Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-08 Board of Selectmen PacketICE LEGAL-NOT TOWN OF READING' To the Inhabitants of the Town of"Reading: Notice.is hereby,given.th~at a public hearing will be held in accordance with the Massachusetts General. Law.s,Chapter 369 of the Acts of 1982 on the issue of deter- mining a residential factor in assessing the percentage of tax: to b,e bprne by each r f=iSca1 Year 6.e...:earing}Nill be held> . on Tuesday; Novetri'tier 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the` Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16. Lowell. Street, Reading; MA... Ural or written. information will . be received. by "the. Selectmen at the hearing. The five classes of property involve are residential, open space, commercial, industrial and per- sonal property. By order of Peter t. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 10/25, 11,/1 X61 FY2006 CLASSIFICATION HEARING - NOVEMBER 8,2005: LEGAL SUMMARY - SUMMARY OF G.L. CHAPTER 40, SECTION 56 AND G.L. CHAPTER 59, SECTION 5C AS IT APPLIES TO TOWNS AND G.L. CHAPTER 59, SECTION 51: The Commissioner of Revenue shall certify as to whether the Board of Assessors is assessing property at full and fair cash value. The Selectmen must annually conduct a public hearing on the issue of allocating the local property tax levy among the four classes of real property and personal property. In determining these percentages, the Selectmen must first adopt a residential factor. The residential factor adopted must be an amount not less that the minimum residential factor calculated by the Commissioner. A residential factor of "1" will result in the taxation of all property at the same tax rate. A residential factor of less than "1" will result in residential property owners being taxed at a proportionately lower share of the tax levy (lower tax rate). When adopting the residential factor, the Selectmen may select a percentage for class two (open space) that may not be less than 75% of its full and fair cash value percentage (see page 3). The residential class alone absorbs the discount. The Assessors currently do not classify any parcels as open space. The third issue is the residential exemption (see page 4). The Selectmen may vote an exemption of no more than 20% of the average assessed value of all class one, residential parcels, which are the principal residences of the property taxpayer. This exemption has the effect of shifting taxes from lower value owner-occupied homes and condominiums to higher value homes since the shift in taxes is within class one. The fourth issue is that of the small commercial exemption (see page 6). The Selectmen may vote up to a 10% exemption of value on those commercial properties that had an average annual employment of 10 or fewer employees, as determined by the Department of Employment and Training, and a value of less than $1,000,000. This exemption applies to 36 of the 234 commercial properties, and has the effect of increasing the taxes for those commercial properties valued $1,000,000 or over. The classes of properties are: Class One Residential Class Two Open Space Class Three Commercial Class Four Industrial Class Five Personal Property ybZ 1. THE RESIDENTIAL FACTOR The Board of Selectman is required to adopt a residential factor, which means that it assigns a percentage to residential property determining how the tax levy is divided among property classes. The Town of Reading has historically adopted a residential factor of "1", which results in all classes of property being taxed at the same rate. (a) Over 90 % of the properties in Reading are residential (b) Lowering the residential tax rate would result in greatly increasing the commercial tax rate. At a maximum shift of 150%, the median commerciaVindustrial value of $467,150 would pay approximately $2,821.59 in additional taxes, while the median residential single family property valued at. $413,900 would save $190.39. (c) Other communities who tax at different rates generally have a greater proportion of commercial and industrial property than does Reading. (d) In adopting a residential factor of 1, (i.e., not splitting the tax rate), the following list shows that the commercial, industrial and personal property tax rate in Reading for FY2005 is the lowest among surrounding communities. ***Historically, the Board of Selectmen has voted a residential factor of "1" to tax all properties at the same tax rate. COMMUNITY RESDL COMM RESDNTL COMM COMM RATE RATE VALUE VALUE % BURLINGTON 8.10 28.00 2,705,838,231 1,315,026,814 32.71% WILMINGTON 9.77 26.80 2,483,827,545 721,307,825 22.50% LEXINGTON 11.34 22.96 6,275,351,000 870,816,360 12.19% WOBURN 9.16 22.95 3,730,119,513 1,498,886,787 28.66% WAKEFIELD 9.06 21.47 3,071,779,556 533,857,915 10.59% SAUGUS 8.34 21.13 3,002,636,964 688,238,014 18.65% NEEDHAM 9.61 18.83 5,244,368,254 745,782,306 12.45% ANDOVER 11.51 18.00 5,020,174,746 1,320,963,813 20.80% STONEHAM 10.46 16.75 2,553,105,831 322,366,821 11.21% NO. ANDOVER 11.52 12.59 3,437,798,500 493,508,309 12.55% **READING" 12.57 12.57 3,139,161,400 223,072,420 6.63% LYNNFIELD 10.20 11.23 2,061,747,924 163,568,307 7.35% NO. READING 11.12 11.12 2,049,197,322 272,812,303 11.75% 1. N63 ICLASSIFICATION SHIFtS 20.00 18.00 16.00 y! 14.00 CD 12.00 I 10.00 t- ®RESIDENTIAL F- 8.00 t. OCOMMERCIAL 6.00 4.00 2.00 " RESIDENTIAL 0.00 100 110 120 130 140 150 Classification Shift FY2006 SEIFT 100 110 120 130 140 150 RES RATE 12.09 12.00 11.91 11.81 11.72 11.63 CIP RATE 12.09 13.30 14.51 15.72 16.93 18.13 For every 10% increase in taxes of the commercial/industrial and personal property classes, the residential property owners saves approximately .75% The maximum increase of 150% would save the residential taxpayer 3.8%. 