HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-03 Board of Selectmen PacketOF RF9OrG
Town of Reading
`mods ' two 16 Lowell Street
r639.N~ RQa Reading, MA 01867-2685
FAX: (781) 942-9071
Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us
Website: www.readingma.gov
TOWN MANAGER
(781) 942-9043
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Selectmen
FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner
DATE: October 30, 2009
RE: Agenda - November 3, 2009
Rick Schubert has office hours at 6:30 p.m.
3a) Badge Pinning - Our new Police Officer Patrick Silva and his family will be present
for a badge pinning.
3b) The Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee is meeting on November 2 and will
have recommendations for appointments to the West Street Historic District
Commission.
3c) The Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee is meeting on November 2 and will
have a recommendation for a second RCTV Board member by the Board of
Selectmen.
3d) The Volunteer Appointment Sub-Committee is meeting on November 2 and will
have recommendations for an Associate appointment to the Trails Committee.
4a) Irene Collins and other members of the Chamber of Commerce will be in to give the
Board of Selectmen a preview and update on the holiday lighting program. The
holiday lighting is on the Sunday after Thanksgiving - November 29.
4b) Town Planner Jean Delios will do a brief presentation of the highlights of the Town
Planner's position.
4c) Elder/Human Services Administrator Dawn Folopoulos will present to the Board of
Selectmen the proposed amendments to the Senior Tax Work Program. Although
this doesn't require Board of Selectmen approval, the Board was instrumental in
establishing the program initially and setting the parameters for it.
4d) Please bring a copy of the Warrant Report with you. Attached is an outline of the
Warrant Articles. The Board of Selectmen will be voting on whether or not to take
positions on each of the various articles.
4e) I will be previewing with the Board of Selectmen and requesting suggestions on the
report to Town Meeting regarding the Cemetery Garage. I'll have a copy of the
report for the Board on Tuesday.
4f) Attached is a copy of the policy establishing the Municipal Building Committee.
The School Committee, Library Board and Finance Committee are all amenable to
the policy and I will set this up for a hearing on November 24, 2009.
4g) Review Downtown Parking Recommendations - The Board of Selectmen had
previously received the report from the consultant. It is also on the website. I will
include with this packet an Executive Summary and short and long-term
recommendations.
PIH/ps
Page 1 of 2
VC P L..J,6 ! c.
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:33 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Field User Fee Increase for Non-Residents
I/c Board of Selectmen
From: Reading - Selectmen
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:33 PM
To: 'Donnelly Moran Family'
Cc: Feudo, John
Subject: RE: Field User Fee Increase for Non-Residents
Dear Charles :
Thank you for sending an email to the Board of Selectmen. The Board has adopted a policy of not
sending substantive responses to emails in order to try to stay in compliance with the Commonwealth's
open meeting law which prohibits policy discussions by the Board outside of an open public meeting.
Please understand that the Board values your input on issues and your correspondence will be included
in the materials circulated to the Board prior to its next meeting and it is available as part of the public
record. The Board members will have a chance to comment during an upcoming public meeting.
If you want to have a personal discussion of the issue with a member of the Board, we hold "office"
hours in Reading Town Hall before the first regularly scheduled meeting of each month at 6:30 PM in
the first floor conference room. The Board of Selectmen meeting schedule is posted on the web site at
www.readingma.gov.
Additionally, each of the members of the Board of Selectmen has a listed home phone number:
Ben Tafoya
781-944-3178
James Bonazoli
781-944-5116
Camille Anthony
781-944-3506
Rick Schubert
781-942-1617
Steve Goldy
781-779-1773
This email is being cc'd to our Recreation Administrator who can let the Board of Selectmen know what
the situation is with respect to any Special Needs programs, and whether or not they are charged fees,
and whether non-residents are part of such programs.
Thank you again for contacting the Board of Selectmen.
Camille Anthony
Secretary
Reading Board of Selectmen
1/c Board of Selectmen
/I'- /
10/27/2009
Page 2 of 2
From: Donnelly Moran Family [mailto:donnellymo@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:40 PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Subject: Field User Fee Increase for Non-Residents
Hello,
I recently saw on a RCTV broadcast of a Selectmen's Meeting that the user fee was now being
increased to $100 per season for each non-resident member of a sports team using a town owned field. I
understand the reasons given for this increase.
There was no discussion at the meeting of any sports teams that were for athletes with special needs.
I know that there is such a team that plays soccer on Sunday afternoons at Longwood, and I believe
there had at one point in time been a similair T ball program. I don't know if the town currently charges
a user fee for these teams, but if they do, I would not want these families to have to pay the additional
expense to participate if they are a non-resident. I believe that the programs for athletes who have
special needs sometimes have trouble finding enough residents to field a whole team and that our
residents would therefore greatly benefit from the town not erecting a barrier for them to have the
opportunity to participate in a sports program in town even if it required the participation of some non-
residents. I know that our community benefits from having services in town for all of our residents.
Thanks you for your reconsideration of this matter.
Charles Donnelly Moran
10/27/2009
ur it
MEMORANDUM
TO: Peter Hechenbleikner & Bob LaLacheur
cc: Nancy Heffernan
FROM: Dawn Folopoulos
DATE: October 23, 2009
SUBJECT: Proposed Changes to the Property Tax Work Off Program
Please consider the following changes to the Property Tax Work Off Program:
Overview of the Program
Property Tax Work Off Program has been in place in Reading since 1997. The program provides
seniors who qualify (age, home ownership and occupancy, and income level) the opportunity to
volunteer for the Town in exchange for an abatement on their property taxes. The program not
only.provides hours of valuable service to the Town, it also acknowledges and affirms the skills
of the elderly and the community's continuing need for their services.
#1
Raise the abatement limit from $750 to $1000
On June 29, 2009, the following amendment was made to the Massachusetts General Law that
pertains to the Property Tax Work Off Program:
SECTION 24. Section 5K of chapter 59 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby
amended by striking out, in line 13, the figure "$750" and inserting in place thereof the
following figure:- $1,000
Cities and.Town have the local option of increasing the maximum abatement amount Property
Tax Workers can receive in exchange for their volunteer work.
I understand firsthand the difficult time Reading seniors are having making ends meet. Our
seniors are trying to stretch their fixed incomes to cover the increasing cost of groceries, utilities,
healthcare and health insurance. I am requesting this increase on their behalf. The income
guidelines Reading has in place ensure that only those with the most financial need will qualify
to participate.
Current guidelines are: $46, 300 for a single person and $52, 950 for a couple.
I
If approved, I would like this modification to take effect at the start of the next program cycle
which runs from December 1, 2009 - November 30, 2010.
#2
Increase the number of participant slots from 21 to 30
Due to the recent economic downturn, more seniors are applying for the program then in the
past. Many communities are resorting to lotteries and waiting lists to address the increased
demand. Reading has not had to resort to such measures in the past but the increase demand for
our current 21 slots will force us to develop a method of select in the coming cycle because we
will not be able to accommodate all the qualifying applicants.
