPDC feels that the roadway is not a major one, that the road is not subject to firrther extension, and that the public interest is served by having sidewalks on only one side of the street, the Board of Selectmen urges the CPDC to require the developer to extend an amount of sidewalk equal to that being waived, in a location to be determined by the Town Manager. 4.5.3 - Tree lawns In most areas of the community, there is a tree lawn consisting of a strip of planted material that exists between the curb or curb line and the sidewalk area. The tree lawn is to be preserved as such, and is not to be used as a parking area or widened sidewalk unless specifically approved by the Board of Selectmen. Adapted 3-30-93; Revised 12-13-94, 1105 Section 4.6 - Rubbish Collection Rules and Reeulations The Town of Reading will provide for the collection of household rubbish from single- family detached, two- and three-family attached residences, and condominium complexes in the Town in accordance with these regulations: 4-5 qff 4.6.1- Definitions Rubbish will be considered to mean household refuse, cold ashes, and garbage except as detailed in the following sections (see Bulk Waste Collection, Hazardous Materials, Yard Waste and Recycling). 4.6.2- Collection Schedule Items will be collected once per week in accordance with a schedule to be published periodically. 1. No collection will be made from stores, business houses, rooming or boarding houses, manufacturing plants, professional buildings or other commercial enterprises. 2. Items will be collected when set at the edge of the traveled way in approved containers by 6:30 A.M. on regular collection days. Workers are prohibited from entering onto or trespassing on any private property during their collection. If rubbish is not placed on the edge of the traveled way by 6:30 A.M. on regular collection days, and the contractor has already driven by the residence, the rubbish will not be picked tip that week and the resident will be responsible for removing the rubbish from the edge of the roadway no later than the end of that day. 3. No collection will be made on days that the following legal holidays are celebrated: New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Patriots Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Collections will be one day late during the balance of the week in which the holiday falls; if a holiday falls on a weekday, the fifth day of collection will be Saturday. (As an example, if a holiday falls on Monday, Monday's collection will be made on Tuesday, Tuesday's on Wednesday, etc.) 4.6.3- Annroved Containers Rubbish except for bulls waste must be placed in an approved container, as follows: 1. Approved containers are "wet strength" 2-ply 50-pound kraft paper sacks of 30 gallon capacity; 1.5-mil thickness plastic bags of 30-gallon capacity; or 30-gallon capacity barrels with handles. Residents using barrels are cautioned that subzero temperatures and icing will result in the barrel having to be banged on the steel hopper of he truck, which will probably split or dent the barrels. 2. Residents using other types of barrels or other unapproved containers should recognize that these containers will be treated as a bulls item and disposed of as such. 3. The Town discourages the use of cardboard barrels or cardboard boxes since once they become wet they lose much of their strength. The Town of Reading"and the contractor will not be responsible for any damage to the cardboard barrels. Residents who use cardboard barrels should recognize that the above damage will probably occur. 4. If a container falls apart during collection, any rubbish left need not be picked up by the contractor, and the resident will be responsible for cleaning up all the rubbish. 5. Unlimited approved containers will be picked up each week. Any container that cannot be handled by one person and weighs over 80 pounds will not be collected. N EG 4-6 4.6.4 - Bulk Waste Collection 4.6.4.1- Bulk Items: General Bulls items are defined as any item that is not considered as nebbish and is of such size or weight (over 80 pounds) that one person cannot readily handle it and/or that falls into the following categories: 1. Auto parts such as generators, starters, air cleaners, auto seats, wheel rims, small pieces of body metal, etc. These items will be picked up in accordance with Section 4.6.4 of these regulations except that in the opinion of the Department of Public Works the quantity of these parts at any one household is unusually great, they will not be collected. 2. Furniture such as couches, chairs, mattresses, box springs, swing sets (dismantled with concrete footings removed), bicycles and other similar items are bulk items, which may be picked up as indicated below. 3. Auto parts such as engine blocks or large pieces of body metal, building materials such as wood longer than 6 feet in length and heavier than 60 pounds, and appliances including refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners, washers, trash compactors, dryers and freezers will not be collected. 4. Earth, stones, tree trunks, tires and batteries will not be collected. Bulk waste must be placed at curbside on the same day and in the same location as scheduled rubbish collection, in accordance the following regulations: Approved bulls waste will be picked up provided a sticker available from the Department of Public Works at a cost of $10.00 is affixed to every such item to be collected as scheduled. Items that do not have a sticker will not be picked up, and it will be the owner's responsibility to remove the bulk waste from the edge of the roadway no later than the end of the day of the regular pickup. 4.6.4.2 - Bulk Items: Appliances 1. Appliances (including refrigerators, stoves, washers, air conditioners, dryers, freezers, dishwashers, trash compactors, or other similar appliances) will be picked rip by the Town provided two (2) stickers, available from the Department of Public Works at a cost of $10.00/each (total cost of $20.00), are affixed to every such item to be collected. Items that do not have 2=$10.00 stickers attached will not be picked up, and it will be the owner's responsibility to remove the appliance from the edge of the roadway no later than the end of the day of the regular pickup. 4.6.5 - Hazardous Materials All hazardous materials as herein defined shall not be collected: gasoline, explosives, compressed gases, explosive chemicals, corrosive chemicals, fluorescent bulbs, all hazardous wastes as defined by the DEP and EPA and other materials as that the Director of Public Works may deem hazardous. The Department of Public Works operates free drop-off recycling at its facility on New Crossing Road for used motor oil and fluorescent bulbs. 4-7 NEB In addition, television and computer monitors mat be dropped off at the same facility provided a sticker, available from the Department of Public Works, at a cost of $10.00 is affixed to every such item. The sticker may be purchased at the DPW Office at Town Hall. In cooperation with the Town of Wakefield, the Town provides two days/year for household hazardous waste drop-off, including house and yard chemicals, gasoline, batteries and tires. 4.6.6 -Yard Waste Leaves and other yard waste (i.e. grass clippings, branches, brush) will not be picked up curbside, except that the Town may provide curbside pick-up subject to availability of funds. The Town will operate a compost center from April 1 through December 1 at times and on a schedule to be announced. Leaves and other yard waste may be taken to the compost center in any container; the container must be removed unless it is a biodegradable kraft paper bag. Tree trimmings may be a maximum of 8 feet in length and 8 inches in diameter. 4.6.7- Recvclin-e The Town may, subject to available funds, supply each household subject to these regulations up to 2 plastic bins for recyclable materials. Everv household is required to place in that bin all recyclable materials as follows: 1. All glass containers, unbroken and excluding ceramics, light bulbs, and plate glass. All glass containers must be rinsed. 2. Aluminum cans, rinsed. 3. Steel or tin cans, rinsed.. 4. Newspapers, magazines, catalogs, telephone books and 3rd class ("junk") mail, bagged in a kraft paper bag or tied in bundles. 5. Plastics, rinsed, and marked with Code 1 (PET) or Code 2 (HDPE). 6. Corrugated cardboard cut up and bundled, maximum size of 3 feet by 3 feet. The recycling bin must be placed at curbside along with other nebbish on the normal collection day and will be collected by the contractor. If material placed in the bin is not recyclable, it will be left in the bin. Replacement bins are available from the Department of Public Works at cost. 4.6.8 - Enforcement These rules and regulations are enforceable by the Department of Public Works. Enforcement may consist of refusal to collect rubbish, bulk waste, or other materials that are not disposed of In accordance with these rules and regulations. These rifles and regulations are also enforceable in accordance with Section 5 of the General Bylaws providing for a fine of up to $300 for each offense. Adopted: 6/5/90, Revised 12-13-94, Revised 5/ /99,1/05/05 4-8 Nf$ Section 4.7 - Sanitarv Sewer Connection Permit Proaram The 'Sewer Use Regulations of the Town of Reading requires that all persons desiring extensions and connections to, or an increase in the use of an existing connection to the sanitary sewer system be subject to the requirements of the Sewer Connection Permit Program as stated' herein. 4.7.1 -Purpose and Authoritv These regulations establish the program whereby sewer system extensions, connections and increased usage are regulated and permitted by :the Director of Public Works pursuant to the Sewer Use Regulations of the Town. These regulations are adopted to ensure proper operation of the sewer system within the Town. 4.7.2 - Definitions As used in these regulations, the following words have the following meaning: 1. "Activity". shall mean modification to the sewer system including construction of extensions and connections to the existing Town sewerage system and increased discharge to existing connections. 2. "Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works of the Town of Reading, or his authorized deputy, agent, or representative. 3. "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, company, association, society, corporation, or group. 4. "Public Sewer" shall mean a sewer in which all owners of abutting properties have equal rights, and is controlled by public authority, or sewer laid in any land or way, public or private, open or proposed to be opened for public travel. 5. "Sanitary Sewer" shall mean a sewer designed to convey sewage and to which storm, surface and groundwater are not intentionally admitted or permitted. . 6. "Sewage" shall mean a combination of the water-carried wastes from residences, business building, institutions, and industrial establishments, together with such ground, surface and stonn waters as may be unintentionally present. 7. "Sewer" shall mean a pipe or conduit for carrying sewage. 8. "Shall" is mandatory; "May" is permissive. 9. "Sewer connection" shall mean the sewer pipe and appurtenant works necessary to connect a building or estate to a sewer system. 10. "Sewer extension" shall mean the addition to a sewer system of a sewer pipe, together with appurtenant works, which when connected to the sewer system becomes the property of, and is operated and maintained by the town. 11. "Wastewater" shall mean sewage, industrial waste, other wastes or any combination of the three. 12. "Storm drain" shall mean street rainfall collection systems whether piped or open trench. 4.7.3 - Activities Reouirine A Sewer Connection Permit Program No person shall construct, effect, modify, or use any sewer system extension or connection, or increase usage to an existing public sewer connection, without a currently valid permit from the Director unless exempted in Section 5.7.4. Any person who proposes to yE9 4-9 constrict, effect, modify or use a sewer system extension or connection may obtain a permit by filing the appropriate form in accordance with these regulations. 4.7.4 - Activities Exempt From Sewer Connection Permit Requirements 1. Activities on property not currently benefiting from a public sewer are exempt in their entirety. Any such property later desiring benefit from a public sewer, by whatever means available, shall become subject to the usual assessment for betterment and shall also be subject to the requirements of the Sewer Connection Permit Program described herein as it applies. 2. Activities on property benefiting from a public sewer and having been assessed a betterment but not yet connected to the sewer system are exempt. 4.7.5 - Requirements of Sewer Connection Permit ProLyram 1. A person, whose activity is not exempted, desiring connection to or an increase in use of an existing connection to the sewer system shall be required to pay the Town a Sewer Connection fee the amount of which is determined as set forth in Section 5.7.5 2. a). 2. The Sewer Connection Fee will be based on the Sewer Connection Fee rate times the number of gallons per day (gpd) of sewage to be discharged into the sewerage system. Such gallonage will be determined in accordance with Section 5.7.9, "Calculation of Flows". 3. The Sewer Connection Fee rate is hereby established at a rate of $4 per gallon, and may be periodically reviewed and amended by the Board of Selectmen. The sewer connection fee shall be multiplied by the estimated gallons per day to be generated by each use as determined.by the table in section 5.7.9, and that sum shall be multiplied by 2 to accomplish the 2:1 Inflow/Infiltration removal as required in this policy. 4.7.6 - Uses of the Sewer Connection Permit Fees 1. The Sewer Connection Fee will be expended by the Town to ensure the proper operation of the sewage system including but not limited to the removal of excessive infiltration and inflow, the reimbursement to private property owners for removal of sump pump or other inflow sources from the sanitary sewer system, and to improve, modify, or extend the Town storm drain system. 2. When the Sewer Connection Permit Fees are used to reimburse private property owners for the cost of eliminating inflow into the sewer system, the Town will reimburse subject to the following conditions: a. Up to 100% of the cost of such work, but not to exceed $1000. b. An itemized bill marked paid by a person licensed to perform such work. C. Submission of all permits and certificates that the work has been completed and inspected by the Town d. A statement signed by the property owner and filed with the registrar of deeds that this work, has been done and will be maintained in working order. 4-10 NEio 3. All charges levied or contributions received under this program shall be administered by the Director of Public Works who shall advise the Town Manager and Board of Selectmen how and when these sums should be expended. 4.7.7 - Application for a Permit I. Dutv to app. Any person required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 5.7.3 shall complete and submit the application form contained in the appendix to this policy. 2. Who must apply. Any person seeking extension to or connection with the Town sewerage system and any person having an existing connection with and seeking an increase in the rate of discharge prevailing upon adoption of this program. Calculation of flows shall be in accordance with Section 5.7.5.2 of these regulations. 3. Time to apply. Any person required to obtain a permit pursuant to Section 5.7.3 shall submit an application at least 60 days before the date on which the sewer system extension or connection is to be constructed, or increase usage is to be activated, unless permission for a later date has been granted by the Director. Persons proposing a new discharge are encouraged to submit their applications well in advance of the 60 day requirement to avoid delay. All extensions with flow of more than 2000 gallons per day, or over 1200 feet in length require a Sewer Extension Permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Water Pollution Control Division and may trigger EPA review. Extensions or connections requiring DEP action cannot be acted upon by the Reading Director of Public Works until DEP review is final and acted upon. 4. Completeness. The Director shall not review a permit before receiving a complete application. The permit application- shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications, or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Director. 4.7.8 - Permit Conditions 1. General conditions. The conditions in Section '5.7.8 apply to every permit issued under this program. 2. Special conditions. In addition to conditions applicable to all permits, the Director shall establish special conditions, as required, on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable requirements of the State and Federal Acts and regulations adopted thereunder. 4.7.9 - Calculation of Flows Unless a variance is authorized by the Director in writing, applicants applying for a sewer extension, connection or increase in usage permit shall use the following figures in calculating daily sewage flow in completing the application. El, 4-11 SEWAGE FLOW ESTIMATES Tyne of Establishment ( Gallons Per Dav Per Person J Boarding Schools, Colleges ( 65 ( Nursing Home and Rest Home 1 1001 ( School, without cafeteria, gymnasium or showers 101 )School, with cafeteria, but not gymnasium or showers 151 School, with cafeteria, gymnasium or showers 201 1 Swimming Pool 10 J Camp, resident--washroom and toilets ( 251 1 Camp, resident--mess hall. ) 101 J Camp, day--washroom and toilets J 101 1 Camp, day--mess hall J 31 Camp Ground--showers and toilets-per site J 751 1 Gymnasium--per spectator 31 ( Gymnasium--per participant 25 Theater, Auditorium 31 Public Park--toilet wastes only ) 51 Public Park--bathhouse, showers, and flush toilets J 101 Factory or Industrial Plant, without cafeteria J 151 Factory or Industrial Plant, with cafeteria 1 201 J Work or Construction Camp ( 501 Single and multiple dwelling units-per bedroom - motels, hotels, boarding 110 houses.. Tennis club--per court J 2501 ( Bowling Alley--per alley 1001 1 Country Club--dining room--per seat 101 Country Club--snack bar or hunch room-per seat 101 Country Club--locker and showers-per locker J 201 Church--per seat ( 31 1 Church--vestry/kitchen-per person at capacity 1 51 1 Trailer, Dump station--per site or per trailer 1 501 ( Mobile Home Park--per site or J 2001 1 Office Building--per 1,000 sq. ft J 751 1 Dry Goods Stores-per 100 sq. ft 1 51 1 Drive-in--per stall 1 51 Non-single family, Automatic Clothes washers per washing machine- 400 1 Hospital--per bed 1 200 ( Service Station, excluding thruway--per island 1 300 Skating Rink--3,000 gallons per day-plus 5 gallons per seat 300 1 Dog Rounds-Veterinary Clinics--per pen. ( 501 1Restaurant, food service establishment, lounge, tavern 351 Restaurant, thruway service area J 1501 Restaurant, kitchen flow 1 151 Barber Shop/Beauty.Salon per chair 1 1001 Estimated sewage flow other than those listed should be considered in relation to actual meter readings of established flows from luiown or similar installations. Generally, estimated sewage flows will be based on 200 percent of average water meter readings in order to assimilate maximum daily flows. O 4-12 For purpose of this section, a "bedroom" means any portion of a dwelling which is so designed as to fiirnish the minimum isolation necessary for use as a sleeping area. Such area shall not include kitchen, bathroom, dining room, halls, or unfinished cellar; but shall include bedroom, den, study, sewing room, or sleeping loft. The Board of Selectmen reserves the right to add, delete, rescind, modify or otherwise amend the requirements of this Sewer Connection Pen-nit Program. Revised 6/3/02, 1105 Section 4.8 - Water Meter Readings, Abatements and Credits When receiving a complaint on reading: 1. The Department of Public Works verifies reading. 2. If verified, the Department advises consumer of internal leak review and outside use or leakage. If not verified, the Department makes internal adjustment. 3. The Department of Public Works tests meter. If meter checks, Department notifies consumer that policy as established on back of bill is operative or no adjustment will be made. If the meter does not check, the Department makes internal adjustment. Adopted 3-24-87, Revised 12-13-94,1/05 Section 4.9 - Water Conservation Program Stage 1 Stage 1 provides for mandatorv water conservation, subject to penalties in accordance with law for violation of these restrictions. Water may be used for outdoor purposes only from 4:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., and 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., Monday through Sunday, and only in accordance with the following schedule: • Even numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on even-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. • Odd-numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on odd-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. There is no restriction on hand held devices. In addition, the following regulation on filling swimming pools is mandatorv: Swimming pools shall be filled in accordance with the above schedule only, unless a waiver is granted by the Town Manager. Stage 2 Stage 2 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of anv tvbe is permitted. Water use is restricted to domestic home use only for purposes including normal bathing, laundry, and sanitary uses. Violation of these regulations is punishable by a $300.00 fine. ftdopted 4-25-89, 11104, 1105. q6 4-13 Section 4.10 - Abatement of Sewer Charges for Filling ofSwimmina Pools When a building, electrical or plumbing permit application is received to construct a new swimming pool, and the owner of that property has not received a prior sewer abatement, then an abatement for the sewer charge will be granted at the sewer rate in effect at the time that the pool was initially constructed. Adopted 8-2-94, Revised 12-13-94, 1105 Section 4.11- Second Water Meters The Board of Selectmen hereby places a moratorium on the installation 'of any second water meters for residential use, and the moratorium shall be reviewed on July 1, 1995, and by July 1 of each year thereafter to determine if the reasons for the initial placement of a moratorium are still valid. Adopted 12-13-94, Revised 1105 Section 4.12 - Appeals Where authority to hold hearings and consider appeals on issues addressed within this Article is delegated, the decision of the Director of Public Works may be appealed by the utility company or an abutter within seven (7) days of the date of the decision. Such appeal shall be made to the Town Manager. Appeal of the decision of the Town Manager on such an issue may be taken to the Board of Selectmen within 14 days of the Manager's decision. The decision of the Director of Public Works, and of the Town Manager when an appeal at Town Manager level is involved, will be transmitted to the Board of Selectmen at least monthly. Section 4.13 - Regulations For Reimbursement for Sewer Backflow Prevention The Town of Reading is aware that residents may have experienced sewer backup into their homes through no fault of their own, and through no fault of the Town. This type of backup generally occurs in times of heavy rainfall. The Town recognizes that there are methods that homeowners may take to prevent sewer back up in their home, and that these measures are the responsibility of the property owner and take place on private property. The Town also wishes to assist homeowners in protecting their own property from such circumstances. At its meeting on July 10, 2001, the Board of Selectmen authorized a program of 50% reimbursement for such back flow prevention systems, and these regulations implement that policy. 