2 q6q 2. THE OPEN SPACE DISCOUNT The Board of Selectmen is required to vote on whether to tax open space at a discount even though the Town of Reading does not classify any property as open space. This adoption is a vote to exempt up to 25% of the value of land that is defined as open space. Open space is land which is not otherwise classified and which is not taxed under Chapter 61, 61A or 61B and land which is not held for the production of income but is maintained in an open and natural condition and which contributes significantly to the benefit and enjoyment of the public. The Assessors further refine this broad definition to stipulate open space as privately owned parcels which are over one acre and are not buildable. The savings derived by granting this exemption is borne by the residential taxpayers. Historically, the Board of Selectmen has not granted an open space discount. (a) The Assessors have not classified any property as open space since 1991, since there were too few parcels that could be classified as such. (b) If the Assessors classified property as open space, only approximately 39 properties would qualify. These properties have an average assessment of $34,036, which already reflects the fact that they are unbuildable. (c) Owners of larger parcels can potentially place their property into chapter 61, 61A, or 61 B. These owners would receive the benefit of a reduced tax and the Town would receive rollback taxes if it is sold for a use other than prescribed by that chapter. (d) If the Assessors did classify land as open space, and the exemption was granted, the exempted amount would be borne by the residential class of taxpayers. (e) For FY2005, there were two communities that adopted this exemption, Bedford and Paxton. 3. qbS 3. THE RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION The Board of Selectmen votes whether to grant an exemption of up to 20% of the average assessed value of all class one property. This exemption is applied to those properties that are the principal residence of the property owner; those properties that are owner- occupied. The residential exemption was designed for communities with a high proportion of rental dwellings or for resort areas with many seasonal residents. Historically, the Board of Selectmen has not granted a residential exemption. (a) Reading is overwhelmingly owner- occupied with approximately 94% of the residential properties being nonrental units. (b) For FY2005, there were 11 communities that adopted this exemption. These communities have a much higher percentage of either seasonal or nonowner occupied properties than Reading. (c) Adoption of this exemption would result in a tax savings for lower valued property owners, but would add that tax burden to higher valued property owners. 4. ebb RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION 600 400 M 5% EXEMPT 200 - Ell 0% EXEMPT O 0 -62 3 020% EXEMPT -200 - -400 - -600 - -800 -1000 155000 215000 275000 335000 395000 455000 515000 575000 635000 695000 Assessed Value WITH AN ESTIMATED 94% OF READING'S RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR THIS EXEMPTION, THE EFFECTS WOULD BE A SHIFT IN THE TAX AMOUNT PAID BY LOWER VALUED PROPERTY OWNERS TO THAT OF HIGHER VALUED PROPERTY OWNERS. AT A 20% EXEMPTION, PROPERTY OWNERS VALUED AT $155,000 WOULD SAVE $831.53 IN TAXES, WHILE PROPERTY OWNERS VALUED AT $695,000 WOULD PAY $599.47 IN ADDITIONAL TAXES. 5 qb7 4. THE COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION The Board of Selectmen may vote up to a 10% exemption for commercial property owners having an average annual employment of 10 or fewer employees and an assessed value of less than $1,000,000. The savings granted by this exemption are absorbed by ineligible commercial property owners and owners of industrial properties. Historically, the Board of Selectmen has not granted a commercial exemption. (a) The adoption of a commercial exemption would increase the taxes on commercial properties valued over $1,000,000. (b) Increase the taxes of industrial property owners, as they are ineligible for this exemption. (c) There were five communities adopting this exemption for FY2005, Avon, Bellingham, Braintree, Westford and Somerset. Each community has a significant commercial development that the community wanted to tax to the fullest extent possible. (d) All of the tenants in a multitenant building would need to qualify for this exemption. This would render many of the multitenant commercial buildings in Reading ineligible. 6. qk'9 COMMERCIAL EXEMPTION 500 400' 300 200 ,::,,,v... i.. p 100 ® ELIGIBLE . ® ® 135% EXEMPTION F ® ® 56 EMPTION 010% EXEMPTION 0 M INELIGIBLE -100 OINELIGIBLE F- -200 -300 -400 -500 .100000 150000 200000 300000 400000 1000000 5000000 ASSESSED VALUE The commercial exemption would have the effect of shifting property taxes of lower valued commercial properties to that of higher valued commercial property owners. This exemption would also increase the taxes paid by industrial property owners as they are ineligible for this exemption. 7 y69 Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@cl.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: November 4, 2005 RE: Water Treatment Plant TOWN MANAGER (781) 942.6643 At the Selectmen's Meeting on November 8, 2005, there will be two presentations made. The first one will be a presentation by DPW and CDM relative to the potential siting for a Water Treatment Plant. Based on the site walls, the two options seem to be use of the Compost Center site, or the development of a plant where the existing plant exists. The second presentation will be a financial review by Bob LeLacheur on the options of building a new Water Treatment Plant and using MWRA for supplemental water supply (our current situation which will be confirmed by the MWRA Board on November 16), or to not build a new Water Treatment Plant and use MWRA water only. Bob has sent you a memo so that you can read it in advance, and charts and graphs showing these options. Following these two presentations, I will summarize for the Board what I see the pros and cons of the two sites and the pros and cons of building a new Water Treatment Plant versus complete purchase of MWRA water. If the Town is going to go forward to build a new Water Treatment Plant, CDM has a schedule beginning with a decision on the plant location and moving forward with bidding and then Town Meeting approval of the debt required for this action. The primary decision, however, is whether