Although the application deadline isn't for another 2 weeks, I have already received several
applications from seniors who want to participate for the first time.
Is there enough work to go around?
Increasing the maximum allowable abatement to $1000 and the number of slots to 30 will greatly
increase the number of hours available to the Town for the Property Tax Worker's assistance.
I feel confident that we can place all the Property Tax Workers and allow opportunities for them
to utilize all of their hours to reach the maximum benefit of $1000.
I have received requests from the following departments for PTW assistance in the coming cycle.
Clerk's office
Facilities
Historical Commission
School Athletics
Joshua Eaton School
Wood End School
Parker Middle School
Killam Elementary School
School's Central Office
Police Department; DPW
These requests are in addition to the 21 position we have been filling over the past many years.
Lf C,,'3
2
DRAFT
November 9, 2009 Subsequent Town Meeting
WARRANT OUTLINE 10/30/2009
Art. Mover/ Moderator
# Article Description Sponsor Comment Notes
1
Reports
Board of Selectmen
♦ RMLD -Mary Ellen
O'Neill
♦ State of the Schools -
Doherty
♦ Follow-up on Cemetery
garage instructional
Motion -
Hechenbleikner
♦ Motion to Table -
Tafoya
t h r „J
i Y i~. 4
j? N\ a t 4 t r. T(! S t`
4 r u, Y
2
Instructions
Board of Selcchimi
+ Mot wii to lable-
Bimazoli
O L'
r
h,
, Y
;
7"
F
a
~y
t
r
f'
3
Amend Capital Improvement
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion -Anthony
Program FY 2010 - FY 2019
♦ Presentation -
LeLacheur
♦ FINCOM report -
Greenfield
4
Amend FY 2010 Budget
FINCOM
♦ Motion -Hines
♦ Presentation -
LeLacheur
♦ FINCOM report -Hines
J°}{
T,,+,
e 1 ip ;F' i
r ; b
id, 7 1 r Yt'tr
5
Payment of prior years bills
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion to Indefinitely
Indefinitely postpone
Postpone - Schubert
L uFrsn ( r '1 ~
~ ~k r,'' n 15 u
7 "S s rc ^'yi i3 -
6
Disposal of tangible property
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Goldy
♦ Presentation -
Hechenbleikner
♦ FINCOM report - Leyne
~k
7
Acceptance of COLA for Exemptions
Board of Assessors
♦ Motion to Indefinitely
Indefinitely postpone
Postpone - Nordstrand
8
Rescind debt authorizations
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Tafoya
♦ Presentation -
LeLacheur
♦ FINCOM report -West
9
Sewer UI Grant/Loan
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Bonazoli
♦ Presentation - Zager
♦ FINCOM report -
Torman
qcj (
10
Authorize the sum of $60,000 for
Board of Cemetery
♦ Motion to Indefinitely
Indefinitely postpone.
design of a building at Laurel Hill
Trustees
Postpone -Bill Brown
Cemetery
EMEMEEMMESEEM
11
Acceptance of Restaurant Meals Tax
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Anthony
♦ Presentation -
LeLacheur
♦ FINCOM report - White
♦ Bylaw Committee report
- Pacino
♦ School Committee
report -
♦ Board of Selectmen
report -
;11 151 1'
12
Amend General Bylaws section 5.5.4
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion -Schubert
re alcohol on public property with
♦ Presentation -
Hechenbleikner
approval of Board of Selectmen
♦ Bylaw Committee report
- Pacino
13,
Amending General Bylaw section
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Goldy
4.5.2 re junk
♦ Presentation -
Hechenbleikner and
Doucette
♦ Bylaw Committee report
- Pacino
4. ~ L~ YFY )t (JL3 li? ^ N
~ /7~
N ~
~
a
~ }y r y ~ y a".il A
. ut
.4
3' E.
54'
L
4 1 } ~'7fiJT, 3ik{.
~ v. `2ti ;f
N1=.
A
S
. ~ .
CIS r
{;-7t
~
~
.
.
C~
14
Approve amendments to the
Board of Cemetery
♦ Motion to Indefinitely
Indefinitely postpone
Cemetery Rules and Regulations
Trustees
Postpone Bill Brown
^k~,q d 1
1" 7y Y
15
Amending Section 6.3.17 of the
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion - Tafoya
Zoning Bylaw re non-conforming
♦ Presentation - Delios
and Doucette
structures
♦ Bylaw Committee report
-Pacino
_
16
Rescinding West Street historic
Board of Selectmen
♦ Motion to Indefinitely
Indefinitely postpone
District Bylaw
Postpone Anthony
qd~
Page 1 of 4
QoS 3
Schena, Paula
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:53 AM
To: Keating, Bob
Cc: Schena, Paula
Subject: RE: Bylaw and Charter
Bob
Please see section 4.11 of the bylaws below as to process, specifically Section 4.11.2. Paula Schena in my office
can assist you in getting the advertising done properly, and the hearing posted. If I'm available I'd be glad to
addend the hearing and assist the chairman in the hearing process, since I know that the Board of Cemetery
Trustees is not used to holding hearings.
Pete
4.11 Rules and Regulations
4.11.1 All Town agencies or Town officers, as defined in Section 8-7 of the
Charter, shall comply with the following procedures in the adoption or
amendment of such rules or regulations which they are empowered to
adopt or amend pursuant to these Bylaws, the Charter, the General Laws
of the Commonwealth or any other enabling act.
The provisions of this Bylaw shall be in addition to the filing requirements
of Section 8-8 of the Charter. The provisions of this Bylaw shall not apply
to the adoption, modification or amendment of any rules or regulations for
which a procedure is otherwise provided by general or special law or to
rules and regulations which relate primarily to the internal operations or
procedure of a Town agency or Town officer.
4.11.2 No Town agency or Town officer shall adopt or amend any rule or
regulation until after a public hearing, notice of the time and place of
which, and of the subject matter sufficient for identification, shall be
posted in a conspicuous place in the Town Hall for a period of not less
than seven (7) days before the date of such hearing and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town not less than seven (7) days
before the day of the hearing if such newspaper exists. Copies of the
General Bylaws 24 Amended through July 2009
entire text shall be supplied to the Board of Selectmen, the Finance
Committee, the Bylaw Committee and the Town Counsel not less than
seven (7) days prior to said hearing and shall be available to the public at
the office of the Town Clerk and at said hearing. Prior to the adoption or
amendment of any such rule or regulation, the Town Counsel shall render
an opinion to the Town agency or Town officer proposing such adoption
or amendment.
Notice of the adoption or amendment of any such rule or regulation shall
be posted in a conspicuous place in the Town Hall and published once in
a newspaper of general circulation of the Town if such newspaper exists.
A copy of all such rules or regulations so adopted or amended shall be
filed in the Office of the Town Clerk and, as provided in Section 8-8 of
4 ~3
10/22/2009
Page 2 of 4
the Charter, they shall not become effective until ten (10) days following
the date they are so filed.