1. The Town will reimburse, on a one time only basis, 50% of the cost of a sewer back flow prevention system for a one or two family dwelling up to a maximum Town expenditure of $500 per dwelling. 4jI4 4-14 2. With limited funding, priority will be given to locations that have actually had a sewer back up within the past 3 years. 3. The property owner will select the method of sewer back flow prevention. The Town will not recommend, or participate in the choice of system, and will not be responsible for the system. 4. The property owner will be solely responsible for the initial installation, maintenance, operation and replacement of the back flow prevention system as needed. 5. The homeowner will be responsible for securing all building, plumbing, and other pennits required to perform the work, and will present proof of the permit and inspection at the time that a request for reimbursement is made. The system must conform to the requirements of Section 2.09 (4) (a-1) of the regulations of the Board of State Examiners of Plumbers and Gas Fitters. 6. The property owner will sign a copy of these regulations -acknowledging them, and will pay for the cost of filing this statement with the Register of Deeds and submit a receipted copy to the Department of Public Works for the Town's files. Signature of Property Owner Address of Property Name of Property Owner Adopted - 8-21-01, Revised 1105 Section 4.14 Street Oveninu Permit Policv This policy establishes requirements for performing work, within road rights-of-way within the Town of Reading. Activities Reauirina a Street Opening Permit No person shall excavate any roadway in the Town of Reading for the purposes of installing or repairing sewer, water, drainage, gas, telephone, cable television or other utilities without first obtaining a Street Opening Permit from the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. In addition, any excavation within the road right-of-way for the installation or replacement of driveway aprons, sidewalk or curb, or occupancy of the sidewalk or street area will require the issuance of a Street Opening Permit. Permit Application Submission Reauirements Applications for Street Opening Permits must include the following information: e A current valid DIG SAFE number; o A satisfactory Certificate of Insurance naming the Town of Reading as an additional insured; 4-15 HESS e A satisfactory Street Opening Bond in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) executed to the benefit of the Town of Reading; and ♦ A sketch of the location and nature of the work to be done. Permit Issuance Pen-nits will be routinely issued between April 1 and November 15. Between November 15 and December 15, and between March 15 and April 1, a permit may be issued at the discretion of the Engineering Division. Between December 15 and March 15; the Director of Public Works may grant a permit under emergency conditions where no other alternative exists. Permit Compliance The applicant must comply with the Street Opening Permit Requirements and Roadway Construction and Repair Standards or Driveway Design Requirements as established by the Department of Public Works. Permit Fees A fee of $25.00 will be charged for Street Opening Permits related to driveways, sidewalk, curb and street occupancy. A fee of $50.00 will be charged for Street Opening Permits related to utility construction or reconstruction. Section 4.15 .Use, Operation and Maintenance of the Common The Board of Selectmen recognizes that the Town Con-non in Reading is a focal point for the community; and a symbol of the very essence of the Town. It is the Board of Selectmen's intent to preserve and enhance the Common at every opportunity. Recognizing that by Charter the Town Manager has authority over the use, operation and maintenance of the Common, the Board directs the Town Manager to evaluate any changes to the Cominon in light of the "Guidelines for Evaluating Changes to the Common" submitted by the Reading Historical Commission in May, 1990 and revised January, 1991, as these guidelines included in the Appendix may by changed from time to time; and that any major changes to the Common should be evaluated in terms of this document. Further, the Board of Selectmen asks that the Town Manager and/or appropriate staff meet periodically with the Historical Commission with regard to issues related to the Common. Adopted 10-20-92, Revised 12-13-94,1105 4.16 Custodian of Soldiers' and Sailors' Graves Pursuant to Chapter 279 of the Acts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1996, the term of the Custodian of Soldiers' and Sailors' Graves, also known as the Veterans' Graves Officer, is hereby established as a three (3) yearterm to begin on July 1st and expire June 30th of the appropriate year. Adopted 6-10-97 4-16 y 61(v Memo Date: 12/23/04 To: Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager From:John Feudo, Recreation Administratoa. RE: Field Usage I wanted to touch base with you before I begin working on field permitting for Spring 2005. Below are the two items I need clarification to whether or not they will be options for this year: ➢ Use of Memorial Park for the Spring and Summer seasons The use of Memorial has a tremendous impact on RYB, RYS and RUSC for practice space. If not available, this would really tighten field space for practices. I would recommend doing what we did last year, limiting the number of teams, as well as extend the procedure into the summer. ➢ Use of Sunday mornings for practices only This was another attempt last year to stretch our already tight field situation. This seemed to work very well as organizations were able to utilize space without creating the traffic caused by games. This takes away some of the burden of trying to schedule every practice for weeknights. I will be meeting with the Superintendent of Schools and High School Athletic Director shortly after the New Year to discuss the turf fields at the High School and how they will be administered. According to Steve Shaugnessey of Ai3, the first turf field is expected to be ready by the 2nd week of April. The second turf field, also known as the Varsity Football Stadium, will be ready by September 1, 2005. Finally, I looked into the Addison-Wesley field, we have the lease until September 1, 2005. Please keep me updated and let me know if you need additional information to further along the process. y F--"G ahl c k.Nata e State Representative 30th Middlesex District Democrat (781) 864-7990 Town of Reading Town Manager Peter I. Hechenbleikner 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 Dear Peter: C ~flj Thank you for the congratulatory letter that you sent. I look forward to meeting with you and the rest of the Reading political contingent after the inauguration on January 5. If I can be of any assistance to you as the State Representative for the 30th Middlesex State Representative District, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again! Very truly yours P trick M. Natale, Esq., LL.M. State Representative-Elect 30'h Middlesex District P-2 2 r*~ c~ Paid for by the Committee to Elect Patrick Natale, Treasurer Eileen Vartanian 9 Third Road, Woburn, MA 01801 - 56 4MMystic Valley ELDER SERVICES Information e Advice • Solutions November 29, 2004 L [ C S(,f Mr. Peter Hechenbleikamer Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, 01867 Dear Mr. leikner: Thank you for your continued support of Mystic Valley Elder Services. Enclosed is a detailed inventory and value of services delivered to Reading's older residents by Mystic Valley Elder Services during the past year. I believe that this accounting demonstrates in a concrete way hov your local contribution assists us in returning a substantial amount of direct support to Reading. Without Reading's assistance and that of the other seven participating cities and towns, Mystic Valley Elder Services would be unable to continue to provide the level of crucial supportive services currently available. P-4 8 s! e co We have enclosed an invoice in the amount of $0 for Reading's FY 2005 cash contribution. This incorporates the credit for Reading's provision of a 3-day a week Nutrition Program Site Coodinator. If Reading's in-kind benefit of a Site Coordinator ceases during this fiscal year then we would ask that you budget $5,593 for Reading's FY 2006 cash match contribution. I want to personally thank you for your community's continued support of MVES's programs and services through good and bad economic times. We will always be here for you and the residents of Reading who need help at-home. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed bill or our service accounting, please feel free to call me or Sean Hubacz, Director of Finance at (781) 324-7705. Enclosures Cc: Richard Cardillo /tea 4y" 300 Commercial Street, Suite 19 o Malden, MA 02148 • FAX (781) 324-1369 • TTY/TDD (781) 321-8880 (781) 324-7705 • www.mves.org • 1-800-AGE INFO Serving the communities of Everett, Malden, Medford, Melrose, North Reading, Reading, Stoneham, and Wakefield since 1975. gb MYSTIC VALLEY ELDER SERVICES, INC. 19 RIVERVIEW BUSINESS PARK 300 COMMERCIAL STREET MALDEN, MA 02148 (781) 324-7705 To: Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Date: November 29, 2004 Terms: Older Americans Act Cash Match For Fiscal Year 2005 Cash Match Billing for FY 2005 Less Credit for Site Manager Net Cash Match Billing due for FY 2005 Payable within 30 days of receipt. Thank You! $ 5,593.00 ($5,593.00) 0.00 $62 Mystic Valley Elder Services, Inc. 19 Riverview Business Park 300 Commercial Street Malden, Massachusetts 02148 Title III-B (Social Services) and Title III-C (Nutrition Services) provided to Reading elders in Fiscal Year 2004. Title III-C Nutrition Proaram Meals Served Value of Service Home Delivered Meals 18,642 $57,151 Congregate Meals 4,767 $18,640 Site Managers (Wages/Benefits) $3,115 Home Delivered Meals Drivers $0 (Wages/Benefits) Driver's Mileage $0 TOTAL TITLE III-C VALUE $78,906 Title III-B Clients Total Value of Legal Services Served Value Services Greater Boston Legal Services, Inc Total Cases/Consults 215 Total Reading Residents Served 17 Budget 10/03-09/04 $49,000 % in Reading = 7.9% Reading's Cost (Budget x 7.9%) $3,856 Services to Deaf Elders New England Home for the Deaf Budget 10/03 - 9/04 $3,000 % allocation to Reading = 5.9% Reading's Cost (Budget x 5.9%) $176 g63 Medical Transnortation Total Residents Served Total Reading Residents Served Amount spent on Reading elders Services to Blind Elders Vision Foundation Total Residents Served Total Reading Residents Served Budget 10/03 - 9/04 % in Reading = 20.6% Reading's Cost (Budget x 20.6%) Title III E Familv Careaiver Proaram MVES Caregiver Support and Eldercare Advice Cost 10/03-09/04 % in Reading = 8.3% Reading's Cost (Budget x 8.3%) TOTAL OF TITLE III SERVICES PROVIDED TO READING ELDERS STATE HOME CARE P)?OGRAM 64 1 131 27 199 Reading residents received home care services for the year ending June 30, 2004. These services included intake & referral, case management, chore, transportation, social day care, adult day health, personal care, home health aides, laundry, personal emergency response, companionship, homemaker and respite care TOTAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO READING ELDERS $7,000 $232,294 $555 $1,443 $19,280 $104,216 $861,983 $966,199 g6'1 L(C tug C. Lc,S tc~ GREENHOUSE ACRES CONDOMINIUMS Board of Trustees 13A Carnation Circle Reading, MA 01967-2774 8 December 11, 2004 rn e-2 ZZ Mr, Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner, We are in receipt of your letter of November 26, 2004 concerning the property that the town has been billing us for taxes for the past approximately fourteen years. (Reading tax bill - off Arrow Circle - #1000184-5 - Assessor File: Map: 0092 Plot 0015). We have reviewed your comments and those of Joan Langsam Esq and Beth Klepeis. After giving you an opportunity to respond to our claim that you have been billing us for land that we do not own this is our position: 1. Howard. A. Fafard was the original developer (1989) and was doing business as Greenhouse Acres Realty Trust. As condos were sold they became a part of Greenhouse Acres Condominiums. 2. June 14, 1989 the owner, Howard A. Fafard, Greenhouse Acres Realty Trust executed a Declaration of Trust naming Glenn E. Churchill, Lawrence J. Doane and Susan M. Gillespie as trustees and naming Greenhouse Acres Condominiums as 100% beneficiaries. He passed this land to them on June 27, 1989 by Quitclaim deed in the Middlesex Land Court Registry - Document #801763. (Also see Document 801764) It should be noted at this point that none of these three trustees were ever owners or trustees at Greenhouse Acres Condominiums. 3. Trustee Susan M. Gillespie resigned on August 30, 1990 without appointing a successor (Document 836741). Trustees Glenn E. Churchill and Lawrence J. Doane resigned on February 10, 1992 without appointing a successor. (Document 894196). Without successors and the trust not providing for any other passage of ownership, either to the beneficiaries or back to the original owner, this property was in "a state of limbo ownership". ~G' It is our position that to establish ownership a prospective applicant would have to petition a Probate Court Judge to be appointed a trustee. A trustee would be the only person that could execute a quitclaim deed. Even though we were named as beneficiaries we are not interested in making this application. Since February 10, 1992 there has not been a legal owner of this property. 4. On May 7, 1996, the Town of Reading entered into a Grant of Conservation Restriction and Public Access Easement (Book 26506 pg 250 - 261) concerning this property with a Robert McNeil representing Greenhouse Acres Limited Partnership; by and through its corporate general partner, Greenhouse Development Corporation. Neither of these companies represents, have any holdings, are members of the Board of Trustees or are owners at Greenhouse Acres Condominiums. The town was represented in this matter by H. Theodore Cohen Esq. and signed by the Reading Selectmen. We suggest to you that there is probable cause to believe that this transaction took place with a auestionable owner. 5. The tax bill in question was addressed to Churchill, Glenn E etal Tr, Greenhouse Acres Realty Trust, 125 Main Street, E, Newmarket, NH 03857-1645. a) Glenn E. Churchill was a trustee at Greenhouse Acres Realty Trust and never a trustee or an owner or associate of Greenhouse Acres Condominiums. b) The address 125 Main Street E, Newmarket, NH 03857-1645 was the business address for Great North Property Management Company. This is the management company for Greenhouse Acres Condominiums effective March 2000. In 2003 the management company moved to 95 Brewery Lane, Suite 10, Portsmouth, NH 03801-4983. 6. There is no question that an administrative error has been made, for many years, in the billing of this tax bill. Any easements for drainage were approved by the town with the full knowledge that this property did not belong to Greenhouse Acres Condominiums and have been in effective for about fifteen years. The trustees were hopeful that the town would recognize this error and try to make some reasonable accommodation to compensate the association. If no resolution is possible, the trustees will, regrettably, have to consult an attorney to determine if this cause is actionable against the town and possibly some of its agents. Sincerely, &ird A. Nazzaro President CC. Selectmen 1?6 ( 1( 601 z E y d m ®V6y BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. STATE REPRESENTATIVE MINORITY LEADER ~ic~e a~~e~u`eDeratcztuse9 'ate mode, 'qaJtan c. Ca", r.,,-- 20"' MIDDLESEX DISTRICT READING • NORTH READING LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON ROOM 124 TEL. (617) 722-2100 Rep. Brad IeyJones@hou.state. ma.us December 2, 2004 E-3 C Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Town oll Reading a. Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell. Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear ':1r. Hechenbleikner- I enclose for your files 'a copy of legislation we filed on December 1, 2004 for the Town of Reading, An Act Authorizing the Conservation Comnnission of the Town of Reading to Grant Certain Easements. This legislation is intended for consideration by the .General Court during the 2005-2006 Legislative Session. The House Clerk has temporarily designated the bill as House Docket # 1183. At some point after the session begins in January the bill will be given a more permanent designation (a bill number) which we will forward to you for tracking purposes when available. We will endeavor to keep you posted regarding the stati:'Is of this bill as it makes its way through the legislative process. Should you have tinyquestions please do not hesitate to contact me at my Boston office. 94--- HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 1183 FILED: 12/1/2004 1:17:07 PM PETITION - HOUSE CHIEF SPONSOR: Representative Jones of North Reading Representative Natale of Woburn Senator Tisei of Wakefield Filed with the approval of.Town Meeting in the Town of Reading. To the Honorable Senate and House of Reprdsentatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General Court assembled. The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the passage of the accompanying bill or resolve. PETITIONERS: LEGISLATOR/CITIZEN I DISTRICT/FULL MAILING ADDRESS I I I I I Use "TABLE > INSERT > ROWS BELOW" to add more lines for petitioners' signatures. SiR,iatnre Sheet fcn-file "1-\l4nrnsr 1_e~i~l~tintt\.lrnies\N 171 URI dnr'' V 'T HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 1183 FILED: 12/1/2004 1:17:07 PM IREFILE OF PREVIOUS MATTER: BILL OF YEAR: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cum m ~ ' IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND FIVE ,,yTyg AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION OF THE. TOWN OF READING TO GRANT CERTAIN EASEMENTS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. The Conservation Commission of the Town of Reading may grant to the Board of Selectmen on behalf of the Town an easement in a certain parcel of conservation land as shown on the Town of Reading Assessor's Map 47, Parcel 4, for access and utility purposes including the construction, maintenance and repair of sewer pipes, water, and drainage pipes, a sewer pumping station and appurtenances thereto. SECTION 2. The Conservation Commission of the Town of Reading may grant to Timothy F. Leary and Barbara Leary, their heirs, successors and assigns, a permanent easement over a' certain parcel of conservation land as shown on the Town of Reading Assessor's Map 47, Parcel 4, the easement being approximately 540 feet in length and approximately 60 feet wide, for access by foot and by vehicle, to one single-family dwelling located at 113 Longwood Road and identified on the Reading Assessor's Map 58, Parcel 5 and for underground and above ground utility connections only, and for no other purpose. This easement is for residential purposes J:\House Legislation\Jones\HDl 183.doc Page 1. gd3 HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 1183 FILED: 12/1/2004 1:17:07 PM only. The Conservation Commission may convey this easement upon such other terms and conditions as it deems appropriate to protect its interest in the parcel of land. SECTION 3. The Conservation Commission of the Town of Reading may grant to Louis Peterson, his heirs, successors and assigns, a permanent easement over a certain parcel of conservation land, as shown on the Town of Reading Assessor's Map 47, Parcel 4, the easement being approximately 420 feet in length and approximately 40 feet wide, for access by foot and by vehicle, to one single-family dwelling located at l 11 Longwood Road, identified'on the Town of Reading Assessor's Map 58, Parcel 10 and for underground and above ground utility and drainage connections only, and for no other purpose. This easement is for residential purposes only. The Conservation Commission may convey this easement upon such other terms and conditions as it deems appropriate to protect its interests in the parcel of land. SECTION 4. The Conservation Commission of the Town of Reading may grant to Johnson Woods Realty Corp., its heirs, successors and assigns, a permanent easement over a certain parcel of conser vation land, as shown on the Town of Reading Assessor's Map 47, Parcel 4, the easement being approximately 300 feet in length and approximately 30 feet wide, for access by foot and by vehicle, to one single-family dwelling to be located at the southern end of a parcel of land identified on the Reading Assessor's Map 58, Parcel 7 and for underground and above ground utility and drainage cormections only, and for no other purpose. This easement is for residential purposes only. The Conservation Commission may convey this easement upon such other terms and conditions as it deems appropriate to protect its interests in the parcel of land. SECTION 5. This act shall take effect upon its passage. J:\Home Legislation\Jones\HD1 183.doe pat,,- Qd 4 G C ~a Administrative Offices 82 Oakland Road Reading, MA 01867 781 944-5800 December 7, 2004 Dear Member of the Board of Selectman, READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE Carl McFadden, Chair Robert L. Spadafora, Jr., Vice-Chair John E. Carpenter Harvey J. Dahl Lisa F. Gibbs Elaine L. Webb Patrick A. Schettini, Jr. Superintendent of Schools As your liaison from the School Committee, attached please find the initial draft of the redistricting plan released last week. As we discussed during our last financial forum, the sidewalks along Franklin Street continue to be a safety issue. The risk will only increase next September when children from the Wood End neighborhoods use Franklin Street as the conduit to the new school. We hope that you will continue to work diligently to find a solution to this problem. In addition, based on the plan there may be other locations that require sidewalks. Thank you for your support. Kind regards, Robert Spadafora f a c-s cc: School Committee 00 Patrick Schettini Finance Committee Peter Hechenbleikner co gf~ PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS WOOD dod End 6 District nr t_..