or not to build a Water Treatment Plant or try to purchase all MWRA water. I would suggest that the Board consider the presentation made, and then seek community input over a very defined period of time, and make a decision by the middle of December. The qg( Selectmen have a forum scheduled for December 13, 2005. One way of seeking public input would be to devote that forum primarily to that subject matter, and advertise it heavily as such. If you have any questions on the material that you received prior to the Selectmen's meeting, please let us know that so that we can try to answer those questions at your meeting on November 8, 2005. PIH/ps WX/ Pi -F, ot ' ink Water Treatment Plant Alternative Site Presentation November 8, 2005 ~ qj Outline Background Final Sites Identified Pros and Cons Project Costs Project Schedule qj 4 Background Design New Treatment Plant Value Engineering Endangered Species Investigation Meet with MADNH MADNH mandated site analysis Efl Board of Selectmen ■ Site presentation -Aug 9th ■ Site visit -Sept. 10,h ■ Site review -Nov. 8th qj-5' - LOUANIS WTP ~ x r / t' ' INITIAL I PROPOSED : I ti ' W r~ SITE R \ : FORMER E IN „ / ti .I ^ COMPOSTING z f s r m AREA :tl~PMiMFJ1Y:.1 f . . r•4 COMPOSTING ` ` o J + oP C AREA ~ ALL READING NEW WTP I=- - - wareaTNEAWCNTPLA CONSMUCMN SITE ALTERNATIVES qj ( qjo Louanis WTP Site Pro S ■ Previously disturbed site ■ Proximity to existing infrastructure ■ Implementation within one year ■ Local control Cons qjq !1 I I I; COM COMPOSTING AREA ydla Existing Compost Area Pros Previously disturbed site Easiest redesign Less site work ■ Implementation in one year ■ Local control Cons ■ Replace existing operation ■ Relocate ■ Contract out qJ11 Full MWRA Supply ■ Pros ■ Minor infrastructure improvements ■ Less vulnerable water supply ■ Cons im Prohibited by: ■Inter-Basin Transfer Act NIAURA enabling legislation Loss of local control Loss of redundancy Nd 1,11/ Existing WTP Site Compost Site Expended to Date $1,741,000 * $1,7415000 Complete Engineering $340,000 $340,000 Construction Cost $23,5555000 $22,555,000 Purchase MWRA Water for 2 1/2yrs. $25700,000 Outsource Compost Operation $130,000/year For ever Staffing Place three staff on the water meter program No staff changes * Applies to MWRA option also qj 13 Reading, MA - WTP Project Final Design Completion / Permitting / Bidding / SRF Application Schedule 2005 2006 Month NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULf, Task Meet with Board of Selectmen Perform WTP Redesign Submit NOI Con Com Approval Natural Heritage Approval Pre-Qualification of Contractors Bid Project B ug Submit SRF Application Review Bids Town Meeting Vote Execute Construction Contract Begin Construction n 30 months qJIq TO: Board of Selectmen FROM: Bob LeLacheur DATE: November 2, 2005 RE: Water Options for the Town of Reading Six years ago, the Ad-Hoc Water Supply Committee, in their Executive Summary, concluded that: "(the Committee) has recommended the top-ranked option for the Town of Reading water supply is a combination of the current source, the Ipswich River, and the MWRA as a partial source". They established a ranking of the following factors as a `benefit criteria': quality, vulnerability, environmental impacts, yield, ability to implement, and control. They concluded that "the MWRA option is more expensive, but rates highest in the benefit criteria evaluated by the Committee" and that "the Ipswich River source alone is the most cost-effective option for the community". Please find enclosed a summary analysis of different options for the Town of Reading to operate a water supply. This analysis considers updated costs associated with these options, and study in more depth the financial details. Scenario l: Build a New Treatment Plant- use no permanent MWRA water The first scenario is to build a new water treatment plant, use MWRA water for the three years during plant construction only, and then draw 100% of the Town's water from this new treatment plant. Although, pending final approval, the Town expects to proceed with partial purchase of MWRA water, this first scenario may still serve as a useful baseline. Scenario 2: Build a New Treatment Plant - combine with MN%VRA for supplemental summertime water usage The second scenario reflects the current application process with MWRA - to purchase from them a portion of the Town's water supply. In this scenario, we have assumed that we will purchase the maximum amount of water allowed by MWRA (219 million gallons per year), and also construct a new water treatment plant. Scenario 3: Do Not Build a New Treatment Plant - use only MWRA water The final scenario reflects the possibility that we could change the Town's water supply to 100% MWRA, and not to proceed with construction of a new water treatment plant. For this scenario, we have continued to run the existing treatment plant for five years, in order for this new application to purchase additional MWRA water to be considered by the various bodies that must approve such a change. qd 1S Each of these scenarios contains four major types of costs associated with their implementation: • The first is the cost of buying water from the MWRA. The future cost of MWRA water is so critical to the final results that we have run four sets of assumptions in order to see their impact. • The second type of costs is the financing costs. We will discuss what elements are being financed, as well as the expected timing and methods of such financing. • The third type is the expected capital costs associated with each scenario. • The final type is the costs for the Town to operate & maintain (O&M) the water treatment plant. MWRA Costs According to Leo Norton of the MWRA, below are the annual rates of increase in the recent wholesale costs of MWRA water: FY02: +15.8% FY03: +7.0% FY04: +9.2% FY05: +10.1% FY06: +20.9% FY07: +13.2% projected (does not include any energy cost increase since June 05) Taken together, they represent an annual 17.4% increase. For purposes of our analysis, we decided to use their formal price forecast for the each of next nine years, which is listed below. This