4.11.3 Any inhabitant of the Town may propose a rule or regulation or
amendment to the same by notifying the appropriate Town officer or
Town agency in writing with a copy of the proposed rule or regulation or
amendment. Within ninety (90) days of the receipt thereof, the Town
officer or Town agency shall afford such inhabitant the opportunity to
appear before said Town officer or Town agency to present the rationale
for the proposed rule or regulation or amendment. If the Town officer or
Town agency determines to promulgate such rule, regulation or
amendment, it shall thereafter follow the provisions of this Bylaw.
If the Town officer or Town agency determines not to promulgate such
rule, regulation or amendment, it shall give written notification of the
same to the proposing inhabitant within thirty (30) days of the meeting on
the proposal.
From: Keating, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:39 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: RE: Bylaw and Charter
Peter: The Cemetery Board has voted to indefinitely postpone the article regarding the building. How should
they approach the Rules and Regs in light of Town Counsels comments? Thank you, Bob.
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:00 PM
To: Keating, Bob
Subject; FW: Bylaw and Charter
From: Ellen Doucette [mailto:ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Fw: Bylaw and Charter
Peter,
I found the email (see below) of my response to your question, and my notes. In reviewing my response, I did not
say that town meeting approval was required for the cemetery's rules and regulations, but that the provisions of
c.114, sec. 22 (which applies to an elected board of commissioners) and sec. 23 (which requires that elected
board under sec. 22 to submit its rules for town approval, i.e., town meeting) was likely the reason why they were
submitted to town meeting in 1994. Unfortunately, I should have provided a more specific conclusion as I did not
intend to infer that town meeting approval was necessary again.
Reading's cemetery board is not an elected board under c.114, sec. 22 or appointed under c.114, sec. 27 but is a
Board of Cemetery Trustees established by Section 4-5 of the Charter. The Charter makes the Trustees subject
to the Charter, bylaws and Town Meeting votes. There isn't anything in the Charter or bylaws that requires town
meeting approval for the rules and regulations. Unless there is a Town Meeting vote somewhere that requires it,
it is my opinion that Article 14 should be removed from the warrant but must be submitted to the approval
procedure of Section 4.11 of the General Bylaws.
I apologize for any confusion.
~ 4
10/22/2009
Page 3 of 4
Ellen
Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq.
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 799-9739
(508) 799-9799 Facsimile
Original Message
From: Ellen Doucette
To: Hechenbleikner Peter
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Bylaw and Charter
Peter,
RE: Section 4.11 and the Cemetery Trustees' rules and regulations - The second paragraph, second sentence, of
Section 4.11.1 states that "The provisions of this Bylaw shall not apply to the adoption, modification or
amendment of any rules or regulations for which a procedure is otherwise provided by general or special law "
M.G.L. c.114, sec. 23 sets forth the authorities of a municipal cemetery commission and states that "and, subject
to approval of the town, may make such regulations consistent w/ith law, as it deems expedient." "Approval of the
town" can only mean Town Meeting. This is likely why it was done in 1997.
Re: Section 7-6(d) - the use of the term "shall" does not provide you with any discretion to refuse the article.
However, you described it as a "petitioned" article. Do you mean a ten taxpayer petition under c.39, sec. 10? If
so, it must go on the warrant however, I would think that such an appropriation falls into the capital improvements
program and the petition seeks to circumvent the process. The Moderator would be within his authority to rule it
out of order.
Ellen
Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq.
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 799-9739
(508) 799-9799 Facsimile
Original Message
From: Hechenbleikner Peter
To: Ellen Callahan Doucette
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: Bylaw and Charter
Ellen
Section 4.11 of the General Bylaws allows various agencies of the Town to adopt Rules and Regulations, and
makes provision for the process for doing so. Is there any provision of Statute that requires a Cemetery Board
S~
LJ ~
10/22/2009
Page 4 of 4
to get Town Meeting approval to amend its rules and regulations, or can they do so under section 4.11. 1 do
recall in the past going to town Meeting for approval of the Cemetery Rules and Regulations - 1994 1 believe,
but Section 4.11 was enacted in 1988.
Section 7-6(d) of the Reading Home Rule Charter requires the Town Manager to integrate all warrant articles
exceeding $500 into the annual budget. We have received a petitioned warrant article from the Cemetery Board
to spend $125,000 for the design of a new Cemetery Garage. Is this article in order? If so does that mean that
I must include this in the budget, whether I agree with it or not?
Pete
4~G
10/22/2009
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Ellen Doucette [ecdoucette@brackettlucas.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Fw: Bylaw and Charter
Peter,
I found the email (see below) of my response to your question, and my notes. In reviewing my response, I did not
say that town meeting approval was required for the cemetery's rules and regulations, but that the provisions of
c.114, sec. 22 (which applies to an elected board of commissioners) and sec. 23 (which requires that elected
board under sec. 22 to submit its rules for town approval, i.e., town meeting) was likely the reason why they were
submitted to town meeting in 1994. Unfortunately, I should have provided a more specific conclusion as I did not
intend to infer that town meeting approval was necessary again.
Reading's cemetery board is not an elected board under c.114, sec. 22 or appointed under c.114, sec. 27 but is a
Board of Cemetery Trustees established by Section 4-5 of the Charter. The Charter makes the Trustees subject
to the Charter, bylaws and Town Meeting votes. There isn't anything in the Charter or bylaws that requires town
meeting approval for the rules and regulations. Unless there is a Town Meeting vote somewhere that requires it,
it is my opinion that Article 14 should be removed from the warrant but must be submitted to the approval
procedure of Section 4.11 of the General Bylaws.
I apologize for any confusion.
Ellen
Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq.
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 799-9739
(508) 799-9799 Facsimile
Original Message
From: Ellen Doucette
To: Hechenbleikner,._Peter
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Bylaw and Charter
Peter,
RE: Section 4.11 and the Cemetery Trustees' rules and regulations - The second paragraph, second sentence, of
Section 4.11.1 states that "The provisions of this Bylaw shall not apply to the adoption, modification or
"
amendment of any rules or regulations for which a procedure is otherwise provided by general or special law. .
M.G.L. c.114, sec. 23 sets forth the authorities of a municipal cemetery commission and states that "and, subject
to approval of the town, may make such regulations consistent with law, as it deems expedient." "Approval of the
town" can only mean Town Meeting. This is likely why it was done in 1997.
Re: Section 7-6(d) - the use of the term "shall" does not provide you with any discretion to refuse the article.
However, you described it as a "petitioned" article. Do you mean a ten taxpayer petition under c.39, sec. 10? If
so, it must go on the warrant however, I would think that such an appropriation falls into the capital improvements
10/13/2009
Vd -7
Page 2 of 2
program and the petition seeks to circumvent the process. The Moderator would be within his authority to rule it
out of order.
Ellen
Ellen Callahan Doucette, Esq.