\ t is g !e 'kw ~COO ° DGE~ DDLE SC 0 l9 BIRCH MEAW,S£HQOL COF<L s I M~RkAt READING MEML HIGHS ?o <o, Blr _h"Meadow District ti AllcejM Barrows District z HA W;S PARKER DLE SC L U GR A"M BARR4S SCHOOL 4 OG mYw ~14~ r Z ~ h~ .BOA A E/ IJSCHOgL' Joshua Eaton . pay Districts;.. 1 I 1 1 1 Eaton Killam Wood En Map by Town of Reading GIS Map date: 12/2/04 j LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM F. CROWLEY TEL (781) 942-2233 626 MAIN STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867 December 9, 2004 The Honorable Members of the Board of Selectmen Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 RE: Metropolitan Area Planning Council Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen: N+a' .C C:.7 C ~'1 c-a -o a IS2 0 It has been my privilege to represent the Town of Reading at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council for approximately nine years. However, over this past year, due to the demands of my law practice, I have missed several meetings. I believe that the Town will best be served if I resign at this time so that another person who will have more time to devote to this responsibility can be appointed. Therefore, I submit my resignation as representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, effective December 31, 2004. Thank you for allowing me to serve the Town. Respectfully submitted, William F. Crowley U A- C. CPPC FAX (781) 942-0292 :FF1 L Greenhouse Acres Condominiums Board of 'trustees 13A Carnation Circle Reading, MA 41867-2774 December 18, 2004 Mr. Rick Schubert Chairman, Reading Board of Selectmen 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Schubert, N 8 rra On Saturday, December 11, 2004 you meet with me, Trustee Joie Gerrish and other members of the Greenhouse Acres "Walkers Brook Committee" concerning the noise and light problems that we are experiencing from the new Jordans complex. The meeting took place at the home of Bill and Lorraine Toppi at Carnation Circle, which has the most adverse view of the new complex. At this time members explained our problem and asked for your assistance and that of the other selectmen to resolve this matter. We explained-that this problem has greatly affected the quality of life and property values at Greenhouse Acres. On behalf of the Trustees and Committee, I wish to thank you for taking your personal time to come and listen to our problem. Your interest, attention and support are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Si rel , chard A. Nazz ro President Massachusetts W-W - - Interlocal Insurance Association December 15, 2004 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 1 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter, N !3 ca C-31 w We are pleased to inform you that your application for a M11A Loss Control Grant has been approved for the following items and amounts. Development of a roof inspection program - $2000 Hands on Driver Training - $500 Total grant award= $2500 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, 2005, Please contact myself or Mary Ann Marino if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ffr y J. Siena Loss Control Manager (iIC 60 Temple Place, Boston, MA 02111 (617) 426-7272 or 800 882-1498 Facsimile (617) 426-9546 Sh An Interlocal Service of the Massachusetts Municipal Association SAMPLE PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jeffrey J. Siena MIIA Phone: 617-426-7272 (259) Town Awarded Grant from MIIA Loss Control Grant Program Boston, MA - December 17, 2004 The Town of has received a grant of (Amount) awarded for (purpose of grant) to aid in its loss control efforts. Forty- eight communities, members of the Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA), were awarded grants through a competitive selection process conducted by the MIIA Loss Control Department. The grant program was instituted by MIIA to assist its member municipalities in funding their loss control programs. The MIIA Loss Control Grant Program, now in its fifth year, awards financial grants on an annual basis to members who successfully meet certain criteria set by MIIA's Loss Control Department. Awards are based on need and potential maximum benefit as well as a history, of cooperation with MIIA's Loss Control Department. MIIA Loss Control Manager, Jeffrey Siena, sees the MIIA loss control grant program as another way for MIIA to reach out and help its members to help themselves. "We hope communities will see this as a tool which they can use to help them in their efforts to provide a safe and healthy environment for their employees and the public," said Siena. MIIA is the non-profit insurance arm of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. For more information about MIIA's Loss Control Grant program contact Jeffrey Siena at 617- 426-7272 (ext. 259) 81, z- L/C 6o 0 DEC 21 PH P 16 December 16, 2004 Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, Ma. 01867 Dear Mr. Heckenbleikner, It is unusual in this day of computers and automatic answering machines to be able to make personal contact with a town official. I am grateful that Reading has not yet created this monster and that you were readily available to hear my concerns I would like to thank you for your consideration and help in having some of the excess signs in front of my home on Willow Street removed. I understand that signs have to be erected to warn drivers that no horns are blown at the rail road crossing. However, I did not see the need for the many that were there. After speaking to you on the telephone I was sure that my concerns would be put aside. I was pleasantly surprised to be contacted by Officer Tom Murphy. He advised me that he would look into the matter and subsequently, signs were removed. Willow Street has changed significantly in the 27 years that I have lived here. It is much more heavily traveled and is now a short cut for trucks, buses and cars heading for routes 93 and 95. The speed at which they travel is mind boggling. The bump at the rail road crossing has been used as a jump ramp by many. I have witnessed the results of many accidents here. Families now own multiple vehicles, some of which are overflowing into the sidewalks and streets for parking. My little home in the suburbs has been citified It was this concern that prompted my contact with you. I am grateful for your prompt attention. Sincerely, r: Andrea Chase 47 Willow Street Reading, Ma. 04867 CC: Tom Murphy, Reading Police Dept. gi I m ~ " m David P. Driscoll Commissioner of Education TO: FROM: RE: DATE: M y •o p1a~ Yy ~~v IK w~ 9 0 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-5023 Telephone: (781) 338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370 MEMORANDUM Superintendents Mayors and Boards of Selectmen David P. Driscoll, Commissioner of Educatio fly Compliance With Spending Requirements, FY04 and FY05 December 13, 2004 ns 8 c~ C-1) v Go As you know, the Commonwealth's school finance statute, Chapter 70 of the General Laws, establishes an annual minimum local contribution requirement for each Massachusetts school district. -This local contribution, when added to a district's Chapter 70 aid, equals its "net school spending requirement." Failure to comply with this requirement may result in non-approval of a municipality's tax rate, enforcement action by the Attorney General, or loss of state aid. The Department of Education reviews and analyzes the information submifted annually on each school district's End-of-Year Pupil and Financial Report, to determine whether minimum local contributions and net school spending requirements for the prior and current years have been met. Each district's compliance reports are being released to its school and municipal officials once the Department's review of its data has been completed The Department's preliminary findings regarding your district's compliance with the requirements for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are shown on the attached "Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance" sheets. Compliance with net school spending is also reported and periodically updated on our web site: htto://financeI doe.mass.edu/chaoter70/chapter 04 comolv.htmi. There was no professional development spending requirement in FY04 or FY05. The Section 241 maintenance spending requirement does remain in effect. Districts will receive guidance from the new School Building Authority as to how that requirement will be handled under the new SBA law. If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Roger Hatch in the School Finance unit at (781) 338-6527 (rhatch an.doe.mass. edu). -Thank you for your continuing support and cooperation as we work together to improve educational opportunities for all Massachusetts public school students. Enc: ?TI 12/14/2004 Massachusetts Department of Education Office of School Finance Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance, FY04 246 READING School Committee City/Town Total 1 Administration (1000) 2 Instruction (2000) . 3 Attendance-Health (3100, 3200) 4 Food Services (3400) 5 Athletics/Student Activities/Security (3500,3600) 6 Maintenance (4000) 7 Employee Benefits (5100) 8 Insurance (5200) 9 Retired Employee Insurance (5250) 10 Rentals (5300) 11 Short Tenn Interest (5400) 12 Tuition (9000) 13 Total School Spending (lines 1 through 12) 14 School Revenues 14a) FY04 School Revenues 14b) FY04 Circuit Breaker Reimbursement 14c) FY04 Charter Reimbursement Subtotal, School Revenues (14a+14b+14c) 15 FY04 Net School Spending (13 minus 14) 16 FY04 Chapter 70 Required Net School Spending 17 Carryover from FY03 18 Total FY04 Net School Spending Requirement (16 + 17) 19 Shortfall in Net School Spending (18 minus 15) 20 Carryover/Penalty Calculation, Percent Unexpended (19 / 16) 21 FY04 Carry-Over into FY05 (Line 19 or 5% of line 16) 22 Penalty (19 minus 21) 560,573 20,780,724 241,247 0 554,468 3,068,598 0 0 0 0 0 2,929,036 28,134,646 20,000 622,144 0 642,144 236,328 0 :r- 5,200 * 0 142,477 610,114 2,508,317 917;438 0* 0 16,408 4,436,282 0 0 x,069 3,069 * Budgeted amounts as reported on FY03 End of Year Pupil and Financial Report, Schedule 19 796,901 20,780,724 246,447 0 554,468 3,211,075 610,114 2,508,317 917,438 0 0 2,945,444 32,570,928 20,000 0 3,069 645,213 31,925,715 27,738,874 0 27,738,874 0 0.00% 0 0 ~Z Massachusetts Department of Education Office of School Finance 12/14/2004 Chapter 70 Net School Spending Compliance, Budgeted FY05 School 246 READING Committee City/Town Total 1 Administration (1000) 700,564 258,144 958,708 2 Instruction (2000) 22,427,485 0 22,427,485 3 Attendance-Health (3100, 3200) 296,744 0 296,744 4 Food Services (3400) 0 0 5 Athletics/Student Activities/Security(3500, 3600) 562,462 0 562,462 6 Maintenance (4000) 2,940,282 192,966 3,133,248 7 Employee Benefits (5100) 0 656,375 656,375 8 Insurance (5200) 0 2,928,126 2,928,126 9 Retired Employee Insurance (5250) 0 989,391 989,391 10 Rentals (5300) 0 0 0 11 Short Tenn Interest (5400) 0 0 0 12 Tuition (9000) 3,763,363 16,087 3,779,450 13 FY05 Budgeted School Spending (lines 1 through 12) 30,690,900 5,041,089 35,731,989 14 FY05 Budgeted School Revenues 14a) FY05 Budgeted School Revenues 18,000 0 18,000 14b) FY05 Circuit Brealcer Reimbursement 1,107,402 0 1,107,402 14c) FY05 Charter Reimbursement 0 4,407 4,407 Subtotal, Net School Spending Revenues (14a+14b+14c) 1,129,809 15 FY05 Net School Spending (13 minus 14) 34,602,179 16 FY05 Chapter 70 Required Net School Spending 28,293,482 17 Carryover from FY04 0 18 Total FY05 Requirement (16 + 17) 28,293,482 19 Shortfall in Budgeted FY05 Net School Spending (18 - 15) 0 20 Carryover/Penalty Calculation, Percent Unexpended (19 / 16) 0.00% ~S3 V I fv C l 11 ~ 0 t 4gw 1 tic W C _ P I ue C. Town of Reading, Massachusetts General Fund Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending November 30, 2004 Actual Variance Prior Year Current Year Favorable % Actual to Actual Over (Under) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Year to Date Prior Year Revenues: Property taxes: Current 41,859,706 20,606,166 (21,253,540) 49.23% 18,517,244 2,088,922 Delinquent 56,425 56,425 104,809 (48,384) Deferred 3,935 (3,935) Tax liens 58,354 58,354 113,340 (54,986) Payments in lieu of taxes 230,000 22,585 (207,415) 9.82% 63,030 (40,445) Excise taxes 2,700,000 462,877 (2,237,123) 17.14% 355,954 106,923 Penalties on taxes and excise 160,000 58,127 (101,873) 36.33% 52,278 5,849 Charges for services 1,360,000 581,629 (778,371) 42.77% 475,165 106,464 Licenses and permits 60,000 33,021 (26,979) 55.04% 34,070 (1,049) Special assessment 5,000 289 (4,711) 5.78% 289 Fines 130,000 48,763 (81,237) 37.51% 35,507 13,256 Investment income: Unrestricted 525,000 340,626 (184,374) 64.88% 127,437 213,189 Stabilization fund 1,016 1,016 1,016 Intergovernmental: Medicaid reimbursement 75,000 (75,000) State aid 11,617,950 2,596,309 (9,021,641) 22.35% 2,441,766 154,543 Other 3,734 (3,734) Total revenues 58,722,656 24,866,187 (33,856,469) 42.35% 22,328,269 2,537,918 Operating transfers and available funds: Cemetery sale of lots 47,737 47,737 100.00% 10,000 37,737 Sale of real estate funds 300,000 300,000 300,000 Reading Ice Arena Authority 107,256 107,256 100.00% 116,074 (8,818) Earnings distribution - light 1,894,829 947,415 (947,414) 50.00% 913,031 34,384 Abatement surplus 94,674 94,674 100.00% 201,820 (107,146) Reserved for debt service 150,000 (150,000) Certified "free cash" 1,203,000 1,203,000 1,203,000 Total operating transfers and available funds 3,647,496 2,700,082 (947,414) 74.03% 1,390,925 1,309,157 Total revenues and other resources 62,370,152 27,566,269 (34,803,883) 44.20% 23,719,194 3,847,075 411 Town of Reading, Massachusetts Enterprise Funds Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending November 30, 2004 Variance Favorable % Actual to Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Water Fund Revenues: Charges for services 2,889,732 1,240,393 (1,649,339) 42.92% Earnings on investments 20,000 8,892 (11,108) 44.46% Water main (Johnson Woods) 187,000 187,000 MWRA buy-in (Walker Brook) 202,000 202,000 Total revenues 2,909,732 1,638,285 (1,271,447) 56.30% Operating transfers and available funds: Water surplus Total revenues and other resources 2,909,732 1,638,285 (1,271,447) 56.30% Sewer Fund Revenues: Charges for services 4,046,823 1,415,716 (2,631,107) 34.98% Earnings on investments 10,000 18 (9,982) 0.18% Special assessments 10,000 5,587 (4,413) 55.87% Reimbursement Total revenues 4,066,823 1,421,321 (2,645,502) 34.95% Operating transfers and available funds: Sewer surplus Total revenues and other resources 4,066,823 1,421,321 (2,645,502) 34.95% G b(c TRACKING OF LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2005 Monthly Hours $ Month Monthly Monthly Hours Cumulative Available Monthly Monthlv Cumulative Available Hours Hours Used vs Remainder I I Cost Remainder Allocated Used Allocated of 1/2 vear Allocated Used Year July 83.5 73.4 (10.10) (10.10) 427.6 $9,583 $9,548 $9,548 $100,702 August 83.5 86.6 3.10 (7.00) 341 $9,583 $11,321 $20,869 $89,381 September 83.5 86.8 3.30 (3.70) 254.2 $9,583 $10,696 $31,565 $78,685 October 83.5 75.4 (8.10) (11.80) 178.8 $9,583 $9,197 $40,762 $69,488 November 83.5 (11.80) 178.8 $9,583 $40,762 $69,488 December 83.5 (11.80) 178.8 $9,583 $40,762 $69,488 501 322.2 $57,498 $40,762 January 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 February 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 March 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 April 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 May 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 June 83.5 (11.80) 500 $9,583 $40,762 $74,234 Subtotal 501 0 $57,498 $0 Total 1002. 322.2 -11.8 $114,996 $40,762 $74,234 OFRE Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 3s'1NCOR4d¢ L' C ;4 FAX: (781) 942 - 5441 RECREATION DIVISION: (781) 942 - 9075 FOR IMAIEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: John Feudo, Recreation Administrator Recreation Division (781) 942-9075 jfeudo@d.reading.ma.us Announcements from the Reading Recreation Division for the week of 12/21/04. TOWN SKATING RINKS SET TO OPEN FOR FREE SKATING AFTER NEW YEAR The Reading Recreation Division is pleased to announce that the Skating kinks at Sturges Park and Memorial Park will be opening after the New Year- we are just waiting on the frigid weather. These rinks are open to the public. Each park will be illuminated from 5 - 9:30 PM each night until the end of the winter. So grab your skates and come on down. Parents are encouraged to accompany younger children to the rink. The Town of Reading would like to inform the public that Castine Field will not be re-filled for skating this winter due to storm drainage work as port of the High School construction project including replacement of a major storm water culvert in the Birch Meadow complex. We would like to remind you to always be cautious when ice-skating. Here are a few tips: • First, always remember that ice-covered water is never completely safe. • Always go out with friends and let others know when you will be on the ice and when you will return. If possible, take with you a cellular phone wrapped in a plastic bag. • Understand wind chill factors are relative temperature guides. Although a thermometer may read 40 degrees, a wind speed of 20 miles per hour can cause a body to lose heat as if the temperature were actually 18 degrees. • Carry a whistle or other noisemaker to alert people if you are in distress. • Dress in layers and add extra clothing for the head, neck, sides, and groin, which are the primary heat-loss areas. Wool and modern synthetics are recommended as good fabric choices for clothing; cotton when wet is slow to dry. ~NI Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Frederick Van Magness [vanmagness@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:48 AM To: Peter Hechenbleikner (E-mail); rsilva@ci.reading.ma.us Subject: Community Access Stickers Recall I had asked you to look into using exterior applied stickers for community access last year, but it was too late as the 2004 stickers were already on hand. I had the opportunity to go to the Police Station this weekend and procure my 2005 Community Access Sticker. I was extremely pleased to see that the sticker has been revised to an "exterior affixed" sticker vs. the old "interior" ones. This is a significant step forward and terrific follow-up. The stickers look terrific on the vehicle and are very visible. As an aside, in late November, while using the compost center, I was stopped by the attendant for not having a valid sticker.... which was in error.... but because of the dark tinting on the auto glass, the attendant really could not see my valid 2004 sticker unless they were within 6 inches of the window. I was very glad that the attendant was doing their job and I had absolutely no issue with their inquiry. For 2005, it will be very easy for attendants to ensure that all who use the compost center have a valid decal AFFIXED. It should also be so much better for parking enforcement at the depot. Congratulations and thanks for a small but significant step forward. Have a happy holiday season and a great 2005. Fred Frederick Van Magness gol 1 Page 1 of 2 t,C Hechenbleikner, Peter From: CnJ4@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:47 PM To: Bob. Frey@state. ma. us; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; rick _schubert@harvard.edu; canthony@cdmtitle.com; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n- bruen@comcast.net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; RNRchambercom@aol.com; rep.caroldonovan@hou.state.ma.us; rep. mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern @senate. state. ma. us; rep. bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; george@northsuburbanchamber.com; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; Elizabeth.Lintner@state.ma.us; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; sueandmikes@comcast.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com Cc: carla.beaudoin@hou.state. ma.us; jblaustein@mapc.org; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; dcooke@vhb.com; cdame@rcn.com; ddizoglio@mbta.corh; mdraisen@mapc.org; Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rnorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; town manager@ci.read ing.ma.us; blucas@mapc.org; Lauren. Mau riello@state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; bschwartz@louisberger.