represents about a 7% average annual increase over that period: FY07: +13.17%' FY08: +6.74% FY09: +7.98% FY10: +4.30% FYI 1: +9.61% FY12: -0.01% FY13: +1.80% FY 14: +4.07% FY15: +1.00% The MWRA has increased the capacity of their distribution significantly during the past few years through a large capital improvement plan. The debt for the large majority of these expenses runs out over the next 35 years, and is included in their forecasts above. After much discussion about the elements of these costs, we decided to run future VJ /b analysis for the years beyond FYI 5 using the previously mentioned four sets of assumptions: +6%, +7%0, +8%, and +9% expected increases through the balance of the 35-year time period being considered. Financing Costs Brign Buckley of CDM estimates, as of September 28, 2005, that a new water treatment plant on either site under consideration would cost about $23.333 million. This figure includes $900,000 for the demolition of the existing plant. In addition, another $100,000 will be needed to purchase or construct a temporary lab/office facility to be used while plant construction occurs. In the two scenarios where a treatment plant is built, all of these costs will be financed with a 2.75% SRF loan. This loan is disbursed as funds are spent, so there is no initial borrowing with the subsequent opportunity to earn interest on the unspent balance. To enter the MWRA system, it is estimated that the Town will need to pay an entry fee of $3.18 million for partial use, and $10.0 million for full use of their water. For this model, we finance either amount at the Town's rate for general obligation debt (4.75%) for a twenty year period. In the case of partial MWRA use, the debt will be issued immediately. In the case of a full MWRA buy-in, the debt will be issued in Year 6, in order to accommodate the expected application process to MWRA. In both cases, the Town has budgeted $568k in N1WRA mitigation fees, paid by developers. These fees will offset financing costs during the first three years. Capital Costs We have received a detailed annual capital plan from Peter Tassi that would accommodate all of the three scenarios. In the case of a new treatment plant, expected future capital costs are $1.2 million, regardless of the amount of N1WRA water that is purchased. In the case of 100% MWRAA, an additional $900,000 for plant demolition will be spread over the first three years (it was financed over 20 years by the SRF loans in the other scenarios). There will also be other capital costs associated with the continued operation of.the existing treatment plant for an assumed five-year period while the application to MWRA is being considered, bringing this total to $2.8 million. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Costs Reading water treatment plant O&M has been running smoothly for several years: FY02: -1.9% FY03: +0.5% FY04: +4.3 % FY05: +5.4% FY06: +2.8% L/J This trend represents a 2.25% annual increase during the past five years. However, Peter Tassi forecasts FY07 costs to increase by 49.6%. The O&M is divided into four approximately equal parts, and is listed below with the average annual increases during the five-year period (as well as the forecast amount for next year): Personnel +5.4% (+4.1 Electricity -1.8% (+107.2%) Chemicals -0.3% (+188.5%) Other +2.7% (+5.8%) After much discussion of the nature of the components of the O&M expenses, we decided to run the model at an annual rate of 5%. If these increases occur at an annual rate of 2.25% during most years, with an occasional 50% increase (as is forecast for next year) every 13 years, then the 5% assumption will be reasonable. If 50% increases happen more often than that, these costs will be understated in the model. Summary All scenarios yield a similar result, in that the N[WRA only solution is the cheapest one initially, and then the combination of partial MWRA and Ipswich River usage over time (varying between 25 years and 35 years) becomes the cheapest solution. When that happens depends mostly upon the choice of the assumed MWTRA inflation rates beyond FY 16. Using a +7% MWRA rate, the MWRA only scenario yields a $25 million savings during the first twenty years, but after 35 years the mixed scenario saves a total of $4 million. If one recognizes the time value of money, present value analysis suggests that the early year savings push this `break-even' period out about five years. qj i& O L Y/ M Z N V L c~ V v as 'o L a k F-`r I P' S"M ~.xti~ .~f xetn r tsT-1, r ('"il ; f° 6 ~ v` M1.~ s a''L~} ' 1 7 V a rr di ~~~I x -15f ~x ~ ~ fl..]I hF' 1< r o ` ~ i~~ u IV43 Ili". 14 xti ssx ry ' C l - ~ 1 L 1 fj y~. ' 44xxsl#~,, C gg+ .gg., yr ~~w ~ ~ ~ : y~ ~ - ~y i gyp' s ~ xr + f~~S tub ~It, - 1 1te~y~ ~ } IBC IY mI k' aY l ji~l jf f : : ,qv~ 3r ? 1 ypiiMT {'j,krpf stir 'a 9 a I I I uu I I ' rt ~ J1t, , W1~ j I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O CL O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o q O O O to O LO 0 to 0 LO 0 U*i O LO 0 LO N O t- LO N O fl- LO N O tl- LO N 64 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6N? 69 _ 69 Qf _ V9 64 64 69 LO M cl' M CO M N M r M O M O N O N I- N co N LO N N M N N N N O N O ~ T w' Or✓ T r, w to T M_ N O T- 0) ti LO M N T 64 O A c O a Iq tM An}~~ ~sf~ k f~ll ~ ~ Ir~P i#+• fa4 "~F ..tC~ u 4 ~r y t1L~ i ;C,4 t~ VIs=a a, „k 1n 0 t rYxt>~G xl 0 044 O cn to RI. Z 'rTf Y 1 - 4h; /y.~~ 3 5 i~ rj j r f i 1 .v! + ~ t ~ 1111 1 P .R<) a ski 9111 ca a) wi- AM& Wwk '~irf~x `Yt ~i ~ 1~ Syr Y.y~ ir~i a$ ~ 1 ft+a 1 1 V , ~1 IIII I C'7 11 v, it S1E - - 0 0 0 Q Q CD CD 0 C) CD 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o c o ra, t0 d N O C te C y r r r r- / VT to to ka Ef} qd 2,0 ~ ~f tr ^+1t~ti' r n. a 1- ~ ~ ' s~,yr ~..~u ~L trot ~ rs c~Y ~ r fflv J If Y'1"-i`Ih ``e I.ti j/J+~. 1 4r ~YyvA It, 1rt~~ ai~' ~ ( tt 5+r tG ~ 1 ~ i ~'ta, Ir~~N I~yyiFy~~~tFv drt~y~l l~~ti~V, ~jv p21 ( 1~1{;,Z V IRry~ 1 4 R-•J,' ~ SS-%i~ jjvy~'Iri"N /~1'~ ~firll~~j%J~t~Y ~ as 4 i5 ~N A r ii ~ ~l-v~ -ur,{ 4P?i1'a' ~ 'I U p Yl+,~~ I.r~i '~y ~ b r1l h+ 7ri~g y ~ ~iT t~, SJ ~ t A'i1. JQ N 2 4fn1410 .I ~r ? v i Ial r L 2,n 3 uM Ain ' u)f` "All (D CD (2) CD CD (2) (D C) L (D CD CD CD 0 (D CD CD CD CD C) CD CD C) CD Ityr O O _ O O O O O O CD ~I N O CO (D d' N r r r U) (10 V} co c<i cn ~ c~ ~ n yr„ ~d ~'t FS ail aya n 47~ 1, all N a l p` N a J FJ" 1~~~~, p h ~ o ,q y R" '1 N v>- Cl~ l4~ a R, CL k N- Q:Y4 V~Ia v YI'r?