Brackett & Lucas
19 Cedar Street
Worcester, MA 01609
(508) 799-9739
(508) 799-9799 Facsimile
Original Message
From: Hechenbleikner,_ Peter
To: Ellen...Callahan.._Doucette
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: Bylaw and Charter
Ellen
Section 4.11 of the General Bylaws allows various agencies of the Town to adopt Rules and Regulations, and
makes provision for the process for doing so. Is there any provision of Statute that requires a Cemetery Board
to get Town Meeting approval to amend its rules and regulations, or can they do so under section 4.11. 1 do
recall in the past going to town Meeting for approval of the Cemetery Rules and Regulations -1994 1 believe,
but Section 4.11 was enacted in 1988.
Section 7-6(d) of the Reading Home Rule Charter requires the Town Manager to integrate all warrant articles
exceeding $500 into the annual budget. We have received a petitioned warrant article from the Cemetery
Board to spend $125,000 for the design of a new Cemetery Garage. Is this article in order? If so does that
mean that I must include this in the budget, whether I agree with it or not?
Pete
q~'~
10/13/2009
DRAFT
Policy establishing an
ad hoc Municipal Building Committee
ad hoc Municipal Building Committee
"Municipal" Buildings shall include Town and School Department buildings.
There is hereby created an ad hoc Municipal Building Committee, which shall exist until December 31,
2010 or until such earlier date the ad hoc Committee may have completed its work. The ad hoc committee and
its member's terms may be extended by the Board of Selectmen for up to an additional 12 months.
The ad hoc Municipal Building Corrnnittee shall consist of seven (7) residents of Reading for terms
expiring December 31, 2010. In selecting the membership, an attempt will be made to fill the membership as
follows:
0 1 Member appointed by the School Committee
0 1 Member appointed by the Board of Library Trustees
0 1 Member appointed by the Finance Committee
0 1 Member of the Board of Selectmen appointed by the Board of Selectmen
0 3 Residents at Large that do not fulfill any other requirements of the other categories. The
Board of Selectmen will attempt to include in those members some members who have
experience and expertise in building design and construction. It is the intent of the Board of
Selectmen that staff members should serve as a resource to the ad hoc committee, but not serve
as members of the committee.
The ad hoc Committee shall perform the following activities related to developing conceptual plans
and programs for Municipal Building projects over the next 10 years:
1. Review and understand the scope of the charge to the ad hoc committee, and develop a suggested
work plan and schedule;
2. Reach out to Town Departments and Boards/Committees/Commissions that may have building
space needs within the next 10 years (2020) for their information and ideas;
3. Understand the resources available to potentially address Municipal Building needs, including
Town owned property on Oakland Road which is currently under the care, custody, and control of
the Board of Selectmen;
4. Prepare a preliminary report on the scope of foreseeable Municipal Building needs through the
2020;
5. Submit the preliminary to the Board of Selectmen for their review and comment;
6. Based on Board of Selectmen review, advance priority projects forward to a point where Town
Meeting authorization for funds to design and build the individual or collective facilities may be
sought;
7. Report to the Board of Selectmen and get feedback at key milestones in this process, including
prior to the development of the final report..
In conducting its work, the Municipal Building Committee shall place a priority on the issue of need,
scope, and siting of garage and related space for the DPW Cemetery Division.
Staff and Town Counsel will be assigned to work with the ad hoc Municipal Building Committee
through the Town Manager and Superintendent of Schools as appropriate. The ad hoc Municipal Building
Committee will be considered to be part of the Town Managers Office for administrative purposes.
Adopted /09
4e~
Chapter 7. Recommendations
The analysis conducted for Reading's Comprehensive Parking Program has demonstrated that there
is plenty of parking supply in the downtown to support all existing uses as well as a substantial
amount of future growth. However, this ideal scenario is only possible through the efficient
management and sharing of all parking resources in public and private hands. While it is not likely that
all existing parking resources can be utilized to their maximum extent during all hours of the week,
many communities in America have made great strides at sharing this valuable land resource among
a variety of users.
Inherent to improved sharing is an improved parking management program. The analysis of
Reading's downtown parking supply makes it clear that significant parking resources that are
available to the general public are entirely underutilized during periods of peak demand. Even if the
cost of a new parking structure were not prohibitive, simply increasing off-street supply would not
eliminate the persistent parking problems experienced by Reading's residents, employees and visitors
today. Reading does not have an undersupply of parking; it has a supply management problem.
Parking and Transportation Demand Management
Some of the most successful small downtowns in America are benefitted by a mixed-use core with a
welcoming walking environment that allows residents, employees and visitors alike to experience
most of the downtown's services and entertainment by parking only once and walking between
destinations. Even in communities where parking is mismanaged and visitors are forced to search for
spaces or park remotely, walking connections are welcoming, well-signed and safe. This creates an
environment that people enjoy being a part of - even if they must walk a couple minutes to get to their
destination. In communities that manage their parking well, visitors easily find convenient parking
spaces, helping to encourage activity while minimizing traffic congestion created by the hunt for
parking.
Communities like Reading that seek to boost economic activity in their downtowns can learn a lot from
the experiences of communities that manage their parking well. The recommended parking
management program below includes several best practices from around the United States that can
serve Reading's goals very well. These best practices include some of the most progressive
transportation demand management (TDM) programs available, which have helped to significantly
reduce parking demand and congestion while improving the attractiveness of walking, biking and
transit. These elements are designed to meet several goals:
Provide shoppers, employees and residents with sufficient parking, in a manner that is
convenient and cost-effective.
Provide additional transportation choices, including transit, carpool, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and services.
Advance the broader goals of Reading by creating a neighborhood that is genuinely oriented
towards transit, walking and bicycling.
It is important to keep in mind that parking and transportation policies have powerful effects not
merely on parking demand, but on development feasibility, housing affordability, the amount of traffic
produced by new developments, the quality of urban design, and many other fundamental aspects
that make downtown Reading a place.
Phased Implementation Plan
The following recommended programs and policies have been organized in a phased action plan with
short, medium and long term actions. This organization recognizes that certain changes to policy or
infrastructure can take some time to plan, finance and/or implement. However, several short-term
actions have been identified that could be implemented immediately by the Town, resolving critical
issues while creating some momentum for further action.
Ltg
Short-Term Actions
The following actions are recommended to be implemented within the next 6 months. They are
grouped into parking management and TDM actions.
Parking Management:
1) Expand the Employee Parking Permit Program
Today, residents of Reading who work in downtown can park at over 350 on-street resident-only
spaces with their $25 per year Community Access Sticker - in addition to any private off-street
parking privileges they may have. However, most employees come from other communities. The
Town provides a $20 per month, or $240 per year, Employee Parking Permit that allows these
employees to park in 70 on-street and 27 off-street spaces in downtown (see Figure 73). This
program is oversubscribed, with all available permits sold-out by the beginning of the calendar year.