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us Subject: Evaluation Criteria Bob, Attached is a slightly revised document I wrote entitled, "193/95 Interchange Tech Brief: Evaluation Criteria." I am submitting it for your consideration regarding the discussion on Evaluation Criteria, scheduled for the Task Force meeting during December 8, 2004. This document and the one I distributed during the Task Force meeting of October 27, 2004 address very basic questions regarding the role of the interchange on accidents and congestions. (The document distributed on October 27 is entitled, "193/95 Interchange Tech Brief: Interchange Performance Requirements.") The two basic questions are: (1) How many accidents in the interchange are too many and how do you know? (2) How much congestion created by the interchange itself is unacceptable relative to congestion found in connecting roadways? So far, you have not explicitly addressed these questions and the two documents referenced above. Why not?? If these questions and documents are in error, then please so state. If you have something better, then let's hear from you...in writing. If you don't plan on using this submitted material, then please exercise some honesty and say so. Please don't seek refuge behind some arbitrary rule that says it's not necessary to respond in writing relative to questions submitted during a planning study, as opposed to an engineering study. I have earned the right to hear from you...in writing. Bob, it's time to have this out... During the meeting of the Data Subcommittee last week, I raised a question about interchange performance requirements as specified by your Highway Design Manual. Bill Schwartz replied, "When all the information is obtained, conditions will be properly analyzed." (quote taken from minutes of that 12/15/2004 F19 I Page 2 of 2 meeting). My response to that is, "What information to answer which questions?" Or will you back fill your way into basic questions depending on how you luck out with data? I have participated in and have lead feasibility studies and field operational tests on transportation safety. It is customary to begin these projects with a basic set of questions that the study should address. The omission of basic questions is utterly wrong and diminishes the value of this feasibility study. Allow me to summarize matters this way. It seems that you are trying to sell us a house (i.e., solutions), but are doing your best to slide past that homeowner inspection report (i.e., current conditions). Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com gloz. 12/15/2004 193/95 Interchange Tech Brief: Evaluation Criteria November 15, 2004 (Revision #1, November 29; 20041; additions W ltbUted in yellow) This Tech Brief addresses evaluation criteria related to current conditions, namely traffic operations and safety. The evaluation criterion under Traffic Operations, Current Conditions, is based in part on the use of the Highway Design Manual by Mass Highway. According to this Manual, In Chapter 1, Section 1. 1, "This chapter specifies the process used to develop highway design construction projects in Massachusetts. The process is applicable to all hiahwav construction plans developed by the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), consultants or municipal personnel and to all projects, which are funded with federal, state and/or municipal funds." (Underlining here and below is mine). Since the Request for Response was issued nearly a year ago, this manual was never referenced in any official document from Mass Highway or the Louis Berger Group (e.g., their proposal or modified statement of work). Why was this manual never referenced? Its use in all projects provides the state some measure of protection from liability in the event something tragically occurs in a resulting project. Why are you subjecting the state to liability exposure by not referencing it? (i.e., not a career-building move) In the event that a construction project results from this second feasibility study, do you honestly think that any contractor, in or out of his/her right mind, would sign up to such a contract without the minimum legal protection afforded by the Highway Design Manual? I suggest that you add a modification to the Louis Berger Contract to explicitly reference the Highway Design Manual by the Massachusetts Highway Department and that you will abide by all its provisions. According to your Highway Design Manual, Introduction, Box 13, "All continents received must be addressed during the development project. All written comments must be responded to in writing." I understand that the response time is 30 days. Since my participation on the Task Force, you have not responded in writing to me regarding any issue I raised. Maybe I would stop repeating the same questions if you answered them (i.e., a criticism about me in the minutes from the last Task Force meeting). You could start by responding in writing to this Tech Brief and also responding to my handout from the Task Force meeting on October 27, 2004. Thank you. I would like a thorough discussion on the above issues and the following criteria at the next Task Force meeting during November, 17, 2004. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, CURRENT CONDITIONS Criterion # I based on the Hisrhwav Design Manual. Mass Hiahwav: "The interchange should operate at an acceptable level of service. It is desirable for the level of service of each interchange element to be as good as the level of service provided on the basic freeway section. Interchanae elements should not overate at more than one level of service below that of the basic freewav section." My comment: if it cannot be quantitatively demonstrated that the interchange g P3 level of service performance is consistently more that one level of service worse than connecting highways, then there is no requirement for solutions addressing congestion mitigation. This evaluation criterion is taken from the Highway Design Manual by Mass Highway, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1, Capacity and Level of Service. As such, its inclusion in the evaluation criteria is mandatory and is not governed by Task Force consensus. Criterion # 2 based on the Federal Hiahwav Administration (FHWA): "The FHWA requirements are referenced to revised access points. These involve changes of an interchange configuration, which could mean, for example, converting a cloverleaf interchange into a fully directional interchange. These requirements are applicable to new or revised access points to existing interstate facilities regardless of original construction funding or the funding for the new access points." [Page PRD 1-4]. A FHWA reauirement is that the "existing svstem is incapable of accommodating traffic and that the existing interchanges.... can neither provide the necessary access nor be improved to satisfactorily accommodate design vear traffic demands... "[Page PRD 1-1]. Delegation of authority for approval of access requests on interstate highways is given the FHWA headquarters in Washington, DC [Page PRD 1-5]." Reference: The Interchange Handbook, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Statewide District Interchange, Review Committee, December 2002. This evaluation criterion is required by the Federal Highway Administration. As such, its inclusion in the evaluation criteria is mandatory and is not governed by Task Force consensus. SAFETY, CURRENT CONDITIONS Criterion # 3 based on Common Sense: The number of accidents, their locations, and severity (fatalities, injuries, property damage) for the I93/95 interchange shall be compared to at least six other comparable clover leaf interchanges with similar average annual daily traffic (AADT) and total annual vehicular delay time for a period of at least three years. It must be shown that the I93/95 interchange has significantly higher accident/severity than other similar interchanges. This can be accomplished with well known elementary methods of statistical significance. This criterion addresses the notion of recording crash data according to location of crashes to establish so called "hot spots." This notion of "hot spots" invites the question, "How hot relative to what?" This evaluation criterion is based on the common sense notion that one compares similar entities and does not fall prey to the comparison of "apples and oranges. " It is presumed that common sense is allowed under the dictates of consensus. Criterion # 4 based on Simple Mathematical Analysis: According to the highway Design Manual by the Massachusetts HighwayDeparthnent, "A rnininrr.mr of the latest three years of crash data is required for calculation of crash rates, analysis of trends, and documentation of probable causes." A nronient's reflection will reveal the likely difficulty in establishing crash data trends based on only three years. The number of years of crash data required will depend on the data itself. Certainly, three years is insufficient. Anatogv: When this second feasibility study is finished, you (i. e., Mass Hightit oy) ivill huve spent at least $IMdollars. kVould you (i e , Mgss Highway) invest $IMin a mutual fund with o(lly lhree years ofperformance data? giN GLOBAL LEVEL EVALUTION CRITERIA. Criterion # 5 based on Criterion #1- #4 Mass Highway and the Louis Berger Group must simultaneously satisfy all four criterion stated above. If they fail in that regard, they will not have adequately quantified current conditions. If this is the case, there is no need to waste their time, our time and the taxpayer's money in the pursuit of "solutions." Further, there is no need to continue this second feasibility study. Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:11 PM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Donovan, Carol; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Judge, George; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Lintner, Elizabeth; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Beaudoin, Carla; Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Lucas, Barbara; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Van Magness, Frederick Subject: 1-93/1-95: meeting and website < U ITF 2004 11-17 DSC 2004 12-01 Draft ITF summary.doc summary.doc around Rules.doc Hello again Task Force Members: Just a reminder for tomorrow's meeting of the I-93/I-95 Interchange Task Force: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM Shamrock Elementary School Green Street Woburn Last week we sent all of you the agenda and evaluation criteria form. Today we have for you three documents: * summary of the last ITF meeting (11/17) * summary of the traffic data subcommittee meeting (12/1) * composite list of ITF Ground Rules discussed at the last meeting We will cover all of these at tomorrow's meeting. «ITF 2004 11-17 summary.doc>> <<DSC 2004 12-01 summary.doc>> <<Draft ITF Ground Rules.doc>> And last but not least: THE WEBSITE IS NOW AVAILABLE ! VISIT www.9395info.com <http://www.9395info.com> Please bring your calendar/date books so we can schedule future meetings. See you tomorrow in Woburn. 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 qo 01 1 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study Task Force Meeting Wednesday, November 17, 2004 4:30 PM Reading Senior Center Reading, Massachusetts Attendance Task Force Members and Public who signed in: Paul Medeiros Colleen O'Shaugh John Pack Sandy Pendergast Bill Rounds Melissa Russell Rick Schubert Woburn City Councilor nessy Resident (Public) Resident (Public) Advancian Realty (Public) Resident (Public) Reading Advocate Reading Selectman Albert Anetil Carla Beaudoin Darlene Bruen Mary Burggraff Don Cooke Jay Corey John Curran Jeff Everson Eileen Hamblin George Katsoufis Anthony Kennedy Elizabeth Lintner Kathy MacDonald Lauren Mauriello Summit Towers (Public) Rep. Carol Donovan Woburn Citizen Rep. Brad Jones Consultant to Woburn Woburn City Engineer Mayor of Woburn PRESERVE Board of Realtors Reading Citizen Stoneham Selectman MassRIDES Commuter (Public) Sen. Richard Tisei Suzanne Smith Stoneham Citizen Paul Sodano Stoneham Chamber of Comm. Bob Soli PRESERVE (Public) Richard Stinson Wakefield DPW Director Richard Svirsky Advancian Realty (Public) Bill Webster THAG Steve Woelfel MBTA MassHighway staff: Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager Adriel Edwards Planning Consultant team: Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager) Bill Schwartz Louis Berger Group (Planning) Rick Azzalina - Louis Berger Group (Engineering) Kathy Stein Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation/Facilitator) Anne McKinnon Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation) MeetinLy Summarv Welcome and Introductions Bob Frey opened the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study meeting, welcomed members of the press and the public, and led introductions. In accordance with MassHighway's policy of a fair and open study process, all Task Force meetings are open to the public, but agenda items are discussed first with Task Force members. Bob reminded everyone that there would be numerous opportunities for public input, adding that the first Public Forum will be in the early spring, although no date has been set yet. The project web site will be available soon and will be accessible at littD://www.9395info.com. SqOL' Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of November 17, 2004 Bob said that after discussions with the consultant team, he proposed changing the meeting agenda to focus more on the study process, purpose, and ground rules and to defer the detailed review of the data collection effort and revised strategic partnership plan for another time. There were no objections to the revised agenda. Bob announced that Kathy Stein would moderate discussions of the agenda items (for this meeting and future ITF meetings) given her expertise in facilitation, and then invited Kathy to lead the first discussion. Review of ITT members' Lroals Kathy Stein led the discussion of a) why each ITF member is here; b) what each ITF member hopes to accomplish; and c) how each thinks the process is going so far. • Paul Sodano said he is here representing the business community and others to try to ensure that whatever plans are developed are sensitive to the areas surrounding the interchange. • Paul Medeiros said he represents the interchange area on the Woburn City Council and hopes to help minimize impacts on abutting areas. He said it is too early to comment on the process. • Carla Beaudoin said State Representative Carol Donovan represents all three communities and her goal is to maximize the positive impacts of whatever is done at the interchange. • Richard Stinson said he is representing Wakefield and wants to see the best possible project happen. • Rick Schubert said he is here representing Reading homeowners and others, including those that live near the interchange. He said he wants to see an open and objective process, clearly defined problems with supporting data before any solution is proposed, no negative impacts, and no benefits to one community at the expense of another. His other concern is eminent domain. • George Katsoufis said he represents the citizens of Reading and concurs with Rick Schubert. He added that he hopes to build awareness of regional problems and hopes the study process will develop criteria and guidelines with the Task Force so they will be realistic and responsive. • As a member of the consultant team, Rick Azzalina said he is here to see that the job is well done and every voice is heard, so that any recommendations that come out of the study are credible. • Lauren Mauriello said State Senator Tisei represents the area and wants to ensure that impacts are minimized. This was her first meeting and she declined to comment on the process to-date. • Mary Burggraff said Representative Brad Jones' goals are to ensure that there is informed decision making and to keep abreast of all activities. Their office communicates regularly with constituents and will encourage them to attend the Public Forums. Minimizing impacts on the community and housing is important, as is the concern about eminent domain. • Bill Schwartz said that as a member of the consultant team, he wants to present the information in such a way that it is understandable to everyone. He wants to help people understand how proposed solutions address the identified problems. • As project manager, Jim Purdy hopes to make the study's recommended solutions embody the Task Force's work and be responsive to the full range of concerns. Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of November 17, 2004 • Bob Frey hopes to continue the open and inclusive process that was began two years ago, and felt that good progress has been made so far in that regard. • Adriel Edwards, a planner with MassHighway, hopes some improvements can be made to the interchange, given its serious deficiencies. • Darlene Bruen said she is here to represent residents on Richard Circle and all the people who lost land when the interchange was built. She hopes that the process will result in a better solution than was implemented 50 years ago and stated that there is an opportunity to do something different to address problems. Eminent domain is a concern to Darlene. • Bill Webster said he represents THAG. He hopes to help protect property rights and ensure a fair and open process that starts with defining the problem properly and presenting things fairly to the community. • Anne McKinnon said that as a member of the consultant team, she hopes to ensure that everyone's voice is heard throughout the process. • Eileen Hamblin is here to represent realtors and protect property rights. She said a well- designed process as outlined should work, but expressed concern that there is sometimes a lack of respect among Task Force members and that exchange of views needs to be less adversarial. • Susan Smith said she is here as a concerned resident and hopes to help protect other residents and property values. • Tony Kennedy is here as a Stoneham Selectman who lives one-quarter mile from the interchange. He hopes to ensure that the study pays attention to the neighborhood that abuts the interchange in terms of eminent domain, real estate values, and noise impacts. He wants to use a group process to work on solutions. • Jay Corey said that as an engineer, he would have an objective approach throughout the process. He fully understands the need for transportation facilities and will advise the Mayor and the city council on the potential socio-economic impacts of alternatives. • Elizabeth Lintner said that MassRIDES is an organization that provides commuters with commute options, such as ridesharing and vanpooling. She is here to offer MassRIDES' services and outreach channels to promote ridesharing through the interchange. She said the process so far is allowing voices to be heard. • Jeff Everson said he survived the 2002 interchange design process and represents PRESERVE. He has a number of concerns with technical issues in the study methodology and wants to see a technically honest product. • Steve Woelfel represents the MBTA Planning Department and will provide input on transit options. Discussion of "Ground Rules" Kathy Stein described the value of establishing "ground rules" for the ITF. Ground rules help clarify and cement what participants should expect of each other in the Task Force setting and what to expect of the Task Force as a whole. She gave some examples such as starting and ending on time and getting input from everyone at important junctures. She then opened the floor to suggestions from the Task force. The following were proposed: • Start and end on time. • Agree to follow the agenda. • Avoid making long speeches - commit to having a dialogue instead. Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of November 17, 2004 • Address each other respectfully. • Turn off cell phones and beepers. • Think win-win. • Avoid dwelling on the past - reference the past to learn from it. • Agree to disagree when necessary and move on. • Respect the opinions of all members as people bring different viewpoints. • Be willing to compromise to reach solutions. • Capture the major issues and accomplishments from one meeting to the next. • Use subcommittees as a way to work on issues. • Periodically dedicate time during ITF meetings to brainstorming to encourage creative thinking. • Maintain a list of open issues and address each issue when the information is available. • Include follow-up actions in list of open issues. Keep ITF members informed of status of open/closed issues. Kathy added that successful groups view themselves as working against a common problem and not against each other. She said these ground rules would be brought to every Task Force meeting for reference. Review of Plannine Studv Decision Process Jim Purdy reviewed the decision-making process for this study. As project manager, Jim is responsible for gathering input from the Task Force and the public and incorporating it as best as possible. The Executive Office of Transportation and MassHighway will make the decisions for the study, but they are committed to soliciting ITF and public input and giving that input careful consideration throughout the process. Jim Purdy reviewed the overall planning process that will be followed in this study. He said the Task Force is currently establishing the goals and objectives of the study. Next they will decide on how alternatives will be evaluated with respect to the established goals. Meanwhile, data is being collected to help understand the interchange and all the issues. Once the issues are understood, the Task Force will convene in a Design Workshop and develop alternatives. These alternatives will be screened using the established evaluation criteria and the alternatives that remain will be analyzed in detail. Finally, the recommended alternative(s) will be reviewed through the ITF and public process and incorporated into the final report on the entire study. Jim Purdy reviewed the typical process of planning, designing, and constructing a highway project. Step 1. Planning-Where we are now. This step will take about 18 months and the level of design will be "conceptual." Step 2. Engineering feasibility and state and/or federal environmental review -This more detailed analysis could take an additional 12-18 months and the level of design would be between 5% and 10% complete. Step 3. Preliminary engineering-This marks the first intensive design stage. This step could take 12-24 months and the design at the end would be 25% complete. Step 4. Final design-This stage could take 12-18 months and would result in 100% design plans. Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 gyp I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of November 17, 2004 Step 5. Construction-If construction is needed, the duration depends on the magnitude of the work. Here, given the amount of traffic that needs to be accommodated during construction, two years for substantial construction would probably be the minimum. Overall, it will take several years to implement "build" solutions. Rick Schubert asked where "defining the problem" would fall in the sequence. Jim Purdy said it would be under the "data analysis and issues" step. Jeff Everson asked at what level of design this project would be at the conclusion of this study. Jim Purdy said this effort is a planning study, not a design process, so at the end of this study, the project will be at zero percent design. The next step, engineering feasibility, will address basic questions of buildability. Short-term Actions Bob Frey said that two Task Force members not present tonight had requested a discussion about short-term actions to improve operations and safety at the interchange. Bob Frey said MassHighway looked at some possible short-term actions (during the previous design study), but since the Task Force is still working to define the issues, it would be best to defer discussion of short-term actions until more is known. He added that possible short-term actions could include variable message signs and lane striping, but that he didn't think these would do enough to alleviate problems. He said short-term solutions will be part of this study but noted that MassHighway Commissioner John Cogliano stated that the study would be completed before any actions were undertaken. Jim Purdy noted that while there may be some relatively less capital- intensive solutions than interchange modification, such as adding a lane in the existing right-of- way, they would still require a number of years for environmental review and design. Review of Data Collection Bill Schwartz updated the Task Force on the data-collection efforts. All counts have been completed and all data from the MassHighway permanent count stations received. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) raised some questions that necessitated additional counts, which are being taken now. LBG is reading accident reports to identify the cause of crashes. Finally, LBG is working on the microsimulation model that will simulate traffic patterns at the interchange, just beyond the interchange, and on adjacent local roads. The model will simulate existing conditions so that potential improvements at the interchange can be tested to determine effectiveness and impacts. George Katsoufis asked if the model includes the assumption that Route 128 and Route I-93 would each have one more lane. What if these additional lanes are not built? Bob Frey said the model could be modified to include or exclude such projects. George Katsoufis suggested that this study test the impacts of a high level of transportation funding, medium level and low level. It was agreed to include this in the "open issues" list. Bill Schwartz reviewed how data would be used in the analysis. Traffic counts indicate volumes and types of vehicles on the mainline, ramps, and local streets. Travel time runs -during which CTPS staff clock the time it takes to drive through the interchange - help pinpoint where congestion is and provide a basis for estimating delay. These data will be used to look at changes in travel time or identify measures of delay (for recurring congestion). Incidents such as crashes certainly cause congestion when they occur. Although the number of incidents is related to the number of vehicles on the road, we can try to address recurring congestion more easily than incidents. Jeff Everson said data from the Texas Transportation Institute and MassHighway g49 Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of November 17, 2004 indicates that between 60 percent and 70 percent of congestion is caused by incidents-how will LBG analyze congestion if such a great percent of congestion is caused by incidents? Bill Schwartz agreed that this would need to be carefully studied. For freewav segments. LBG will identify how they operate and what factors affect them. The basic measure is passenger cars per hour per lane. For ramps, the weave area is most important. Influences on ramp operations include: the length of the segment, the number of lanes, ramp capacity, weaving and non- weaving split, the length of the merge and diverge areas (where traffic enters and leaves the mainline). Rick Schubert asked how CTPS distinguishes interchange problems and slow speeds from problems created by the mainline. Bob Frey said tests for this study consider these factors, as drivers doing the travel time runs use the middle or left lanes for that reason. Jeff Everson asked if traffic at the interchange is substantially worse than on the mainline and suggested that performance measures must be used to help determine this. Tony Kennedy asked if a solution could be multi-faceted; that is, could a solution include shifting people from cars to transit or other non-engineering solutions. Bill Schwartz said yes; this is about moving people using a variety of modes. Data Collection Subcommittee It was agreed that the Data Collection Subcommittee would meet on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, from 9 AM to 11 AM at Woburn City Hall in the basement conference room (later this meeting was rescheduled and held from 11 AM to 1 PM). Web site and noise measurements Jim Purdy said the website, httD://www.9395info.com. would hopefully be up by Thanksgiving (the start date for the website was delayed until early December). He asked if the Task Force would consent to posting a list of Task Force members and allow the public to e-mail members. It was agreed to post the Task Force roster only and to have all e-mail go to a central mailbox before it is disseminated to the individual Task Force members as blind cc's. Jim Purdy referred everyone to the handout showing the revised proposed noise measurement locations. Rick Schubert suggested moving location #3 on South Street closer to the acceleration lane; however, Bob Soli said noise during deceleration is worse. Jim Purdy suggested that the noise consultant review the proposed locations and use his judgment. It was agreed to suggest to the noise consultant that #3 be moved north, just south of West Street. Tony Kennedy said point #5 looks like it is at an earth berm and suggested moving it southwest. Jim Purdy agreed and said he would review these suggestions with the noise consultant and review general procedures. The measurements would be done sometime in the next few weeks for a period of 24 hours. Next Stens The next ITF meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 8, 4:30 PM, in Woburn at the Shamrock Elementary School on Green Street. The agenda will include: goals and objectives, evaluation criteria, preliminary data collection and safety analysis reports, and other miscellaneous items. The meeting ended at 6:30 PM. Office of Transportation Planning Page 6 of 6 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study Traffic Data Subcommittee Meeting Wednesday, December 1, 2004 11:00 AM Woburn City Hall Woburn, Massachusetts Attendance Subcommittee Members: Jay Corey Woburn City Engineer Jeff Everson PRESERVE Jim Gallagher MAPC Anthony Kennedy Stoneham Selectman Chris Reilly Reading Town Planner (in for Rick Schubert) MassHighway staff: Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager Adriel Edwards Planning Consultant team: Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager) Bill Schwartz Louis Berger Group (Planning) Sudhir Murthy Louis Berger Group (Modeling) Tom Stokes Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation) Others in Attendance: Don Cooke VHB - Consultant for City of Woburn John Curran Mayor of Woburn Ed Tarallo Woburn Planning Director Meetine Summarv Welcome and Introductions Bob Frey opened the meeting, welcomed everyone in attendance, and thanked Woburn for hosting the meeting. He explained that the Traffic Data Subcommittee meetings are intended as a forum to discuss the more technical aspects of the study and report back to the ITF. He reminded everyone of the ground rules and quickly reviewed the agenda. He then turned the meeting over to Bill Schwartz to discuss the status report on data items. Status Report on Data Items Bill Schwartz passed out two items: 1) A listing of all the locations of new manual turning counts (MTM) and automatic traffic recorder counts (ATR), and 2) A memorandum reviewing the status on each type of transportation data collected for the study. c Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 3 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 ITF Traffic Data Subcommittee Meeting of December 01, 2004 Jeff Everson brought up the issue of tube counts and their inability to detect incidents. Bill explained that in order to overcome this deficiency, they listened to traffic reports every ten minutes to make sure there were no incidents affecting traffic flow. They also augmented the tube counts with visual counts (members of their team watched traffic flow with a video camera in the vicinity of the interchange) as an added check. Jeff then asked whether the tubes were synchronized, saying that the counts would have to be timed properly in order for them to make any sense. Sudhir Murthy answered this question, saying that the tubes were all put out at approximately the same time on a Monday and retrieved at approximately the same time on a Friday. The tube count clocks are well synchronized. Bob explained further that the ramp counts were done first and the arterials were done the week following Columbus Day week. Jeff asked about the inaccuracy of tube counts in stop and go situations. Bill answered that this is one of the reasons they augmented the tube counts with manual visual counts. He said that in some instances, the tube counts were re-done if the numbers did not make sense, and in fact, they were waiting for the last set of recounts to come in before they could finalize the results. Bill then reviewed the differences between the regional model and the microsimulation model. He pointed to the map on the wall, which displayed the locations where intersection counts were taken. He cautioned it may be premature to include more intersection counts in the analysis, but he didn't want any important location left out. Therefore he was looking to the subcommittee to advise him on this. Tony asked about South and Border Street at Route 28 in Stoneham. Although that location was not on the map, it was determined based on the listing that it was in fact counted. Chris Reilly mentioned a location along Route 129 that is also already part of the counts. Don Cooke mentioned the list of locations VHB counted for Woburn as part of a DNC data collection effort. He suggested this list be used as a starting point and as a check against the locations LBG and MassHighway has already chosen. He also offered to share the results of the counts they collected before and during the DNC. This offer was well received. Bill then moved onto the next item in his memo - Traffic Observations. After a brief overview, he asked whether the subcommittee felt it would be valuable to take a tour of the interchange together via bus or van. A discussion followed and a number of questions were raised, such as logistics, when would be the best time to tour the interchange, and who would attend. Jay Corey offered Woburn City school buses if the tour were to occur when the buses were not needed and there was sufficient interest to warrant using a bus. In general, it was agreed that a tour would be educational and informative, but other ideas were broached as possibly simpler ways to achieve the same results. For example, a video could be made and possibly even posted on the web site. Adriel suggested that a fact sheet be compiled with the geometric features listed, and each member could tour the interchange on their own time using the fact sheet to watch for these features. It was agreed that these ideas would be given more thought. Bill then moved onto the next item in his memo - Travel Time Measurements. Jeff Everson reminded the committee that the Massachusetts Highway Design Manual requires that the interchange perform at least one level of service worse than the mainline in order for redesign to be considered. He asked how the level of service would be determined and demonstrated. He added that following the manual is a legal requirement - not optional, and questioned why it was Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 3 3qq Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 ITF Traffic Data Subcommittee Meeting of December 01, 2004 not mentioned before. Bill answered the first part of his question, saying that when all the information is obtained, conditions would be properly analyzed. Jim Purdy and Bob Frey answered the second part of his question explaining that this is a planning study, where design concepts are explored but not developed to such a level yet where the Design Manual specifications are the primary focus - that comes when and if a recommended project progresses to the design phase. However, the requirements in the Manual are always part of the considerations of any study with potential roadway improvements. Bill Schwartz added that even within the parameters of the design manual, there is tremendous flexibility with designs, and at this stage we should not limit our ideas. Bill then showed the results of the travel time measurements on large printouts of the interchange with the vehicle speeds represented. In most of the printouts, the speeds were much slower on the ramps of the interchange than on the adjoining links. In general, these maps were very useful in showing where slowdowns occurred. Bill then turned the discussion over to Sudhir, who gave an update on the microsimulation. Sudhir reviewed the difference between the high-level regional model and the detailed CORSIM microsimulation model, explaining that the results of one would provide feedback and a check against the other. He also explained the cooperation with CTPS and the progress being made. They are still in the process of collecting all the information they need for the microsimulation model and CTPS is doing various travel time runs on arterials such as Washington Street and Mishawum Road. Jeff Everson cautioned that CORSIM makes assumptions about the different types of vehicles on the road, i.e., what proportion are passenger vehicles versus trucks. These generic assumptions can have significant implications on the results, so he asked how we intend to check these assumptions and correct them for our special circumstances. Sudhir said they are still in the process of confirming the vehicle type proportions, and may do it with videotape. Jim Gallagher asked if CORSIM could simulate through traffic as its own lane. Bob answered yes - that anything geometrically realistic such as that can be modeled. Bill then turned the discussion to crash records and covered the information in his memo while showing a diagram of the interchange with the locations of the accidents pinpointed. He had various versions of this diagram; some showing the accidents just during the peak hours and some that displayed the type of accidents. It was clear that the majority of the accidents happened in the merge and weave areas. Bill then quickly covered the remaining items in his memo: transit characteristics, geometric features, and prior studies and reports. He asked if there were any prior studies or reports he should add to his list. There were no suggestions. Jay Corey asked about the resolution and dates of the aerial photographs used to examine the geometric features. He offered Wobunl's collection of aerial photographs, which he said are very recent, and has fine, '/4 pixel resolution. He also asked if someone from CTPS could come and talk to the subcommittee about the regional model and its capabilities. There was some interest in that and Bob will follow up. Other Business and Action Items Bob concluded the meeting and asked the committee how they would like to report to the ITF on this meeting. Various members of the committee said they would share their thoughts with the ITF at the next meeting on Wednesday, December 8, 2004. The meeting ended at 1:05 PM. J,lt'~ v Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 3 Printed: 12/13/2004 I-93/1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Draft Ground Rules for the Interchange Task Force* Guidance for ITF Meeting Particioation • Start and end on time. • Agree to follow the agenda. • Avoid making long speeches - commit to having a dialogue instead. • Address each other respectfully. • Turn off cell phones and beepers. • Think win-win. • Avoid dwelling on the past - reference the past to learn from it. • Agree to disagree when necessary and move on. • Respect the opinions of all members as people bring different viewpoints. • Be willing to compromise to reach solutions. Guidance for the Studv Process • Capture the major issues and accomplishments from one meeting to the next. • Use subcommittees as a way to work on issues. • Periodically dedicate time during ITF meetings to brainstorming to encourage creative thinking. • Maintain a list of open issues and address each issue when the information is available. • Include follow-up actions in list of open issues. Keep ITF members informed of status of open/closed issues. * Composite list of suggestions made at the 11/17/04 ITF meeting. Date Drafted: 12/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 Date Printed: 12/13/2004 34t it L / C 6-6f Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:27 PM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Donovan, Carol; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Judge, George; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Lintner, Elizabeth; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Beaudoin, Carla; Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Lucas, Barbara; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Van Magness, Frederick Subject: 1-93/1-95 crash slides on website Greetings Task Force Members: The crash data slides that Bill Schwartz presented at the last ITF meeting are now on the website. Some of you had requested this information be sent - now everyone can take a closer look at the diagrams if they wish. The file is under "Plans and Studies" of the Documents section of the site: www.9395info.com <http://www.9395info.com> Or just use this direct link: www.9395info.com/docs/2002%2OCrash%2OData%2OPresented%20on%2012%208%2004.ppt <http://www.9395info.com/docs/2002%2OCrash%2OData%2OPresented%20on%2012%208% 2004.ppt> NOTE: THESE ARE POWERPOINT SLIDES. IF YOU DON'T HAVE POWERPOINT SOFTWARE ON YOUR COMPUTER YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VIEW THEM YET. WE WILL POST PDF FILES OF THE SLIDES NEXT WEEK FOR ADOBE ACROBAT VIEWER. We will continue to post various materials to the site as they become available, and will let you know through e-mail notices. Look for some more review material early next month in preparation for the next ITF meeting. In the meantime, have a great holiday season and best wishes for a happy and healthy 2005... 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 R 1 L I C 944 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Billard, Dave Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:00 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Klepeis, Beth Subject: FW: Vince McGugan Letters to Governor & Attorney General -----Original Message----- From: Vince McGugan JSMTP:vince &goldhill-inc.coml <maiito:rSMTP:vince(&..aoidhill-inc.coml> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 6:05 AM To: Billard, Dave Subject: Vince McGugan-Letters to Governor & Attorney General 00 il IR ATT00008.html ReadinglettoGo ;rnor Romney 12 12.19.04 Dave, FYI: The attached letter and its equivalent have gone to Governor Romney and Attorney General Riley. It will also be circulated to many, many other people. This is just the beginning. Vince McGugan 1 Vincent J. McGugan 36 Arlington Road Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 617-731-0607 Governor Mitt Romney State House Office of the Governor Room 360 Bostori. lvl.A 02133) Dear Governor Romney: December 197 2004 I write you as your Harvard JD/MBA classmate and strong supporter to ask your urgent help in addressing a crisis affecting virtually all citizens of the Commonwealth that threatens our collective future and now current financial security-the outrageously excessive and out-of-control percentage increases in local taxes and fees in most of our Commonwealth towns, including in the Town of Reading, which I will use as my immediate example. Governor, you have been enormously effective in the most difficult process of beginning to restore fairness, integrity and decency to what has been viewed by most informed citizens as a very corrupt state/local government establishment. The citizens of Massachusetts trust you, and you have the expertise to both understand the true nature of our problems and business/organizational/legal experience to know what corrections and reforms must be made. Introduction The local town percentage tax increases are being confiscated from private citizen property owners by local Town officials through (in my opinion) abuse of both their taxing authority and the legal process. The funds confiscated from us are being largely applied to their own public sector compensation and benefits plans-at the expense of the ability of the private sector citizen to fund his own future benefits plans which in large part he/she must pay from his/her own pocket. The compensation and benefits programs of most towns far outstrips what a private citizen can get in the private sector-and have become seriously disproportionate to equivalent private sector plans. Moreover-and extremely troubling from a legal and ethical point of view--much of this is being done by local town officials effectively in secret despite public law to the contrary. This is because when even a highly experienced citizen like me tries to obtain factual information about the actions of senior local officials, the wall of resistance and stone-walling is enormous-in my case I have been trying to get critical information for years from Reading as a property owner and have received none. The most senior Town 5 V officials of Reading effectively have thumbed their noses at me assuming I would give up my request for facts underlying their taxation and spending allocation policies. They are wrong. The abuse of taxing authority by most Towns in the Commonwealth rivals the abuse of authority in the private sector exemplified by Enron and other horrendous examples of executive malfeasance. However, the total dollars of citizen precious capital and savings affected and confiscated by the abuses of local Town officials taxing authority-taken collectively-certainly rivals and probably exceeds the financial damage done to average families in cases such as Enron. The average citizen is seriously troubled by this, and knows something is seriously wrong. But the proper case has not been made to the public to crystallize their understanding of what is actually being done to them by their own local town public officials. This is about to change. This is because the problem of completely outrageous high percentage increases in the annual local property taxes being imposed unilaterally by towns in Massachusetts is now totally out-of-control and a serious threat to all Massachusetts citizens-as my experience with my own property in Reading will show. What is happening in the city of Boston is another example. There are many, many more. Please understand that I recognize there are many fine individuals who work as dedicated town and state employees. It is the policy political leadership with which I have serious problems. I write to ask you and your senior Commonwealth public sector executives to urgently take action to begin to turn the tide against this enormous abuse of power by our local officials. 