+.Y•~ #r 1 fV t { yl ~ cu F 1, Q. lt ttt9 r ~cr a ai it t~ G 3 61 ~r• co >Ct: iii f` h (D l 4t1 ~St'• - {•I N 5-11 C) CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD O O O O O O O O O. - O. O O O O. O O }O O O - O O -O O - O' CD C) C) CD C) CD C) CD O d N 6 C (D N U)7 U) O V S E O J mo~d// IL O d N 00 co ~U d0o~ . C ~ N L m oa~~ m m ti tom- 00 M cci CO r: Do n. ~ L O L z w u> 6F> 6c> fn' ~ M C~ CA N O ~ CL co r` CL c .2 m w m z m 6')- zzG9 . ~o 0 0 0 ~ N co ti 00 0) ~ Q =00mClN 4) C6 L6 LL NL . 0 L N LO O 00 00 L6 00 Cfl N N N N M ~ O 5 to z LL 69- Hl} 69- Ef} L t ® O N 0") CO :a e'' o o. N O C37 r N co co N 0 (D O X Z. a. 60-, e a~CQcooooo: /!k ~ r T T T Z Z. S . , % V 0 co t~ 00 v = r- t` csa cfl ~~cooo o c a ta (09. Al ~NM'd'LO O N N CV CV D. N A G U) i 0 _O L Z LL. 609. ffl' 64.1- (fl' ~ O C) O O O r C p. cri c+i cYi cYi CL G W m Z fc,~ 0')- ea en} ~ N N N N i R d p,cv o zz: L 0 r. co c) r M d d ~ LL O d N O ' N N N N ~ d y o m !fl. EF3 69. GP} L l'C LC) r M 00 ti 0000 ~ 0o O ~ N L U u N z U)- 649- 013- 6px o L o tidcy) 4- n- ~ 4 LO Cfl I` O O O O 'a r r r r r C a) - Z a K ~~~69. w ~ rim tl. o~ ~ of rn:~ ~ fO O (,-Z Z ;,Er c,F-F .Efl Ems; w N o o C) 0to ti0o0) 0 ca O N .C C~ C U c 4- a) a) 0 m ca 9' c CU C_ cu E N C]. 0 CL 0 0 co a) N~ z3 O 0 r~ V i cric u) M It M M M N Cl) I- M O M O N O N N N N N M N N N N O N O O T ~ O T ~ r- T NCn LL O tf~ T cT' T _M N T r O T O co t- O LO Nt M N T O 2 O co I O c~ G I O q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o uS o ~rS o ua uS o L6 o Lo o uS o uS o uS o M N N T EA Efl v T N N M M " to S v (p ffl ff} ff} fA ffl f!~ S on A on Is to on o to 6, O V E O J w 4- LO r a .L tC E U 0 7a N L o. z d' N co CD 0ILOOOv C L m ~rntitico Sri W I` co M CLs N L Z LL 6e)- w 6e- ffl O G Q cq CU 07 N O c0CD CD I` CL ~ c ~ W m ~ c a Z m wv 09, 6s 6-~ ~ O ~:ZZcn~cf;cr}; 'F'~ O O ~ O W > cm n 00 0) Q v =oOMON N LC5 LL :n v . . ~ d a69 u9, 6s 6"> ® N In O O ~c6 L6 c6 f N N N M Lc) Y M .N O 5 Z u. 6c, e=,- cfr64t), sD O o c ~ S) QO N e O T c3) o N Q. CY) N N N C C\l N .2 d CL X Z a ~~0,)-~ W 'nQC9CpCb f' O OIL, ~;Z Z z~ c~ ~ cam: Ut . O V/ 00 VI v .d'TNC0 U. O O O O C L a da E09~ ffl EF3 o m CD O Lo T M U) M CY) It It Lo G. 0 j Z LL. 09. 6s 6s 6s 0. Z oNC~~ c ~ CL ~r ~r rr d Q c ~ ~ .2 W m Z m 6F> 6s vq~ cfr / r T na Q ; _ r 7 CI-) co M c7c Ga t o A,mi.si~~<t13 Kz L ) G N(D ti00o) Q V -co 0tiL> 0 U. r N O VN d 9 D a 6s 60- 69- 09, N (Cf I` I` It N } U tC O O t` 1~- 0. N It Lr) r - T T T T M 0 - 0 > * > LL cf} cf} 6F)6-413- z L Z ti t` ti 0 Q„ T L() O CO 't 't Lo Lo C U) T T T T O d CL X Za6a 6c> 6,D- 6e, Z Z cA 0W1-0oCY) c 0 co U co U CL Z 0 - E2 C 0 "0 V7 cu ti U- L ~O 2 O U C N U N O a co E Q .U N U ~dl,S Draft Draft Draft Draft by BT 10/31/05 Interim Report of the Reading Ad hoc Task Force on Health Insurance November 1, 2005 Summary Reading like other communities in Massachusetts has faced steep increases in health insurance costs during this decade. The biggest increase in recent memory came this past year with an 18.1% rise in rates. The dollar amount required to cover this increase matched our town funding increase allowed under Prop 2 1/2. As a result of a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen, School Committee and Finance Committee the town formed an Ad-hoc Task Force on Health Insurance. The charge of the Task Force was confirmed by the Board of Selectmen and included: Become thoroughly familiar with the Town's current health insurance program structure and costs; Review health insurance programs utilized in other communities of similar size and location as Reading; Advise as to options which might be considered for bidding the Town's health insurance program; Advise the Board of Selectmen as to what recommendations may be made to changes in State/Federal budget, laws and regulations, which would have the effect o f stabilizing health care costs. Meeting since July the Ad-hoc Task Force determined to concentrate on two issues. Malting sure that the town gets the best possible business deal on its purchase of health insurance for the town this RFP cycle; and taking time to examine those policy and process issues that may help provide insurance at a reasonable cost to the town and its staff including federal and state legislation. BackjZround The Town of Reading is responsible for providing health care coverage to employees of the town, schools, water and sewer funds as well as the Reading Municipal Light Department. The Finance Department budgets the appropriate amount for benefits for all Town departments, but the decision malting on the plan and cost sharing is shared between the town and the Employee Health Insurance Advisory Committee. This is part of the collective bargaining process, as the town benefits from coalition bargaining, which means that health benefits do not have to be negotiated as part of wage packages with individual unions. qe,l Draft Draft Draft Draft by BT 10/31/05 The town offers three major programs and one minor program for employees and retirees all from Blue Cross Blue Shield purchased through the Mass Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA). Active employees can choose between a PPO and HMO option. Retirees e ligible f or M edicare m ust c hoose M edex, a M edicare s upplement t hat o ffers prescription drug coverage as well as other benefits. Enrollees in Medex must also buy Medicare Part B(Medical). Medicare Part A (Hospital) is free to the employee. Over the last few years, more employees have joined the plan, at the same time that we have experienced significant increases in costs. Table 1 Numbers Enrolled in Town Insurance Plans Fiscal 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Plan HMO Blue Family 248 245 241 242 274 280 299 HMO Blue Individual 207 217 239 237 234 251 247 PPO Family 124 130 123 119 108 108 105 PPO Individual 120 116 105 103 106 93 