Heavy utilization of many employee permit parking spaces was observed. However, some areas,
such as eastern Haven and Chapin, are underutilized. The parking survey and interviews revealed
that the majority of employees do not know that this program exists, but they were very interested in
obtaining these permits in the future.
Therefore, based on the rapid sell-out of existing permits and the evident latent demand, the number
of employee permit permits should be increased to meet demand as soon as possible. The Town
should also consider expanding employee permit parking locations, depending on the utilization of
existing spaces and the feedback of employees who are not using the underutilized spaces today.
Figure 73: Employee Parking Permit Areas
LAIF O
F
•
~ ~ L _2~
Careful Expansion of Regulation
Likely locations for converting existing on-street regulations to the "2-Hr Parking or All-Day With
Employee Permit" regulation include areas where daytime on-street utilization is low. In the
commercial areas of downtown, this includes Ash Street between Washington and Haven, Sanborn
Street between Woburn and Haven, and Woburn Street west of Sanborn. These areas have low
demand from other users and have no direct impact on primarily residential streets. This would add
another 88 spaces to the employee permit parking program and at least another 100 or more permits,
depending on the average daily vacancy rate the Town chooses to employ.
Other areas on the edge of the commercial core of downtown Reading have private residences with
tenants and homeowners frequently needing to park on-street. These areas tend to be an untapped
resource for downtowns, even though there is a fear of negative impacts on residents. Most of the
time, residents are entirely unaffected by daytime employees parking on residential streets for two
basic reasons: 1) if a resident commutes to work by car, their on-street space is vacant for employee
use during the day, and the employee has usually left before the resident returns home; and 2) if a
resident remains at home or stores a car on-street, their vehicle is usually occupying the space early
in the morning before any employees would arrive to park.
There are a large quantity of residential on-street spaces within a short walk of downtown businesses
that stay vacant throughout the workday. These represent a great opportunity for the Town to expand
its employee permit program in pace with demand. Residents at workshops held during this study
encouraged this activity if it would help the Town's parking problems, as long as there was protection
against losing a place to park when residents returned home. For instance, the unregulated stretch of
Green Street east of Main is a likely candidate for this regulation.
This resident-employee dynamic changes when restaurant workers are included, who often work night
shifts after residents are home. Fortunately, the number of available on-street spaces in commercial
areas opens up dramatically after 5PM, so employee permit parking on residential streets can easily
be limited to daytime work hours only.
Increase Outreach and Visibility
The Town has the potential to greatly increase the effectiveness of its employee permit program while
resolving many of the observed parking utilization problems in the downtown. By working with the
business community to market the availability of employee permits and the areas where they can be
used, enrollment could increase dramatically in a short time. Simple employer notices, information on
the Town's website, and outreach from the Chamber of Commerce can reach most of Reading's
employees who do not know about the program today.
Evaluate Permit Cost
The current cost of $20 per month or $240 per year should cover all administrative costs, but it is
unclear whether this also covers the Town's enforcement costs. It may be prudent for the Town to
evaluate the labor cost per parking space that is enforced today by the Town's parking control officer
to determine if this fee is adequate to cover the enforcement cost for the portion of downtown spaces
that are regulated for employees. Adjustments to the permit fee may be warranted.
Nonetheless, $20 per month (or approximately $1.00 per workday) is a fairly low parking cost in the
greater Boston area, where off-street parking is generally available starting at $50 per month2. If
demand for employee permits continues to remain strong after the quantity of permits and spaces is
increased, permit prices should be increased.
2 Based on a review of parking spaces for rent in the greater Boston area on craigslist.com.
q93
Annual Reporting
Municipal fees are often met with opposition from many residents and employees, regardless of their
justification. The Town would be greatly benefitted by revealing the costs and revenues of their permit
program on an annual basis in order to deflect complaints that the system is a "money grab" or
something to "pad the general fund." More importantly, any surplus revenues should be clearly
identified and dedicated to improvements or programs that benefit the business community in
downtown Reading. This has the effect of showing that the Town is giving back to its employees a
benefit for their fee, which may include measures such as sidewalk improvements, fagade
improvements, marketing and signing, or future parking facilities. Details of a comprehensive benefit
program like this can be found in Recommendation 2 below.
2) Establish a Parking & Transportation Fund
Surplus revenues from the employee permit program and other additional revenue sources, such as
additional ticket revenue (see Recommendation 4) or in-lieu of parking fees (see Recommendation
11), should fund public improvements that benefit the downtown. If downtown parking revenues seem
to disappear into the General Fund, where they may appear to produce no direct benefit for downtown
.businesses, there will be little support for parking policies that may ultimately benefit business, such
as increased permit fees, installing parking meters, or adjusting regulations. When Reading's
merchants and residents can clearly see that the monies collected are being spent for the benefit of
their downtown, on projects that they have helped to choose, they become willing to support parking
policies that generate revenue for the Town. If experience from other cities is any guide, many will
become active advocates for the concept.3
To develop support for parking regulation changes, and to build support for charging fair market rates
for permits, it is crucial to give local stakeholders a strong voice in setting policies for the downtown,
deciding how downtown parking revenues should be spent, and overseeing downtown investments to
ensure that the monies collected from employees and customers are spent wisely.
Potential uses for Parking and Transportation Fund revenues include:
• Landscaping and streetscape greening
• Increased frequency of trash collection
• Street cleaning, power-washing of sidewalks, and graffiti removal
• Parking, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and amenities
• . Additional parking enforcement
• Marketing and promotion of Reading's merchants
• Additional programs and projects as recommended by downtown stakeholders and approved
by the Board of Selectmen
A number of different organizational structures can be used to establish and oversee a Parking and
Transportation Fund. The fund can be managed by a quasi-public entity, similar to a Business
Improvement District. Alternatively, the fund can be established as simply a financial entity (somewhat
like an assessment district), which would require by ordinance that parking revenues raised within the
downtown be spent to benefit the downtown. Under this arrangement, the fund would be managed
and housed within an existing Town department, such as the Department of Public Works.
3) Adjust Time-Limits
Many downtowns suffer from a common problem. The most visible and most convenient parking
spaces are frequently entirely full, while simultaneously, parking spaces just behind a building or a
block away sit largely vacant. The result is often a perceived parking shortage, even when a
3 Parking Benefit Districts are currently in place in Pasadena, Boulder, San Diego, Austin, Seattle, and Aspen
~~q,
downtown as a whole has hundreds of vacant parking spaces available. In many downtowns,
employees occupy the best spaces, even when time limits are instituted to try to reserve these spots
for customers. As one downtown merchant describes the situation in his town, "Parking is a problem
for businesses because employees park on Main St. and side streets and prevent customers from
parking ...We need parking management and enforcement strategies to prevent employees from
doing the 2-hour shuffle' downtown."