1. The Specific Case of the Town of Reading My letter to you today is in the following context: The case of a very modest condo unit I own at 3-12 Summit Drive in Reading, MA, the wonderful elderly virtually retired widow (Mrs. Barbara Begley) who has lived in the unit for more than 20 years, and of a 28.6% increase proposed for the Town of Reading for FY `05 on my 450 sq. ft. condo. Prior to the '05 28.6% increase in my property tax by the Town of Reading, the property tax increases were 16.2% in '04 and 8.8% in '03. There have been no improvements to this condo unit in the entire time I have owned it. IIS5 2 I don't have to tell you that the CPI has been in the 1-2.5% per year range during this period, and that private sector incomes have either declined or been stagnant on average during this period. Here are my main issues, in brief: 2. No Notice/Failure of Due Process These tax increases were imposed on me in Reading without formal written notification to me in advance of imposition of the Town proposals for over-rides. This amounts to the unconstitutional taking of my property (money for the taxes) without due process-I had no chance to make any input on the issue of the proposed tax increases because I was never notified in advance of imposition of the tax increases and never received any written or other information by the Town on the increases proposed. I got the enormous resulting tax increases out-of-the-blue and notification of my huge tax increases after-the-fact-all amounting to an unconstitutional taking of my property without due process. I am a member of the bar and have taken constitutional law. I believe that the Town of Reading over-rides should be legally invalidated by the Commonwealth Attorney General (and I will write him to make this request and that he investigate) and the Town be forced to go through the process of fully and fairly informing in writing all of the property owners and citizens of Reading about their spending and taxation proposals in advance of any future over-ride proposal. As should all towns in the Commonwealth. 3. Totally Unresponsive/Secretive Senior Reading Town Officials Equally troubling is what I feel are the secretive and misleading actions of Town of Reading officials regarding these matters. In particular I include the Town Manager and head of Selectmen in this comment. I do not include the head assessor, who I believe has tried to be very reasonable but is under both marching orders from his bosses and subject to truly draconian Mass law imposed by the Mass legislature on these matters. I think the head assessor is a good man caught in a rotten system/predicament. Despite many attempts to obtain an accurate understanding of the facts leading to the enormous tax increases they proposed, and to obtain facts relating to where the money will be spent, particularly on compensation and benefits of Town of Reading employees, and relating to the internal financial controls of the Town of Reading, I have received nothing from these Town officials. Their arrogance is an indication that opening up their fiscal dealings to greater public scrutiny and "sunshine" could only help taxpayers such as me, and is long overdue. To make a long and painful story short, the Town Manager of Reading and the head of Selectmen have no interest in full and fair disclosure to me about how they arrived at their proposals for the over-rides and general tax increases, how they are allocated among resident property owners vs. absentee owners (like me-and the possibility of prejudice against non-resident owners in allocation of tax increases), who is getting tax increases and who is getting tax decreases, the facts regarding the tax increases of resident Town of Reading employees and other such fact questions. I have been able to obtain zero information about these matters from the Town Manager-despite he and his colleagues having imposed the greatest percentage tax increases on my little property and Mrs. Begley and me that I have ever seen in my 54 years as an owner of this property and my own Brookline home. 4. Confiscation of My Property What these Town of Reading officials are doing-and is being done by Town officials in many other Massachusetts towns-is effectively unconstitutionally confiscating my property-and that of many, many other Commonwealth property owners-year by year and tax increase-by-tax increase. Just take a survey of any community's retired homeowners and see how they feel about local tax increases over the past 10 years or so. The Baby Boomers are coming into retirement years in huge numbers. Our homes and properties are not businesses-they don't generate cash flow to pay the tax escalations that are so far outstripping both CPI and our incomes. This is not what America is all about. It is not about private citizens whose jobs are being outsourced, facing enormous medical and health cost increases, together with energy crisis cost increases, rapidly escalating insurance and food costs, all in the context of the after effects of one of the greatest stock market collapses in history and an unprecedented 9/11 terrorist attack. These and more events have set most Commonwealth citizens back a good deal. Yet the Town of Reading senior public officials want to keep on living the good life off the backs of very financially stressed property owners, covering the huge cost escalations in their excessive retirement/health benefits programs that most private citizens no longer have, enjoying their early retirement eligibility at 50 or 55 while we private citizens have to keep working until perhaps we are dead to pay for the enormous excesses and abuses by Town officials in spending and allocation of our precious and scarce citizen capital- most of which they are allocating to themselves/fellow Town employees in compensation and benefits packages. This is an outrageous and growing abuse of power by Town officials. 5. (Ab)use of a Combination of a Horrendous Local/state Legal and Regulatory Maze/process to Overwhelm and Crush Citizen Resistance to Local Property Tax and Fee Increases To make a long and another ugly story short that verges on corruption, self-dealing and conflict-of-interest abuse of public official fiduciary obligation, these same Town officials working with their State Legislature counterparts have created a legal/regulatory g5to a nightmare of a maze of forms, time limits, fees and requirements to fight their enormous and now routinely abused arbitrary power to unilaterally impose large disproportionate tax creases on our property at outrageous levels-increases that drop on taxpayer doorsteps typically just before and after Christmas each year with the devastating effect on citizen household finances of on of the military's 15,000 pound MOAB bombs--to redistribute ever increasing amounts of private citizen earnings and savings effectively to themselves. I won't go through the many, many outrageous ways this is done. I'll only mention one egregious and unconstitutional example: I have to pay about a $100 fee to the State to fight a property tax hearing at the State court (after having always been summarily denied abatement in informal hearings by local town officials that makes a mockery of due process and fairness). I have to give up my own time used to keep my one man business running in these tough times to fill out the paperwork, make appearances in court and so and pay the additional fee despite already paying very high local and state taxes-all the while the local Town of Reading (and other town's) officials are being paid by me to spend their time making it as difficult as they possibly can for me to get my tax increase reduced-and refusing to answer my information questions about Town of Reading finances. This is completely, utterly and totally an outrageous conflict-of-interest situation which leads to the Town of Reading usually crushing any attempt by most property owners to reduce their tax burden, unless in a rare case such as this one the taxpayer (me) has been so outraged over a period of years by Town behavior AND happens to have the legal and business know-how to mount both a legal fight and a public relations effort to expose the truth about what these Town officials are really doing to we taxpayers over time. Town officials are circumventing Proposition 2 %2 by (I would argue unconstitutionally) through use of both drastically escalating fees-which are nothing more than additional taxes-and the use of clever/deceptive devices such as reallocation of central Town overhead costs to private enterprise entities such as water and sewer, golf and others such as imposition of school fees for busing, athletics and more (thus they think circumventing the limits of Prop 2 %Z) to effectively increase the tax burden on citizens beyond the legal limits of Prop 2 '/Z and beyond the limits of decency, fairness, and good management practice. This is wrong. It is also inconsistent with your "no new taxes" election policy-though I understand that was in relation to state government. Some of the same abuses are evident at the state level, and I know you are examining them in an effort to correct abuse. 6. Confiscation of Private Property to Fund Unreasonable and Inflated 'Down Compensation benefits Programs Another ugly story. This whole effort by Town of Reading senior officials (and that of many other Towns) is in my opinion primarily designed to maintain a level of compensation and benefits relative to the private sector that is now dangerously inflated 5 past both the level of private sector equivalents AND the ability of most citizens to absorb on a cost basis since private citizens are now having to largely fund their own benefits costs and have not been able to increase their incomes significantly on average over the past 5 years of general financial crisis (the Boston Globe documented this a while back). I have gotten nowhere obtaining comprehensive and accurate details of the Town of Reading compensation and benefits plans and costs. Clearly the Town Manager and Head of Selectmen do not want me to have this information, which I have requested. This is supposed to be public information. I pay my taxes-I should get the information if I request it. I have not. Why would they not want me to have the compensation related information? They are public officials and are obligated to answer my reasonable questions as a taxpaying owner in the Town of Reading. This fact alone makes it critical and urgent to obtain independent outside review by competent legal authorities like your office, the Attorney General's office and if necessary, the Attorney General of the United States' office, to look into what is going on. The Town of Reading is spending an enormous amount of the savings and income of property owners of Reading. If you ask them, the Town tax bill is probably the top few single largest single expense items they have, and is escalating far more rapidly than inflation with little public disclosure of why and absolutely no disclosure to me in my particular case. This screams of potential abuse by town of Reading official's secret dealings. Even at the state level there are similar serious compensationibenefits abuse problems For example: Do state employees pay Mass state income tax on their retirement incomes? I can't get the straight answer to this question. If not, why should any other citizen pay state tax? We are all citizens who work for our lifetimes one way or another. There is no basis for law imposed by state officials that self-deals in granting themselves exemption from a basic tax that all of the rest of us pay. This is a conflict-of-interest matter of serious magnitude. 2. Quinn Bill - there are lots of private citizens who would love to be paid a 5th or 6th time for doing the same basic job as are state government employees who get Quinn Bill benefits on top of already very generous compensation health and retirement benefits that most private sector employees no longer have unless they fund them themselves. The police detail pay issue falls into the same category. 3. Abuse of retirement programs-the William Bulger/UMASS case is the poster child of these abuses that come at great long term cost to citizens like me. But the abuses in the Mass Turnpike, the Big Dig and many, many other places at both the state and local Town level are ethically wrong. In my town of Brookline, public employees have very generous current compensation in excess of private sector norms, tremendous health and retirement benefits, but the Town management give town employees half a day off Fridays, special double-dipping perks like longevity pay and other such excesses, and keeps piling up the overhead through incremental hires despite the advances of productivity brought by technology and even declines in student school enrollments. The cases of abuse of retirement benefits are nothing more than embezzlement by public officials of citizen dollars and must be stopped cold. 4. Court system patronage-well documented by Globe. 5. Pacheco Bill-abuses well documented by Globe. 6. Civil Service Reform-abuses well documented by Globe. 7. Deficit Financing of Annual Operating Costs-completely unacceptable and well documented by Globe, both at state and in many cases, local level. 8. Retirement Plans-The fact that both state and local employees legally self-deal to opt themselves out of social security giving themselves segregated retirement systems not available to private citizens. Why should public employees not be part of social security, period, like the rest of us? To sum up, you are restoring integrity to Commonwealth government. There is great need for the same at the local town level of government. 7. Destruction of the Future Financial Security of Private Citizens If not stopped and reformed, the abusive actions of local town officials will destroy us all financially. They will (try to) destroy our private citizen ability to retire in order to fund their own lush retirement/health benefits, they will confiscate our local privately owned properties eventually for the same purpose when virtually none of us can earn enough money to pay the taxes that are so far outstripping our income growth rates. In doing so, they will set up one of the great citizen revolts of all time-only requiring as a catalyst an accurate general disclosure of what they are really doing to all of the rest of us to begin to set revolt in motion. The day of disclosure and exposure is now here. I could go on a length on details, but I won't. You understand the main issues I am sure. 7 8. Conclusion What can be done? As a beginning to help get the ball rolling, a few thoughts and suggestions: a. Make examples Just like with Enron and the federal government, and what you are trying to do with elimination of the Mass Turnpike Authority, we need to make an example of bad Town management and abuse of local taxing power in the Commonwealth. I propose that the Town of Reading be one example for close professional examination, and that it get the greatest possible public scrutiny of finances and legal requirements metlunmet by the Governor's or Attorney General's office. If necessary, an appeal can be made to the US Attorney General and to people like AG Spitzer to highlight this issue, as well as many others including President Bush, local citizen taxation groups such as Citizens for Limited Taxation and more. b. Reform the State/Local Taxation System Structural Flaws -one immediate change should be make a change to Mass law so that that no Town can increase an individual property tax more than 2 '/2% per year while the owner is resident, and that adjustment of property value to market takes place when property is either sold or transferred through inheritance (or other transfer). This would recognize that homes do not generate cash flow, they suck up money. The proper time to revalue for tax purposes is when the owner leaves the home. This would also strip local officials of their now abused power to allocate the total tax burden as they wish among properties (effectively, because they make it so burdensome to fight their initial tax increase proposal) and create fairness among all property owners while raising reasonably required tax revenues. There should also be stringent requirements that Towns much provide full and fair accurate written info-in-advance to ALL property owners PRIOR to over- ride proposals by the Town. c. Posting of Town Financial Information Detail On Internet Websites-the idea here is to strip the towns including Reading of their current practice of trying to charge citizens yet another fee when information requests are made- effectively discouraging the request. If all detailed information were posted on the website there would be little incremental cost to provide it to citizens-and that should be a minimum requirement in addition to stripping towns of their ability to charge to fulfill citizen information request. There will be no "sunshine" in local government unless this is done. Governor, if we don't get started fixing this problem, I foresee the day the Commonwealth will operate like a banana-republic at the local level. The citizen revolt will undermine general respect for government and probably ultimately either lead to 1. Privatization of local government (because the current rate of costs/increases are unsustainable) or ell, :5®0 2. Anarchy. The disrespect and generational conflict that is being caused by current policies is unsustainable over time. Privatization would save the citizens of the Commonwealth an enormous amount of money, and put all citizens in the same boat, including public town employees who now enjoy favored status over the private citizens funding them. Given the hard times being experienced in general, this seems a fair ultimate solution. The baby boomers are not going to take this set of issues lying down-that is not who they are as lifetime activists. Thank you for considering these thoughts, and I look forward to following up with you. I can assure you, these are thoughts that are shared in the main by many, many citizens of the Commonwealth. I know this from escalating private discussions over a period of years. The best testimony to this fact is your own election as Governor. I propose an in-person meeting to review and discuss some of the above with you and Attorney General Riley. Thank you for your outstanding efforts on behalf of the citizens of the Commonwealth, Governor. Sincerely, Vincent J. McGugan 617-731-0607 gam'' 9 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frederick Van Magness [vanmagness@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:30 AM To: Vin Cameron (E-mail) Cc: Phillip B. Pacino (E-mail); Peter Hechenbleikner (E-mail) Subject: The Daily Item of Lynn More Coverage South Harbor development contingent on bu 41 The Daily Item )f Lynn More Co.. Saw this article may have some implications (costly) for RMLD in the future. You and the RMLB may want to develop a position and contact Rep. Brad Jones (House Minority Leader).... and whomever are the Reps. for Wilmington and the rest of Reading ...to weigh in as to how the RMLD sees the potential impact..good or bad to ratepayers in the service territory should this type of legislation pass the House. Fred Van Magness °1° 1 The Daily Item of Lynn: More Coverage > South Harbor development contingent on bury... Page 1 of 2 Boston Herald Daily News Tribune MetroWest Daily News Milford Daily News Daily News Transcript Town Online News & Opinion I Classifieds I Find your Local Town the it tnl 6 FINISH YOUR HOLIDAY . SHOPPING IN ONE DAY. Ole. The Daily Item More Coverage MORE COVERAGE Obituaries Professional Services Services / Help South Harbor development Contact Us Media Kit contingent on burying power News Release lines NIE By David Liscio Home Delivery Friday, December 17, 2004 Classifieds carfind.com homefind.com jobfind.com merchandise services personals Place an Ad Features Professional Services Parents & Kids Shop TownOnline Tunes a Brewing weather horoscope crossword lottery results The South Harbor development site off the Lynnway, a vacant expanse of weeds tucked hard by the Gen. Edwards Bridge and offering panoramic ocean views, could be a contender. At least that's what local real estate investors and city economic development officials frequently assert, but not without adding the caveat:"If it only weren't for those power lines." Developing the waterfront property requires burying or rerouting the tall metal towers and high-voltage electrical transmission lines, an expensive proposition. DAILY ITEM OF LYNN TOOLS 1 View Text Version 0 Email to a Friend l Subscribe to the Daily_ Item RELATED More Coverage 0 GrouDS plan protest outside Lvnn Wal-Mart store BE Director: Lvnn downtown on the rebound 0 Rise in pas, diesel orices has Lvnn businesses lookino at bottom Massachusetts Electric Co., which owns the land directly under the wires, has made it clear the company isn't willing to foot the bill.As a result, prime land that could be the southern anchor point for reviving the city's harbor district, has sat fallow for years. Rep. Steven M. Walsh, a Lynn Democrat, this week filed legislation that he hopes will force the removal or burial of those power lines and, in turn, open the door for cost-effective development. Walsh has asked his colleagues in the state Legislature to amend Section 22e of Chapter 166 of the Massachusetts General Laws, by adding a provision that requires utilities to bury electrical lines that have the potential to cause a widespread power outage. According to Walsh, a series of power outages, the most recent cutting electricity to Lynn, Saugus, Nahant and parts of Swampscott, is an example of how important the transmission lines are to lower North Shore communities, and why they should be better protected. In his proposed legislation, Walsh has asked that "any utility organized and existing under the laws of, or doing business in this commonwealth or in any municipality, upon the petition of the effected municipality, must replace existing overhead power lines and associated structures with underground facilities if the exposure of such overhead lines has caused or has the potential to simultaneously cause an outage to three or more communities, resulting in a potential public safety catastrophe." "That's exactly what has happened here with those transmission lines a few weeks ago," he said."We want them put underground.My bill forces the electric utility companies to protect those lines." 