89 Medex 332 340 349 354 365 359 359 Total 1031 1048 1057 1055 1087 1091 1099 Table 2 History of Health Insurance Rate Changes Year % Change Changes in Coverage 1996 -5.00% 1997 3.70% 1998 5.00% 1999 4.30% 2000 5.00% 2001 15.60% Increase Pharma Deductibles to $10 generic, $20 preferred, 2002 19.10% $35 Non-preferred New category of drugs Double co-pays for Office Visit and 2003 11.00% Emergency Room for HMO ($10 and $50, respectively) qe Z Draft Draft, Draft Draft by BT 10/31/05 2004 7.20% 2005 18.10% Increase Office Visit Co-pays HMO and PPO The trends shown in Table 1 (increasing subscribers) and Table 2 (Increasing costs) have lead to dramatic increases in budgeted expenditures on health insurance. The town operates with an insurance year that begins March 1 each year. For the year ending February 28, 2005 the total for premiums paid was just under $8 Million. For the current insurance year we expect to pay premiums totaling 18% more than in 2005. The projected increase for the following insurance year will be 15% or more. These numbers reflect combined town and employee contributions. Why Are Costs Increasing So Much? There are many factors at work that contribute to rising health care costs. Because of the retreat by the private sector in its support for health care benefits more employees are choosing to enroll in the town plans. That is why the number of enrollees has increased faster than the number of eligible employees. Health care claims by town employees have increased at a significant rate. We are not alone as this is a society wide trend. Our situation is made more difficult because the municipal work force is on average ten years older than the work force as a whole. An older workforce means higher health care expenses. Our rates are directly proportional to our experience. In recent years the town has seen claims loss ratios in the area of 89%, which means that the overwhelming use for our premium dollars is to pay out claims. The balance is used to cover administrative expenses by the insurance group, and reinsurance that is used to protect the group from extraordinary individual and group claims. Health care is one of the few sectors of our economy where the introduction of new technologies increases rather than lowers costs. This is as true for pharmacy items as it is for diagnostic equipment. Those costs are passed on to consumers in terms of higher rates. The health care costs in the Boston area are among the highest in the country. The Town and the Health Insurance Advisory Committee have been encouraging our employees when appropriate to use the lower cost community hospitals rather than the more expensive Boston teaching hospitals. Thanks to the cooperation we have made good progress in this area. The growing number of uninsured Americans increases costs for those who have health insurance as providers are forced to pass along costs for which they are uncompensated. In Massachusetts there is some reimbursement for hospitals for the so-called free care pool; however, the free care pool is not free - it is funded by a direct surcharge for those who have insurance. This policy makes providing health insurance more costly for all employers in the state, public and private, except for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which is exempt. yea Draft Draft Draft Draft by BT 10/31/05 Cutbacks in reimbursement for the provision of services under Medicaid and Medicare also causes health care providers to pass costs onto those who are fully insured. What is the Town Doing to Control Costs? For a decade the Town of Reading has maintained one of the most fair health insurance plans for its employees compared to other communities in the surrounding area. Subject to collective bargaining, the agreement has been for the town to pay 70% of health insurance premiums and the employees pay 30% plus other out of pocket expenses in their plans. This arrangement shows the excellent working relationship between the town and its employees. The Health Insurance Advisory Committee (composed of the unions, non-union, retiree and town representatives) has been meeting frequently for 19 years and has worked closely with the town to make adjustments to the benefit to help hold down costs. Some of the recent actions are shown in Table 2 above. Table 3 Comparison of Health Insurance Contributions Active Active Retiree Retiree Employe Employer e Employer Share Share Share Share Town Reading 70 30 70 30 Danvers 70 30 70 30 Burlington 75 25 50 50 Melrose 82 18 50 50 Stoneham 85 15 60 40 Tewksbury 80 20 100 0 Wakefield 83.5 16.5 75 25 Wilmington 75 25 75 25 Winchester 71 29 50 50 The town is currently involved in a request for quotation process for the new insurance year. Because of the size of the insurance issues facing the town and the complexity of the subject area the task force recommended that the Town Manager retain a consultant to help with the process. A town resident, Steve Tringale, of the firm Hinckley, Allen and Tringale was selected for the task. He has been retained to help with this year's RFP and the following year's renewal. He will circulate the RFP among the broadest group of qualified bidders in the marketplace. It is the town's intention to aggressively seek the best possible financial and benefit arrangement from qualified providers. We anticipate that this will hold down the level of increase to the maximum extent possible. As part of this process the town is again working with the Health Insurance Advisory Committee t o t ook a t w ays t o in ake c hanges t o t he b enefits t hat in ay h elp k eep c osts down. There have been changes in the past (including an increase in the office visit co- ye N Draft Draft Draft Draft by BT 10/31/05 pay this year which significantly reduced the premium increase) and the HIAC continues to cooperate with the town. Options under discussion include higher deductibles for the pharmacy benefit and hospital treatments. What more can the Town Do? The town is required by law to provide an indemnity plan for health insurance. Our plan is the Blue Care Elect Preferred. There is a significant cost for