The most common mechanism that communities use to create vacancies in prime parking spaces is
to set time limits and give tickets to violators. Time limits, however, bring several disadvantages:
enforcement of time limits is labor-intensive and difficult, and downtown employees, who quickly
become familiar with enforcement patterns, often become adept at the "two hour shuffle", moving their
cars regularly or swapping spaces with a coworker several times during the workday. Even with
strictly enforced time limits, if there is no price incentive to persuade employees to seek out less
convenient, bargain-priced spots, employees will probably still park in prime spaces.
For customers, strict enforcement can bring "ticket anxiety" - the fear of getting a ticket if one lingers a
minute too long (for example, in order to have dessert after lunch). As Dan Zack, Downtown
Development Manager for Redwood City, CA, puts it, "Even if a visitor is quick enough to avoid a
ticket, they don't want to spend the evening watching the clock and moving their car around. If a
customer is having a good time in a restaurant, and they are happy to pay the market price for their
parking spot, do we want them to wrap up their visit early because their time limit wasn't long enough?
Do we want them to skip dessert or that last cappuccino in order to avoid a ticket?"
While on-street pricing is the preferred mechanism to turn-over spaces, even in small downtowns like
Needham's, it is a difficult measure to implement without a lot of political support and extended
education. In the long-term, on-street pricing is entirely appropriate for Reading, since it would solve
many of the problems that exist today. However, time-limits are the tool of choice in Reading today.
Establishing the best time-limit that accommodates customers conveniently while encourages
adequate turnover is an inexact science. While some parkers may be satisfied with the existing time
limit, many others are not. Lengthening a time limit may induce some parkers to stay longer; attract
new parkers who appreciate the added time; and push away short-term parkers who can't find a
space as conveniently. Shortening a time-limit may drive some employees out of customer spaces but
also drive away some customers who want to stay longer. Reading's most predominant time-limit
throughout downtown is 2-hours. While this time may have some historical precedent, it is most
defendable as a common value used in most Massachusetts downtowns.
The data supporting a better time limit is mostly inconclusive. The user survey revealed a wide
spectrum of parking durations in downtown, as shown in Figure 74.
Lt 9s
Figure 74 Surveyed Length of Stay
While customers tend to have shorter stays and employees longer, the turnover studies of two prime
customer areas on upper Haven (Figure 75) and in front of CVS (Figure 76) demonstrate that the
average stay per car in a customer parking area is nearly 3-hours throughout the entire day. The
predominant length of stay that satisfies 85-percent of parkers (the 85`h-percentile) exceeds 4-hours.
On upper Haven it approaches 7 hours during work hours. It should be noted that both areas have 2-
hour time limits.
4 yL_
Figure 75 Turnover and Utilization on Upper Haven Street
{
e
J0°;. e
i
- - 7;06
t ~
,
•19`.4, r V 1
i
1 if
IL f
j
tgvv.
i
1 110:00 AM 71:0*AM 72:09PIA 1_60PPq 2:00PDA 3:94 PM 4AWPtvt 5:99 PM 6:00PNI 1:00 PM 9:91}Phi
Figure 76 Turnover and Utilization in Front of CVS
I
I sasc' S
.~,..rev'-'i'^'v^ii^ti^i.`-4~'-i{'__"~'."',L'-1~• . ~ f ~ .
,
XUU
7 016
r
i
"^v
.~-~91aaUtxzl
' 1'i ~ -a-05t191'rrc.i9aile i
ati'L• ~1 K"
291°(i
10:00 AM 11 [00.."&.1 72..UOD PN1 7:0011+9 1.:00 FTA 3:00111.1 a :00 NO S:PO PtvI G:00 F'&1 7:01 I+19 3:OU F'.9
While the ultimate effect of changing time-limits cannot be predicted well due to induced parking
activity, the turnover data suggests that a longer time-limit (3-hours or more) would match the average
duration of more parkers in front of the CVS. This would be a very customer-friendly approach that
reduces complaints, and it would not impact availability significantly during daylight hours when
utilization is low. A three or more hour limit would also accommodate more parkers on upper Haven,
though many parkers would still be exceeding the time-limit each day (note the 85th percentile line).
However, lengthening time-limits in areas of relatively high demand is counter-intuitive. Only on upper
Haven after 1 PM would longer time limits work well since utilization drops off significantly. In areas of
high demand, this policy would essentially reward those who seek to park for longer periods in
locations that should be dedicated to shorter-term parking. Therefore, the turnover data is most
valuable for understanding the duration preferences of parkers within an entire district, as opposed to
the given block face where data is recorded. The data from upper Haven and Main Street in front of
CVS indicate that a longer time-limit would be valuable, but not necessarily in these specific locations
where turn-over and availability can benefit the shorter-term visits of nearby retail and banking
customers. Likely target areas for increasing time limits to accommodate those staying over 3-hours
are lots and on-street parking with lower demand that are further from these key destinations.
The most heavily utilized 2-hour zones in downtown Reading are:
• Upper Haven, especially during midday
• Main Street, in front of CVS in the late afternoon and evening
• Lower Haven, in front of the Atlantic Market all day
Both municipal lots are within a short walk of these locations and experience lower utilization
throughout daytime hours. These would be ideal locations to attract longer-term parkers who might be
more willing to walk the extra minute or two, freeing up availability for shorter-term parkers on-street.
Especially if combined with the signing Recommendation 5, the time-limits in each of these lots should
be extended to at least 3-hours if not 4-hours. Utilization of the lots and on-street spaces should be
closely monitored for at least 30 days after implementation. If on-street availability does not increase,
time-limits at these high-demand spaces should be reduced to 1-hour, as long as appropriate signing
for the longer-term lots is in place.
Extend Hours of Regulation
The data from the parking in front of CVS illustrates another key parking dynamic that occurs due to
the current time-limits in Reading. Shortly before as well as after the end of time-limited parking at
6PM, utilization of this parking spikes to nearly 100-percent. This also occurs in the public lot behind
CVS. Without a fear of penalty, parkers quickly occupy these spaces, which happen to be those
closest to prime dining destinations. While an intercept survey of these motorists was not within the
scope of this study, it is evident that restaurant employees and patrons are occupying these prime
spaces.
If the time span for time-limited parking (and appropriate enforcement) were extended through dining
hours in these locations, longer-term parkers would have to find spaces that were more
accommodating, leaving these prime spaces available for customers and restaurant patrons. As long
as clear employee parking spaces are designated nearby between the hours of 6PM and 10PM (see
Recommendation 1), the more valuable spaces - in front of the CVS, on upper Haven and on the end
of Woburn close to Main - can have their time-limit regulations extended until 10PM. From 6PM until
10PM, the time-limits in these areas would better serve restaurant patrons if they were extended to 3-
hours.