4011-10 file://C:\Documents%20and%20 S ettings\phechenbleikner\Local%20Settings\Temp\The%... 12/20/2004 [ CLI The Daily Item of Lynn: More Coverage > South Harbor development contingent on bury... Page 2 of 2 Walsh said the South Harbor site is among the locations where overhead transmission wires must be protected. "The thinking is, what if the power failures keep occurring, and you have no traffic lights, which is what happened last time.Now what if there's a school bus filled with kids and it goes though one of those intersections that has no lights, and there's a tragedy.We see this as a public safety issue," he said. Last year, city officials unveiled a study that showed the cost of relocating electrical transmission towers at the Lynnway site could range widely, from about $3 million to nearly $12 million. Rerouting or burying the electrical lines must be completed before the valuable Lynnway property can be properly developed, according to former city Development Director Stephen Harausz. "You have to move the lines to make that land marketable," he said, referring to the waterfront site owned primarily by investor Joseph O'Donnell, which is encumbered by the utility corridor. The so-called Relocation Feasibility Study, commissioned and paid for by the city, gave four options, which run the gamut from burying to merely rerouting the lines, but the latter seems incongruous with Walsh's bill. City Development Director Harold McGaughey earlier this year hired a private consulting firm to assess Lynn's strengths and weaknesses in the downtown business district and along the waterfront.The consultants echoed a similar pronouncement by Mayor Edward Clancy Jr. They recommended authorizing the South Harbor property as a key development site to spark further investment. Jackie Barry, a spokesman for National Grid, corporate parent of Massachusetts Electric, said the company has not reviewed the proposed legislation and so cannot comment specifically.However, she stressed that "underground power lines are not necessarily better performing, and it can take longer to locate and repair the problem if one does arise." Click here for home deliverv or call 781-593-7700 Extension - 6 O Copyright by the Daily Item of Lynn and Herald Interactive Advertisinc Svstems. Inc. No portion of theDailyltemOfLynn.com or its content may be reproduced without the owner's written permission. Privacv Commitm 0.094126 ~05 file: //C:\Documents%20and%208 ettings\phechenbleikner\Local%20 S ettings\Temp\The%... 12/20/2004 Page 1 of 1 C ~G Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Linda Phillips [Imfphillips@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:32 AM To: Carl McFadden; Rob Spadafora; John Carpenter Cc: Pat Schettini; Peter Hechenbleikner Subject: Follow-Up to 12/20 Meeting To reinterate when I spoke on Monday night about Judith Nitsche Engineering being aware of the nuances and particulars of the area where construction is taking place, I wanted to give you the opportunity to review the "Review of Existing Conditions Report" dated 314/03 from Flansburgh & Assoc where in Section H 12-15 where Judith Nitsch Inc. the same site engineering in place for TDPC made evaluations of the site utilities including water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems. In particular, JNI states, "The existing Town of Reading water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems may need to be repaired, relocated and/or upgraded if these mains are disturbed by the proposed development of the existing school site. Any design or replacement of the Town systems would need to be performed in conjunction with the Town of Reading Engineering Department. The existing bulding water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services may be reused depending on the proposed building service sizes and exit points." Page H-13 it also states, "Any proposed work including mitigation, can have no significant adverse impact on the Riverfront Area. The site design will have to meet the performance standards of the Act..., #4 Areas for stormwater management systems to control stormwater runoff rates, treat stormwater runoff for total suspended solids and to recharge stormwater runoff to groundwater." It is my opinion that the new Mass School Building Authority's position on whether this is part of the project would have little impact on this particular issue. It has been the Town of Reading's practice to always include every cost of the project, whether reimbursable or not, i.e. the bleachers, fields, new RISE classrooms, and Supt.'s office are not reimbursable but those items have still been included in the project. As I said, I believe the stronger case is for what was included in the contract, the RFP, bidding documents, etc.. I would be surprised if any and all drainage issues would not have been included as part of the project when everyone involved, from the Town's Engineering Dept., Judith Nitsche Engineering, and Conservation were all aware of the need to upgrade the town's resources in that area. Also, as I said, there is a 1% contingency in the Cost Estimates Breakdown for Siteworlc Trade Cost area (which does and would not affect Technology and HE money) but is only for earthwork/site improvements and site utilities categories. This contingency amount of approximately $550,000 would surely cover the cost for the culvert repair. If this is not the time or purpose to use sitework contingency money, then when would it be? If, as Supt. Schettini said, this sitework upgrade was previously deleted to save money - when did that happen? Who had the authority to make those changes? Did Conservation sign off on the abbreviated design? Apparently the School Committee is not aware that this was not part of the original design based on their reaction to that information spoken at Monday's meeting. Perhaps you will find this information helpful - for what it's worth. Regards, Linda Phillips 12/22/2004 Peter Hechenblelkner From: Peter Casolaro [pcasolaro@rich-seapak.com] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:25 AM To: selectmen@ci.reading.ma.us I would like to address the issue of trucks on West st. I understand that delivery trucks and service truck are not part of the ban, however what is a twice daily occurence is the heavily loaded Reading Asphalt truck always speeding down West St., mornings headed toward Woburn and afternoon headed toward Wilmington. I understand that their depot is off off West st. near the Wilmington line. Since they have access to rt. 93 in Wilmington which accesses rt.128 why do they use West St. as their route of choice considering the truck ban. Just this morning a 45 ft. tractor trailer going down West st. toward Woburn. Yesterday: 45 ft. Dunkin Donut truck heading toward Woburn on West. st. I believe two things need to be done: More enforcement, so the word gets out to all trucking companies in the area to avoid West st. or receive a citation. The signs that are up indicating a truck ban on both ends of West st. need to be larger and more easily spotted and readable. Thanks for this consideration. I will be using this venue to report trucks on West st. Peter Casolaro 150 West St 781 944 9686 1 Peter Hechenbleikner From: Sent: To: Subject: Pete, Bob Silva Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:03 PM Peter Hechenbleikner FW: We did regular enforcement just after the regulations were put in place. When all the exceptions were made known to us we found our enforcement efforts made more difficult and less effective. Further enforcement is possible but I don't believe would be any more effective. Enclosed please find a response from Tom Murphy regarding the heavy vehicle exclusion on West St. Robert J. Silva Chief of Police Reading Police Department 781-944-1212-X101 -----Original Message----- From: Tom Murphy Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 11:34 AM To: Bob Silva Subject: RE: In response to the e-mail regarding enforcement of the heavy vehicle exclusion on West St., it should be noted that there are several factors that need to be addressed. First, many residents do not realize that all State, Municipal and Federal utility vehicles are exempt from the exclusion. This would include all mail delivery trucks, transportation buses, RMLD, NSTAR, Verizon, DPW and vehicles of this nature. Second, all trucks making deliveries to a West St. address or to a location off of West St. that cannot be reached by an alternate route, are also exempt from the exclusion. Third, we currently have two major residential construction sites at either end of West St. The construction vehicles must use West St. to gain access to these sites. Please note that there has been a great amount of utility work that had to be completed to prepare for these projects as well as multiple deliveries. Fourth, the Town Manager granted permission to the establishments located just over the Town border on West St. in Wilmington to use West St. because their vehicles experienced problems at the intersection of West St. and Rte. 129 in Wilmington. In speaking with MassHighway, I was advised that several municipalities have experienced difficulty with enforcement of Heavy Vehicle Exclusions due to all of the exemptions that come into play. We have erected adequate signage at each of the Town borders as well as extra signage in Wilmington and in Woburn. I have noticed a decrease in "lost truckers" travelling on West St. I have also noticed that most of them stop at the Town border and use Border Rd. as a turn around. Tom Murphy -----Original Message----- From: Bob Silva Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 10:51 AM To: Tom Murphy Subject: FW: Robert J. Silva Chief of Police Reading Police Department 781-944-1212-X101 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Hechenbleikner Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:11 AM To: Bob Silva Subject: FW: Can you review this and let me know what the enforcement has been? Pete -----Original Message----- From: Peter Casolaro [mailto:pcasol_aro@rich-seapak.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:29 PM To: selectmen@ci.reading.ma.us Subject: With all due respect, Can you tell me why there is NO police enforcement of the truck ban on West St? Pete Casolaro Today I counted over a dozen Non delivery or service trucks going down West St. gi3 Vpq L D &,46 in State Transportation Building Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150 Boston, MA 02116-3968 Tel. (617) 973-1100 Fax (617) 973-8855 TTY (617) 973-7089 www.bostonmpo.org Daniel A. Grabauskas MPO Chairman BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONC ber 10, 2004 Peter I. Hechenbleikner ' Town'Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: Thank you for your comment regarding the Route 28 (Main Street) Project. The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) recognizes the importance of this project and has programmed it in the FY 2006 element of the fiscal years 2005-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MPO appreciates the Town of Reading's involvezrient in the development of the fiscal years 2005-2009 TIP including the submission of project information forms and involvement in Municipal Input Day. These are important inputs into the WO planning process that provide current information about your projects and priorities. The MPO endorsed the fiscal years 2005-2009 TIP at its September 9, 2004 meeting and submitted the TIP and the other certification documents to the federal transportation agencies on September 20, 2004. The TIP is available on the MPO Web site at www.bostonmi)o.org. CD or printed copies of the documents are available by request through the MPO staff, please Acooperatiivetransportation- contact at publicinformation@ctps.org; by mail at CTPS, Suite 2150, 10 Park planning effort of the: Plaza, Boston, MA 02116; telephone at 617.973.7100; fax at 617.973.8855, or Executive Office of Transportation TTY 617.973.7089. Copies are also available in accessible formats. If you have and Construction questions please contact Sean Daly (617-973-7140, seandalvna,ctns.or0. City of Boston City of Everett We have also made sure that you are on the mailing list for TRANSREPoRT, the City of Newton MPO's monthly transportation newsletter. Please send your E-mail address to City of Salem publicinformation@ctps.org to receive TRANSREPORT electronically or to be Federal Highway Administration included in the MPO's one-way list-server, MPOINFO, for important notices. (ex officio) Federal Transit Administration (ex officio) The Boston MPO thanks you for your interest in the development of the fiscal Massachusetts Bay Transportation years 2005-2009 TIP and appreciates your participation in the document's public Authority review. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board Sincerely, Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Port Authority Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council Dennis DiZog 'o, Chair Regional Transportation Advisory Transportation Planning and Programming Committee Council (ex officio) Town of Bedford Town of Framingham Town of Hopkinton Sy G 4 Vincent F. Cameron Jr., Gen. Mgr. Reading Munic. Light Dept. (MA) 230 Ash St., P.O. Box 150 Reading, Massachusetts 01867-0250 Dear Mr. Cameron, s December 18, 2004 A newspaper article in the 12-14-02 issue of the Indianapolis Star concerning chromated copper arsenate (CCA) wood refers. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates there are 88 million utility poles in the United States. Your customers, etc. might be interested in knowing how many utility poles are installed on your system and how many of these are CCA wood poles and ACZA (Ammonia- cal Copper Zinc Arsenate) wood poles. Ken Sharp 9342 Oak Run Circle Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 cc: George Hines, Reading 7, r 1 gZ,l The Penta Council About Penta Poles I Commonly Asked Questions about Penta Page 1 of 3 NEWS: Penta Council Launches Web Site, Ad Campaign See th ~ rt ABOUT PENTA POLES:. Commonly Asked Questions About Penta Why do linemen prefer penta poles? • How do penta poles' costs compare to other utility For more than 60 poles? years, penta poles hi s What is the availability of Penta-treated poles? been the lineman's choice for performan • What disposal options are available after poles are durability and safety taken out of service? • What precautions can be taken to minimize exposure to penta? • Are people who work with penta poles at risk? Why do linemen prefer penta poles? Linemen prefer penta-treated poles because they are easy to install, easy to maintain, and are safe to work with in a range of weather conditions. Most maintenance is simple and can be performed by linemen on the spot. If linemen need to climb a penta pole, they can quickly attach gaffs and climb without delay - working on more poles, more quickly. The flexibility of penta-treated poles makes them less susceptible to ice and windstorm breakage. Their moisture resistance prevents checking and twisting. And penta poles pose significantly less risk of electrocution because they are not as conductive as non-wood poles. Penta's "linemen friendly" characteristics are well established throughout the industry. That's why penta poles are chosen for pole events at the annual International Lineman's Rodeo. Hove do penlta poles' costs compare to other utility poles? http://www.pentacouncil.com/about-questions.html 12/23/2004 The Penta Council I About Penta Poles I Commonly Asked Questions about Penta Page 2 of 3 Competitively priced, penta poles' true value is in the cost savings they produce throughout their lifespan. Penta's preservative characteristics ensure that poles typically last 40 years or longer. In fact, penta poles' replacement rate averages less than four percent per decade with periodic maintenance, according to in-service records from several utility companies. Penta poles save time and costs associated with storage and installation because they do not require special equipment. Labor costs are reduced because penta poles are flexible, thereby minimizing breakage and, if they do require repair, are easier to climb by linemen than other poles. Even after they are removed from service, penta poles still provide a long-term cost benefit because they can be re- used, recycled, or safely disposed of in landfills in accordance with state and local requirements. What is the availability of penta-treated poles? Time and again, penta pole production has met emergency demand caused by natural disasters, such as hurricanes, ice storms and tornadoes. Of the preservatives available for treating wood, only penta is created from two basic and widely available chemicals: phenol and chlorine. This makes penta a commodity product, with stable pricing, reliable supplies and a track record of use for more than 60 years. Penta manufacturers are firmly committed to producing ample supplies for the market, and they continue to work with the EPA to ensure penta re-registration. What disposal options are available after poles are taken out of service Because they are not considered to be a hazardous waste, penta poles can be safely reused and recycled in a number of ways, such as fence posts and farm lighting. In fact, industry data indicate that nearly 70 percent of out-of- service poles are re-used. Penta poles can be burned for energy recovery in combustion units and industrial boilers that are allowed to burn penta-treated wood because penta does not contain any toxic metals, unlike some other wood preservatives. This results in almost complete destruction of the penta, with dioxin/furan emissions comparable to that from ordinary particleboard. If re-use or energy recovery options are not available, penta http://www.pentacouncil.com/about_questions.html 12/23/2004 "The Penta Council About Penta Poles I Commonly Asked Questions about Penta Page 3 of 3 poles can be safely disposed of in landfills in accordance with state and local requirements. What precautions can be taken to minimize exposure to penta? A number of safety precautions should be taken when handling, using or disposing of penta-treated wood to minimize potential health effects. These include wearing protective gloves and clothing, washing clothes and exposed skin, and adhering to common sense precautions, such as not burning penta poles or using penta-treated wood in places where there will be frequent or prolonged contact with humans and animals. The Consumer Information Sheet- Pentachlorophenol Pressure-Treated Wood that was jointly developed by the American Wood Preservers Institute and the EPA provides useful safety and handling guidance. Are people who work with penta poles at risk? Numerous scientific studies and a 60-year history of effective use demonstrated that penta does not cause adverse health effects when properly used. With proper application, handling and use, exposures to penta among wood treaters, linemen and others who work with penta are low- typically far below levels at which test animals have shown any toxic effects- and well within safety margins. Penta has not been shown to cause cancer in humans. Concerns about penta's potential health effects are based on the results of tests performed on laboratory animals. As a result of these tests, penta has been shown to be a weak carcinogen that is classified as "possible carcinogenic to humans." Top Home About Penta Poles ©2004 The Penta Council About Penta Poles I Penta & the Environment I Penta & Health I Reuse & Recycling Issues & Advocacy I The Penta Council Ozy http://www.pentacouncil.com/about-questions.html 12/23/2004 b RMLD Reading Municipal Light Department RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS 230 Ash Street P.O. Box 150 Reading, MA 01867-0250 Tel: (781) 944-1340 Fax: (781) 942-2409 Web: www.rmld.com December 21, 2004 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: 6 0 20 DEC 22 All 10 I would like to take this opportunity to inform you of two situations that may have a financial impact on the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) and its ratepayers. Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington, DC has accepted filings from the New England Independent System Operator (ISO-NE) relative to the proposed Locational Installed Capacity Program (LICAP) and the environmental upgrades to the Salem Harbor Generating Plant. The premise of LICAP is that generators in NEPOOL will be paid a demand charge for being available to run as required. However, the LICAP filing also allows generators located in congested load zones to be paid higher than normal demand charges. Congested. load zones are areas where transmission availability is limited and non-economic generation is required to meet energy requirements from time to time. The Northeast Massachusetts area (NEMA) is presently considered a congested load zone. The potential financial impact of the LICAP filing could result uz an increased annual cost of approximately $9 million to the RMLD (the RMLD's total power supply cost presently is $42 million annually). The RMLD is having its Washington legal counsel pursue the best possible solution for the RMLD. The Salem Harbor issue revolves around an agreement between the ISO-NE and US Generating (Salem Harbor owners), which proposes to collect an estimated $85 million from the ratepayers in NEMA to pay for the improvements at Salem Harbor. US Generating has filed for bankruptcy protection and carmot fund the improvements themselves. The RMLD has taken a staunch position in protecting its ratepayers in this issue. RMLD ~ r~~ t~ Reading Municipal Light Department RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS 230 Ash Street, P.O. Box 150 Reading, MA 01867-0250 At present, Dominion Energy is in the process of buying the US Generating assets, including Salem Harbor. The RMLD is anticipating that Dominion will pay for the improvements, however, the RMLD is also keeping a close watch on this issue to make sure the FERC chooses the right direction in this case. The RMLD is cone-pitted to represent its ratepayers in the most economic and efficient manner in order to mitigate price increases that may affect its customers. The RMLD has budgeted for legal representation in these cases and is working to stay on budget as these issue become resolved. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 781-942-6415. Sincerely, Vincent . Cameron J . General Manager c: R. Schubert, Chair, Reading BOS P. Pacino F. Van Magness g~~'z Page 1, of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter C lav-l From: Aldenbrkrs@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:00 AM To: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us Cc: engineer@ci.reading.ma.us; rschubert@ci.reading. ma.us; blatham@latham-lamond.com Subject: Concerns Peter, Attached is a followup to our meeting. Will send original by mail. Best wishes for a Happy Holiday and healthy New Year. Regards, Allen Schiller 866 12/23/2004 Allen J. Schiller S&K Investments LLC Boston Stove Company 25 Walkers Brook Drive Reading, MA 01867 December 23, 2004 Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter, I appreciated having the opportunity to meet with you Thursday. Please advise when the Board of Selectman's decision on the General Way/Walkers Brook Drive intersection "concept" will be available and how I obtain a copy of the decision and plan as soon as possible. My contact information, phone and e-mail, are provided. I am extremely concerned with the impact the General Way driveway redesign will have on our property and rights. Our driveway, necessary to access long existing uses of our property, has existed in its current location and condition for at least 50 to 60 years; significantly well before the General Way driveway was created. In fact, we are the longest existing facility in that neighborhood, residential or commercial. I met with George Danis last Friday and asked to view the plans he had presented to the Selectman as I'd not seen them prior to the Selectman's meeting. Initially unable to find them he showed me an earlier submission, which widened the existing driveway in a right turn only configuration. When he produced the meeting version, which is dramatically different, I inquired how it evolved. He claimed it was precipitated by the Town and is what the Town wanted. This leaves me perplexed. The Danis design as presented poses considerable risks to the continued reasonable use of our driveway and critical access to our property. The Danis current design includes a sweeping right ramp exiting traffic at our very driveway and creates incredibly obvious problems, particularly since cars will speed up entering Walkers Brook Drive. Add cross weaving between the left and right end lanes, which will happen, and it is simply an accident(s) waiting to happen. It impinges (Attorney Mark Favolaro's choice of words) on the safe use of our driveway. It is my understanding the final design has to come back before the Board of Selectman for final approval. Selectwoman Camille Anthony's remarks, in response to my concerns, made it clear that access to the Boston Stove driveway is to be taken into consideration in development of the final design, and was a condition supported by the Board with appropriate language included in their decision. X66 z I am neither a traffic engineer nor a lawyer, but subject to your input interpret "approval of the concept" to mean: 1. A right turn only exit from General Way onto Walkers Brook Drive 2. An island or barrier with significant curbing that prevents left turn exit 3. An on demand/as needed traffic signal on Walkers Brook Drive allowing a left turn into General Way Corrective details need to be worked out in the final (not conceptual) plan. My October 26th letter to you indicates I am a proponent of a right turn only exit. By working with the existing General Way driveway, widening it to the right/east, and installing a traffic island, without necessarily moving it north, cars will be forced to come to a complete stop before entering the main road. This keeps traffic more safely exiting, nearly where it currently is in relation to our active driveway. As I'm sure you can understand, I do not want to find out after the fact that our property has been unfairly and negatively impacted. The final plan should address our concerns. Very truly yours, 0**I I 0. Allen J. Schiller 617-227-9480 office 617-523-5465 fax 617-529-5553 cell aldenbrkrs@aol.com cc: Earle B. Kaufinan Joe Delaney, Town Engineer Richard W. Schubert, Board of Selectman Brad Latham, Esq. gbh 3 Publication date: 20-Dec-2004Primary Credit Analyst(s): Geoffrey Buswick, Boston (1) 617-530-8311; geoffrey_buswick@standardandpoors.com Secondary Credit Analyst(s): Colin A MacNaught, Boston (1) 617-530-8312; colin-macnaught@standardandpoors.com Reprinted from RatingsDirect oftS G Summary: Reading, MA; Tax Secured, General Obligation; Tax Secured, Note Credit Profile US$8.686 mil BANS dtd 01/07/2005 due 01/05/2006 SP-1 + Sale date: 20-DEC-2004 US$6.48 mil GO bnds dtd 01/01/2005 due 04/15/2024 AA Sale date: 20-DEC-2004 AFFIRMED $36.000 mil. Reading GO AA $5.125 mil. Reading GO (FGIC) AAA/AA(SPUR) $35.000 mil. Reading GO (MBIA) AAA/AA(SPUR) OUTLOOK: STABLE Rationale Reading, Mass.' GO bonds have been rated 'AA'. The town's BANS have been rated 'SP-1 Credit characteristics that support the ratings include: Participation in the Boston MSA economy and recent local commercial tax base growth; e Above-average wealth and housing values; . Adequate but improving financial position; and Moderate debt burden, including an unfunded pension liability. The town's history of thin finances is an offsetting consideration. The town's full faith and credit pledge secures the bonds and notes. Reading, with a population of 23,708, is 12 miles northwest of Boston, Mass. at the junction of Interstates 93 and 95. A good transportation network, which includes a Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority commuter-rail stop in the town's center, provides residents with easy access to employment opportunities in most regions of the greater Boston economy. Historically, low unemployment has contributed to above-average wealth and housing values. Due in part to the considerable regional single-family home appreciation and the construction of a new shopping center, the town's assessed property valuations have increased more than $1 billion, or a strong 68%, since fiscal 2000 to $3.4 billion in fiscal 2005. The first phase of the shopping center on the town's old landfill has opened and is valued at $22 million, including a Chili's restaurant, a Home Depot, and a Jordan's furniture complex. Phase 2, at the same site, is under construction and will include another five retail/restaurant establishments. Market value is high at $143,800 per capita. Year to date in 2004, Reading's median single-family home price exceeds $420,000, with new housing units typically starting at more than $500,000. Per capita effective buying income is also high at 155% of the national average. . 4 Reading's financial position is adequate, but improved with the fiscal 2004 close. Total fund equity in fiscal 2004 was $5.6 million, or 10.4% of expenditures, up from fiscal 2003, which was at $3.0 million and 5.9% of expenditures. The equity growth was due in large part to a $4.5 million operating override the voters approved for the fiscal 2004 budget. In November 2004, after the audit was compete, a Massachusetts Department of Revenue finding reversed a school fund booking as capital and in turn reduced the undesignated fund balance by $650,000. Even considering this accounting change, which will cause the balance to be restated in the fiscal 2005 audit, the fund balance is at the highest level, both in terms of the dollar value and the ratio to expenditures, in more than a decade. The unreserved fund balance was $3.0 million, or 5.6% of expenditures, in fiscal 2004, and the town put $700,000, or 1.3% of expenditures, into a new stabilization fund. To date, the $68 million fiscal 2005 budget is in-line with revenue and expenditure estimates. The town appropriated another $100,000 to the stabilization fund in fiscal 2005 and hopes to be able to continue to annually increase the fund. Reading has received in full the $3 million sale price of the landfill and placed it in an escrow account. As the state certifies that the landfill cover work is adequately completed, the town will release to use the money for onetime capital projects. Reading has one of the larger municipal electric utilities in the commonwealth, and it serves three other municipalities. Besides assisting greatly with cash flow, the electric system made an annual distribution of $1.8 million to the general fund in fiscal 2004. Debt ratios are moderate, net of state school construction aid. Overall debt is moderate at $2,115 per capita, or 1.5% of market value. Debt service, as a percent of total expenditures, is moderate at 7%. Amortization of principal is above average as 58% of principal outstanding is retired over the first 10 years. Reading has an unfunded pension liability of roughly $29 million that, when factored as debt, increases debt ratios to a high level of $3,343 or a still moderate 2.3% of market value. Outlook The stable outlook on the long-term rating anticipates continued balanced operations and a strengthening of reserves. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect, Standard & Poor's Web-based credit analysis system, at www.ratingsdirect.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com; under Credit Ratings in the left navigation bar, select Find a Rating, then Credit Ratings Search. This report was reproduced from Standard & Poor's RatingsDirect, the premier source of real-time, Web-based credit ratings and research from an organization that has been a leader in objective credit analysis for more than 140 years. To preview this dynamic on-line product, visit our RatingsDirect Web site at www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect. Published by Standard & Poor's, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Executive offices: 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Editorial offices: 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041. Subscriber services: (1) 212-438-7280. Copyright 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. Information has been obtained by Standard & Poor's from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our sources, Standard & Poor's or others, Standard & Poor's does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or the result obtained from the use of such information. Ratings are statements of opinion, not statements of fact or recommendations to buy, hold, or sell any securities. geez- Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Klepeis, Beth Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 200410:09 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Reading (Town of) MA This is the Moody's report. We will be getting booklets with it enclosed this week. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Frazier [SMTP:PFrazier@firstsw.com] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:54 AM To: bklepeis@ci.reading.me.us Subject: Fw: Reading (Town of) MA I'll call soon to discuss. S and P confirmed AA. I'll send the report soon. Peter Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Moody's Investors Service <epi@moodys.com> To: Peter Frazier <PFrazier@firstsw.com> Sent: Fri Dec 17 09:27:30 2004 Subject: Reading (Town of) MA MOODY'S ASSIGNS Al RATING WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK TO TOWN OF READING'S (MA) $6.48 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND MIG 1 TO TOWN'S $8.69 MILLION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES Al RATING AFFIRMED ON $72.3 MILLION IN TOTAL G.O. DEBT OUTSTANDING Reading (Town of) MA Municipality Massachusetts Moody's Rating Issue Rating General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004 Al Sale Amount $6,480,000 Expected Sale Date 12/20/04 Rating Description General Obligation Bonds Bond Anticipation Notes MIG 1 Sale Amount $8,686,868 Expected Sale Date 12/20/04 Rating Description Bond Anticipation Notes Moody's Outlook - Positive NEW YORK, December 17, 2004 Moody's Investors Service has assigned an Al rating with a positive outlook to the Town of Reading's $6.48 million General Obligation Bonds, and a MIG 1 rating to the town's $8.69 million Bond Anticipation Notes (dated January 7, 2005 and payable on January 5, 2006). At gcc3 this time, Moody's has also affirmed the Al rating and assigned a positive outlook on the town's $72.3 million of outstanding general obligation debt, including this issue. The bonds will refund BANs originally issued to finance $1 million in water treatment plant upgrades and $5.48 million in school construction projects. Approximately $200,000 of the bonds are secured by an unlimited general obligation tax pledge, as voters have excluded the debt from the levy limitations of Proposition 2 1/2. Proceeds of the notes will renew outstanding BANs originally issued for $997,000 in water main replacement and $7,689,000 in school construction projects. The MIG 1 and Al ratings incorporate: demonstrated market access, a strong management team, a strengthening financial position, a sizeable and growing tax base with wealth levels significantly higher than state medians, a positive debt position benefiting from self-supporting utility debt, and state school building assistance. Assignment of a positive outlook reflects Reading's improving reserve levels, and steadily growing tax base with potential for significant additional development in the medium term. DEMONSTRATED MARKET ACCESS Moody's expects the town to continue to demonstrate access to the capital markets given a history of competitive bids on previous borrowing. The town received five bids on its most recent note sale, dated November 23, 2004, and seven and nine bids on its two previous note sales dated December 11, 2003 and June 11, 2003, respectively. This history indicates an ability to refund these notes at the January 2006 maturity date. APPROVAL OF OPERATING OVERRIDE BOLSTERS FINANCIAL POSITION Moody's expects that the town will maintain healthier reserve levels in the medium-term after passage of a $4.5 million operating override for fiscal 2004 giving Reading additional financial flexibility. Fiscal 2004 ended with a $2.6 million surplus, due mainly to conservative revenue estimates, ending a six-year string of operating deficits and restoring General Fund balance to $5.6 million, a satisfactory 9.8% of General Fund revenues. Town officials project that fiscal 2005 will be balanced and that revenues will again exceed conservative estimates and replenish the $1.2 million in free cash appropriated to fund the operating budget. The town has exceeded its goal for available reserves (the Stabilization Fund and Unreserved, Undesignated General Fund) of 5% of General Fund revenues in fiscal 2004 with $3.8 million available (6.72%)-an improvement of $1.4 million (an additional 1.86%) in fiscal 2003. The approved fiscal 2005 budget includes sizeable increases in nearly every budget category totaling $5.3 million (9.18% higher than the fiscal 2004 budget). The $2.6 million or 62% increase in debt service will be entirely offset by new tax revenue as voters have excluded debt for two school projects totaling $56.8 million by a wide margin (2:1). The property tax levy will increase as allowed under Proposition 2 1/2 by $1.5 million, including new growth revenue of $495,000. Favorably, the town continues to transfer an annual distribution of earnings and payment-in-lieu-of-taxes into the General Fund, totaling $2.0 million (3.5% of revenues) in fiscal 2004, from the Reading Municipal Light Department, while its water operations remains a self-supporting enterprise. FAVORABLY LOCATED RESIDENTIAL TAX BASE EXPERIENCING GROWTH Moody's anticipates the town's primarily residential (94%) tax base will experience steady expansion due to strong market appreciation and its favorable location at the junction of Interstates 93 and 95, and its access to commuter rail services, providing its residents with reasonable commuting times to Boston (rated Aa2) and also providing regional shoppers with access to its burgeoning retail developments. Dickinson Development has completed the first phase of a $54.6 million retail project on the site of the town's former cC landfill which now includes a Home Depot, Jordan's Furniture, Chili's Restaurant and IMAX theater totaling 284,000 square feet. Future phases will add 70,000 square feet of additional retail space in the next several years. A number of residential development projects are also underway, most notably a 230-unit apartment complex and an age-restricted community. Management notes several redevelopment opportunities in commercial areas near the highways and has leveraged $5.5 million of state funds to improve its downtown business zone. Town officials report significant new growth in residential neighborhoods as a modest number of single-family homes are annually razed and replaced by new single-family homes in the $500,000 range. Several residential developments are also in planning phases and are expected to include 25% affordable housing. The town's above-average wealth indices have been increasing versus state medians as indicated by median family income which is 145% of state levels. The sizeable growth in the tax base has increased full value per capita to a strong $143,805. SELF-SUPPORTING DEBT AND STATE GRANTS ENHANCE DEBT POSITION Although Reading's debt burden will increase as its school construction projects progress Moody's expects the town's position will remain manageable overall, given satisfactory payout (58.5% in 10 years) and significant state aid (60-66%) for school construction. Reading's 2.6% direct debt burden drops to 2.1 % after the deduction of state school construction grants and self-supporting debt from its water, sewer and electric utilities. The town updates its capital improvement plan annually, and funds capital expenditures with 6.5% of the General Fund budget. Future borrowings are planned to complete the authorized school renovations ($26.3 million) and ongoing water treatment plant and water main upgrades ($1.7 million). The town expects to receive grants from the Massachusetts School Building Authority in early 2005 to retire approximately $6.2 million in bond anticipation notes. The remaining grant will be disbursed by the state on completion of the projects' audits. On completion of the school renovations currently underway, the town projects it will have adequate school enrollment capacity for the long-term. OUTLOOK Moody's assignment of a positive outlook on the Town of Reading recognizes significant tax base growth, restoration of structural balance to operations and augmented reserve levels. We expect that the town's tax base will continue to expand in its commercial and residential sectors and that continued public support and strong management will strengthen the town's reserve levels to give the town greater flexibility when facing future budget pressures. KEY STATISTICS 2000 Population: 23,707 2000 Per Capita Income: $32,888 (127% of state median) 2000 Median Family Income $89,076 (144.5% of state median) 2000 Median Housing Value as % of state median: 146% 2005 Proposed Full Valuation: $3.4 billion Full Value Average Annual Growth (2000-2005): 13.0% Full Value per capita: $143,805 Direct debt burden: 2.3% of full valuation Debt burden, adjusted for self-supporting debt and school construction aid: 2.4% of full valuation Payout of principal (10 years): 58.5% gcCN FY03 General Fund balance: $3.04 million (5.9% of General Fund revenues) FY04 General Fund balance: $5.6 million (9.8% of General Fund revenues) Post-sale parity debt outstanding: $72.3 million ANALYSTS: Susan Freiner, Analyst, Public Finance Group, Moody's Investors Service Joshua Schaff, Backup Analyst, Public Finance Group, Moody's Investors Service Yaffa Rattrier, Senior Credit Officer, Public Finance Group, Moody's Investors Service CONTACTS: Journalists: (212) 553-0376 Research Clients: (212) 553-1653 Copyright 2004, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and/or its licensors including Moody's Assurance Company, Inc. (together, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, such information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind and MOODY'S, in particular, makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any such information. Under no circumstances shall MOODY'S have any liability to any person or entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication, publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost profits), even if MOODY'S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The credit ratings and financial reporting analysis observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of, and each provider of credit support for, each security that it may consider purchasing, holding or selling. MOODY'S hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MOODY'S have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MOODY'S for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to $2,300,000. Moody's Corporation (MCO) and its wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary, Moody's Investors Service (MIS), qcc.< also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually on Moody's website at www.moodys.com under the heading "Shareholder Relations - Corporate Governance - Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy." Neither First Southwest Company nor any of its affiliates (collectively, "First Southwest") is responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or agreement or any information about any transactions, customer account or account activity in this communication. Confidential or time-sensitive security-related communications should not be transmitted to First Southwest via the Internet as there can be no assurance of actual or timely delivery, receipt and/or confidentiality. Neither can there be any assurance that messages transmitted by electronic mail will not be corrupted, lost, deleted or modified. First Southwest reserves the right to refrain from processing or executing electronic mail until verification of the information is obtained in another format acceptable to First Southwest. cc-