the town and its employees for each enrollee covered by the PPO versus the HMO. We need to make sure our employees and their families are fully aware of the costs associated with this choice and educate them about the true differences between the plans. Shifting more people to the HMO will significantly reduce costs. There are options for HMO plan design to make this even more attractive. The town as well as all institutions in our society must do its part to promote more healthy lifestyles. Opportunities for proper diet, exercise and stress reduction will all lead to better health and lower health care costs. The town's benefits include programs to promote healthier lifestyles including partial reimbursement for gym memberships as well as disease management programs to improve education and treatment for those who suffer from chronic illnesses. Over the next few weeks we will be evaluating whether the town should offer a buy-out program to pay a stipend to employees who have the capability of buying insurance elsewhere. What can we ask from our State and Federal Legislators? The state should immediately end the insurance surcharge for the free care pool. That money is more appropriately found in the general fund. This will lower health insurance premiums by 2%. Over the next few weeks we will be looking at other legislative recommendations to present to the Board of Selectmen. Fill-in task Force Member Names q &'.< ~ I C is ZJ-( TOWN OF READIN 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 Phone: 781-942-6612 Fax: 781-942-9071 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Email: creilly@dreading.ma.us October 27, 2005 Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 RE: LETTER FROM SALLY HOYT - BY-LAW CHANGES Dear Peter: This letter is in response to your letter on the same subject dated October 7, 2005. Ms. Hoyt .attended the October 3, 2005 Community Planning and Development Commission (CPDC) meeting and provided her comments as part of the public comments portion of the meeting. In reviewing her information, the CPDC (with input from Town Counsel) has first and foremost determined that Ms. Hoyt's memo (dated September 21, 2005) does not constitute an official petition for by-law changes as defined in M.G.L Section 40A. However, as requested, the following is our input on Ms. Hoyt's request for changes and discussion of issues (4013s) found in her memo: . (1) The permitting authority in the town for 40B developments is the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). ZBA must perform a balancing act between the town's interests and those of the developer when negotiating mitigations and other modifications to a developer's 40B proposal. If the ZBA acts in a heavy-handed manner, they run the risk of the developer appealing to, a developer-favorable legal system. (2) In general, the community is aware of the potential impact of 40Bs and the triggering function for these developments. Reading has continued to pursue strategies, such as planned production and other by-law changes (such as Mixed Use) aimed at increasing the size of the Town's affordable housing stock. Although there is limited land left for development in Reading, our community is concerned with 4013s in general because of their ability to over-ride local zoning. The Master Plan has captured this fact and many of the goals and objectives point toward increasing affordable housing. However, we must be cognizant of the fact that unless we are able to meet the state mandates, we, like most other communities, will continue to be subject to 40B developments. (3) With respect to the West Street development that seems to be the catalyst for Ms. Hoyt's concerns, this 40B project underwent an open public hearing process which lasted for C:\Docnments and Settings\creilly\Local Settings\'remporary Internet Fi1es\0LKA30\LTR to TM - By-Law Changes 1049-05redline.doc ~ " Created on 10/19/05 5:15 PM close to 1 year. The CPDC recognizes that while it may not have been apparent to the committee, the neighbors, or even the developer what impact the final design would have on the character of West Street, this public hearing process provided all parties involved with the opportunity to express their concerns and in many cases reach agreement on mitigations. (4) The CPDC is confident that the existing zoning setbacks are adequate, and more importantly making changes would result in a potentially significant impact to the town since it would have the affect of malting almost every residential property in Reading non-conforming. In the end, the by-law change (to 50 feet) would create an immediate need for homeowners to come to the ZBA for some of the most mundane changes to their property. The CPDC stands ready to hold a thoughtful discussion with Ms. Hoyt or any other resident of Reading on this particular subject and invite Ms. Hoyt to attend any of the current Master Plan Advisory Committee meetings where these issues are routinely discussed. The CDPC is also available to ensure that residents are aware of the requirements and process for submitting by- law changes for consideration by the town. The CPDC hopes this letter addresses your concerns and plans to forward a copy of this letter to Ms. Hoyt in response to her recent memorandum. gards, ohn Sasso Chairperson, CPDC CC: Board of Selectmen Chris Reilly, Town Planner Community Planning and Development Commission Zoning Board of Appeals Sn 09/23/2005 13:37 17819441191 SALLY M HOYT PAGE 01 Sally M. Hoyt 221 West Street, Reading, MA 01867 Telephone:. 701-044-1191 September 21, 2005 TO: MEMBERS. OF THE COMMUNITY ©EVELOPMENTiPLANNINC COMMISSION FF_ PROPOM R CC►MMENDATIQNS FQR CHANCES IN Z4I1 W SY1 M REGULATIONS TO PROTECT 11JE "OWN FROM FUTURE MIUMENTS AND ESPECIALLY. 40a PRO,.iE= I attended the presentation of the Ad Hoc Committee's Master flan before the Board of Selectmen on Tuesday, September 20; 2005, and commended its members for the fine job well done. Following my discussions with the Town Manager, I am recommending bylaw changes to protect the Town of Reading and abutters from future 408 developments.: Reading requires stronger regulations that would prohibit the placing of structures so close to the roadway. 