4) Expand Parking Enforcement Hours
The Town of Reading has a very limited budget for parking enforcement today. Enforcement occurs
only 5 days per week for less than 5-hours each day. With only one staff person, it is focused on the
downtown core almost exclusively. At current budget levels, it is not expected that this level of
enforcement can be increased.° sat :r aJ; 4k t
Nonetheless, enforcement is an essential part
of supporting parking regulations. As structured
today, enforcement hours and activity is mostly
penalizing those who dominate downtown
parking during midday weekday hours
employees and merchants. Given the current
set of regulations, this enforcement program is
necessary. However, it targets the community
most responsible for economic activity in
Reading. As the Town works to improve its
economic climate and attract business, it would
be appropriate to change the enforcement
focus - especially given the observations suppo
_ ~ ~ f L ~ ~ ;lY:.}n
1
t
;r
sting Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.
If more employee permit parking is advertised and provided to employees in mutually agreeable
locations, time-limit violations in higher-demand areas will drop, since most daytime customers do not
stay more than 2-hours today. Midday enforcement will become far less necessary. Meanwhile, some
of the biggest parking complaints come during evening dining hours and Saturdays when customers
are trying to find spaces for dinner, errands and shopping. Enforcement of existing Saturday and new
evening regulations would help relieve this problem for customers. By shifting existing enforcement
hours strategically, the Town can improve enforcement revenue and value to the community without
increasing costs.
The most valuable hours for enforcement to occur are: Saturdays between 10AM and 1 PM and
between 6PM and 10PM; and weeknights (especially Thursday and Friday) between 6PM and 10PM.
It would also be appropriate to continue midday/lunchtime enforcement at least one day per week.
Hypothetically assigning enforcement personnel to cover these hours results in the schedule shown in
Figure 77.
Figure 77 Key Enforcement Hours
Saturdays between 10AM and 12PM 2 hours
Saturdays between 6PM and 9PM 3 hours
Thursday and Friday between 6PM and 9PM. 6 hours
One random weekday between 10AM and 2PM 14 hours
Total 115 hours
per week
While greater enforcement should be considered in the future, this focused schedule would help
maximize enforcement revenue and value.
5) Improve Parking Signing
While regulatory signing for parking regulations is prominent and plentiful in Reading, signing that
helps direct parkers to available parking areas is very limited. With only one small parking sign per lot
entrance, there is no clear indication to visitors - or welcoming reminder to regulars - that convenient
off-street parking exists (see Figure 78). As Reading seeks to attract new business and customers,
greater ease of finding parking spaces is important.
Figure 78 Existing Parking Signs in Reading
~ ^f.... c •'f1r. t.^,rl` I ~ F.;, 1 w ~ h ~ -:h- t~ ~ -`'-Sl i 1 ~ Fnl~ ,
V. i c
i
Many communities employ a clear and consistent signing system that helps direct visitors to off-street
parking easily (see examples in Figure 79). Given Reading's desire to resolve utilization issues in on-
street spaces during high demand times in the evening and on Saturday's, clear signing to the
existing municipal lots is an important component of the time-limit changes in Recommendation 3.
~9io
Figure 79 Parking Signs in Framingham
Y'
4
f Fh
ii
Another important part of a signing system that communities frequently overlook is directing departing
motorists to exits and nearby arterials. While finding an exit to Reading's municipal lots is not a
difficult task, simple signs in the lots and at critical turns on surrounding streets that direct motorists to
Route 28 and Interstate 93 can be very helpful and make a customer's experience in Reading more
accommodating - hopefully increasing the chance that they will return. Combined with a downtown
wayfinding system, departure signs can help keep cars on preferred commercial roads and keep them
away from residential neighborhoods.
Pedestrian Signing
The most commonly overlooked signing need for parking facilities is pedestrian signing to and from
the parking facility. Especially in compact vernacular downtowns like Reading's, visitors can easily
confuse which street or alley to use to get back to their parked car. Regulars to a downtown may not
even know the best access routes. And signs that direct new arrivals to prime streets or destinations
help to increase the overall accommodation of downtown Reading as a place to shop and do
business.
Fortunately, pedestrian wayfinding signs are very inexpensive to design, purchase and install. The
investment can be very worthwhile and improve the overall walkability of the downtown. Many simple
examples exist in the region, and they can be coordinated with parking signs for motorists to keep a
consistent memorable message (see Figure 80).
Figure 80 Pedestrian Signs in Framingham
,F
I
F
J
1
r
~ y
z
~
6
Fj
y
L.T
If time-limits are extended into the evening near
restaurants, pedestrian signing to and from the CVS
lot will be important. These should help parkers find
driveway and walkway connections to and from
Haven, Main and Woburn Streets.
Similarly, connections to and from the "Atlantic" lot
should be clearly signed along Haven, Chute, Woburn
and Linden Streets.
The Walgreen's lot would also be benefitted by
pedestrian signing to and from Main, Pleasant and
Woburn Streets.
~y11.
6) Incentivize Sharing of Private Parking
As Reading seeks to grow its downtown and encourage economic development, parking will become
a significant obstacle under the current operating and regulatory framework. While some shared
municipal parking exists that can serve multiple uses, the vast majority of off-street spaces are locked
up in private hands. Even though the utilization study clearly demonstrates that these spaces are
poorly utilized throughout the entirety of the day, there is little incentive to increase their efficiency by
sharing these spaces across different parcels or landowners.
With the standard practice of building individual private lots or garages for each building in place in
Reading, the result is a lack of welcome for customers: at each parking lot, the visitor is informed that
his vehicle will be towed if he or she visits any place besides the adjacent building. When this occurs,
nearby shopping malls gain a distinct advantage over a district with fragmented parking. Mall owners
understand that they should not divide their mall's parking supply into small fiefdoms: they operate
their supply as a single pool for all of the shops, so that customers are welcomed wherever they park.
The compactness and mixed-use nature of downtown Reading lends itself to this kind of "Park Once"
strategy. Operating the downtown parking supply as a single shared pool results in significant savings
in daily vehicle trips and required parking spaces, for three reasons:
1. Park once. Those arriving by car can easily follow a "park once" pattern: they park their car
just once and complete multiple daily tasks on foot before returning to their car (see Figure
81).
2. Shared Parking among Uses with Differing Peak Times. Spaces can be efficiently shared
between uses with differing peak hours, peak days, and peak seasons of parking demand
(such as office, restaurant, retail and downtown apartments).
3. Shared Parking to Spread Peak Loads. The parking supply can be sized to meet average
parking loads (instead of the worst-case parking ratios needed for isolated buildings), since the
common supply allows shops and offices with above-average demand to be balanced by
shops and offices that have below-average demand or are temporarily vacant.
Figure 81 "Park Once" District
t
Shop
Ittic
J
~ o w
h
ti
•
Walk
• Schaal
Office
f
ATM- I
•
♦
~
f
ti
+
♦
~
J
J
J
* Park
r
Dr6v, r
~y
r
~ iy
M
The most successful "Park Once" districts manage parking as a public utility - just like streets and
sewers - with public parking provided in strategically-placed lots and garages. Development is
prohibited (or strongly discouraged) from building private parking. Tenants that require a guarantee of
a certain number of spaces at particular hours (e.g., Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) can
lease those spaces in a public lot or garage, with the exclusive right to use them during the hours
required. As described above, such arrangements leave the parking available during evening and
weekend hours for other users (e.g., the patrons of restaurants), resulting in an efficient sharing of the
parking supply and lower costs for all.