50 ft. frontage should be required. Structures should also have 50 ft. setback from abutters property line. 408 developments should position lower structures at the front of the development, and- taller ones at the rear of the * development. This would allow for beautification of grounds along the street side. The design of all future structures, including 40B projects, must be in keeping with the neighborhood to protect its historic village pattern. The designs must be approved prior to the granting of permits. We must mandate by regulations the number of stories developers may build in future developments. We must do everything in our power to protect abutters and neighbors of future developments. The property of abutters and neighbors' of the current Spence Farm development has been enormously violated. We need stronger safeguards and zoning bylaws that would protect our Town, its abutters and neighbors. THANK YOU. SALLY M. HOYT L . A~ gR N LL /tn V_ N~ 'W'^ v+ Q J LL. 0 rV Vz i V LO CID Cfl(0CD CO OC0(0co CD O co L I~- V- M M M CO M M M M M M COONNNN 0 NNNNNN N . = L 0 U) 00 00 0p 00 MNr0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 000000 00 O r r r r r r r r r r r r 69. 69. 69 EF} 69- E9• > E 64 69 69. 69. 69 69- T- IQ ~ Efl' m LO 00 U) U') LO U) LO U) LO Lf) U) Ln > N 00 0 Cfl co CD cD 0 CD CD 0 (0 Lf) r (3 CS) O Cl) O) 0 0) O) 0 CI U) cri Cy) Lfi U) Lo U) O LO U) LO U-) LO L i ~ 69• ff} r r r r r r r r r r E U 64 6:.~ 6% 613, 64 69, 63 61} 69- 61). M U N to ti ~ co Lf) CO t- C7) 0 a) M V) (D U) 69- 69X 6s L6 T- ui ~ _ GPI 69- 000000 0 000000 0 0 '0 U)0 MM LO V) O LnU)LnLOU)M 0 O Q) C7 M c y! CO M w+ r M co co M c y! - N S w CDOOOC70 N OC) 0000 N d L,) r r r r r r CO r r r r r r CD N O 0 6F} W. W 69~ 6a 69~ U9. 69~ 691 69 69 64 EF} 64 TI- ~ Q 04 LO U0 LO LO 0 0 00 00 10 O'd'44 L .s v d d' OO M M M M LI) U) U) Lo U) M M M co M co N _ ; Q O > *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0"t r 00 V) N M (fl co 0 1-- 75 + I 00 0) C) 000 L CO ~ T- CO (DD ~t 0- M ~ ,~r r N M d d' LO CO r I- > i +-1000000 000000 M LO IT U') r I- I- I- 1-- I-- t-- 1-- t~ O G) p 06 T- d CO CO CO 1 CO CO O CD CO CD 0 0 _ 0 d' M N Imo- 1` r. Imo- Imo- Imo- I` ti ti ti M -O L -0 N ce) N r r C =N 00 U) N U) 0 U) 00==Nd'LO r r 'O d .C U) ti r ti ti N Imo- t` ti ti ti I` N ~t C M 0C0000CD0(D ~ ~OCOOCflCO ON CD 0 0 O !h- I- t-- r- Imo- I-- co ti, f- 11- Imo- I- I- O Q L L L C C a) M -W f6 O co > C ) 0)0 'C ~ ~ ~ 0 . - O <CCO0z0 LL "5 ~ I- ~ ~ ~ Sb Page 1 of 2 Hechenbiefter, Peter b / C965 From: cnj4@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:59 AM To: Paiewonsky@state.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; Schubert, Rick; canthony@cdmtitle.com; jebarnes@mit.edu; bruen-n- bruen@comcast.net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; dac@cummings.com; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian. Durrant@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; g-r@comcast.net; anthonyken nedy@comcast. net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com Cc: jblaustein @mapc.org; mary.burggraff@hou.state. ma.us; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; dcooke@vhb.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; Town Manager; Michael. Lindstrom@state. ma.us; blucas@mapc.org; elutz@hshassoc.com; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth. Miller@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; kpyke@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; mossywood@juno.com Subject: $500,000 FOR EMINENT DOMAIN SOFTWARE Note: my apologies for resending this email. My first attempt was not totally successful. Bob, During the Task Force meeting on October 19th, 2005, you and Jay Corey (Traffic Engineer, City of Woburn) insisted that developing software for accident analysis was totally unreasonable given the time and expense, not to mention software debugging. I countered in a recent email by citing an estimated figure of $55,000 that the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), Right of Way Division, allegedly spent on software to support eminent domain activities. Well, my estimate was incorrect by nearly a factor of 10. From a very reliable source, I learned that the MHD spent approximately $500,000 on eminent domain software. This software was developed from "scratch" over a two year period. The need for this software arose because of a Right of Way Division staff reduction. Thus, a paper bottleneck hindered a more efficient process for seizing homes. So, the MHD has $500,000 for eminent domain software development, but not a dime for accident safety analysis software development. I assume that if the MHD had actually expended funds on developing such accident analysis software, you would have mentioned it during the Task Force meeting on October 19th as a rebuttal point. However, I don't recall any such rebuttal from you, but rather a litany of excuses. Clearly, taking homes far out ranks any concern that the MHD might have for public safety on state roads. The hypocrisy/chutzpah factor for the MHD just increased by a factor of 10. I want a full accounting of this matter at the next Task Force meeting. 10/28/2005 Page 2 of 2 To my colleagues on the Task Force: What is your reaction to this latest revelation? Does it bother you? Will you feel safer traveling through a MHD redesigned interchange? 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 4?4~' 10/28/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: agchabane [agchabane@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:50 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Sanborn Lane Dear Peter: We received your letter of October 28 today. We are taking back this information to the group, we will review and advise on the matters at issue the week of November 7 Again, thank you so much for facilitating this neighborhood meeting and please extend the same to members of the selectmen, Chief Cormier and Ted MacIntire. Best regards, Sidney Chabane 106 Sanborn Lane and Gloria Hulse 107 Sanborn Lane 11/2/2005