In the long term, a fully implemented "Park Once" strategy:
• Is more welcoming of customers and visitors (fewer "Thou Shalt Not Park Here" signs
scattered about).
• Allows for fewer, strategically placed lots and garages, resulting in better urban design and
greater development opportunities.
• Enables construction of larger, more space-efficient (and therefore more cost-effective) lots
and garages.
Reading cannot achieve this ideal system in the short-term. However, many initial policies can begin
to improve the efficiency of the downtown parking system, enabling much more development to occur
without the cost and urban design impacts of new parking:
1. Incentives to encourage participation by existing parking facility owners and operators need to be
in place. These can take the following forms:
a) Increased regulatory flexibility to encourage sharing. At the very least, this means the
elimination of the 300-foot distance requirement for accessory parking in the downtown;
elimination of any use stipulation on shared parking; implementation of a ULI shared parking
model to allow reduced minimums; and elimination of any code-based requirements that
discourage public access, merging of lots, etc.
b) Identification of available pooled liability protection whereby multiple parking facility owners
can purchase a replacement joint policy to allow public access for lower rates than existing
policies.
c) Creation of a parking authority or other public-private entity that manages the shared off-street
(and on-street) parking supply. This entity can offer greater economies of scale than individual
parking operators can afford, greatly reducing labor, security, insurance, maintenance, and
other related costs, while also allowing greater purchasing power. Under Massachusetts law,
the Town's limited liability exposure allows it to manage this supply and absorb any private
liability concerns. The Town can offer a guaranteed lease payment to the landowner that
exceeds what revenues that landowner may now be receiving from the lot. The Town can give
the landowner a guarantee of accessing a minimum quantity of spaces in that or adjacent
shared lots when needed, while leasing the remainder of spaces throughout the entire day to
other users. Even if the Town charges no more per space than it pays the landowner, there
will be increased revenues simply on account of more parkers being able to share the spaces
that went unutilized at other times of day. The Town can use this revenue to maintain and
improve the lot, further increasing the appeal to landowners to participate in the program.
z. The parking supply for the retail, office and residential users in downtown Reading should be
shared among all users, with the following exception: residents and employees who are willing to
pay a premium rate for exclusive, assigned spaces should be allowed to do so (residents of
market rate units are most likely to take advantage of this option.) To implement this policy,
parking leases in lots owned or managed by the Town can be structured in the following manner:
a) Under the standard lease rate, the parking permit holder is guaranteed that a parking space
will be available within the shared pool of spaces for him or her to use, but no particular space
is marked with his or her name.
b) Under the premium rate for assigned spaces, the parking permit holder has a particular space
designated (with signs and markings) for his or her use. For example, an assigned residential
space may be marked "Reserved for Unit #101 while assigned employee spaces may be
marked reserved for an individual permit holder ("Reserved for Permit #81"). Two types of
premium spaces should be made available. The most expensive option is a space that is
reserved 24 hours per day, seven days a week for the permit holder's exclusive use. The less
expensive alternative is reserved for the permit holder's exclusive use only during the hours
when the space is typically needed. For example, a typical retail tenant may wish to choose a
space that is reserved for his or her firm's use only when the business is open say, from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Friday, in the case of a realtor's office. (With this latter
alternative, the retail tenant saves money by having the space assigned for their use only part-
time, and the space becomes available for other users such as restaurant patrons on
evenings and weekends).
3. As future properties are developed, their parking supplies should also become part of the Park
Once district. This may be accomplished either by creating additional new joint public parking
facilities as part of development agreements for each site or through conditions of approval that
require that the privately-owned parking supply be made available for public use.
7) Establish Valet Parking Regulations
Valet parking has been suggested in workshops as a possible solution for limited parking availability
in the evenings near busy restaurants. While the time-limit and enforcement recommendations above
should help to alleviate the problem, valet parking can still be valuable and should be accommodated
in downtown Reading.
Valet parking allows the most effective use of out-of-the-way parking spaces and can increase the
effective parking supply by allowing for parking of additional vehicles in parking aisles and in tandem
parking arrangements. If well-written licensing regulations are established, valet operations can
greatly improve the appeal of downtown to visitors while improving the overall image of the downtown
for the community.
Several key elements should be a part of any valet parking regulation in Reading:
• Applicants should clearly describe the entire valet operation in writing to the Town, including
hours of service, number of valets, number of valet spaces needed, valet sign mock-up,
location of remote parking, walking and driving route and times to and from remote parking,
form of communication between valets and valet manager, and current insurance coverage.
• The valet space should be located so as to provide the maximum amount of safety to passing
motorists and pedestrians. This includes finding a location with clear sightlines, lighting and
ADA access to the destination.
• The driving route to remote parking and the return valet trip by foot should take only an
acceptable amount of time at posted driving speeds or brisk walk speeds. If the round-trip time
exceeds a minimum threshold (typically 2-minutes), additional valets should be working.
• Staging and temporary standing must be regulated.
• A Town phone number for complaints should be clearly posted at the destination.
The license should be held by the destination (restaurant), not the valet company. The license
should require a nominal fee and be renewable annually, allowing the Town to review
operations, implement changes as necessary or revoke the operation.
It. should be noted that valets are an excellent means for maximizing the use of a parking facility while
providing convenience to certain customers. However, they are not an appropriate solution for solving
downtown parking availability problems - even though that is what many businesses and communities
resort to before trying to fix their curb regulations.
8) Expand On-Street Parking Supply
The parking utilization study shows that Reading has an abundance of available parking. spaces in
downtown at, all times of day. The parking demand projections demonstrate that a large amount of
R9 0
development can occur without building any new parking. Therefore, Reading should not attempt to
increase on-street parking supply as a tool to increase availability.
However, on-street parking has a great benefit to urban form and the walkability of downtowns. Some
of America's most walkable downtowns are lined with on-street parking. Meanwhile, many pedestrian-
only streets or malls have not fared well. Planners generally believe this irony is due to two strong
effects of on-street parking: 1) the act of entering and exiting a car provides a base level of pedestrian
activity that is lost without on-street spaces; and 2) parked cars provide a visual, sound and safety
buffer from traffic, helping to make sidewalks more enjoyable for walkers. In fact, numerous studies
have demonstrated that one of the most effective ways to "calm" traffic speed is to install on-street
parking adjacent to travel lanes, causing a degree of perceived "friction" to motorists, which slows
traffic. Therefore, increasing on-street parking can be very beneficial in many regards.
In Reading, a few key streets that must be regularly crossed by pedestrians are wide and deserving of
traffic calming, including lower Haven, High, and Main Street. While all of these streets already have
on-street parking, the introduction of angled parking can serve to greatly reduce speeds while
significantly increasing on-street capacity. This solution is unlikely on Main Street, which is a state
route. However, High Street is a prime candidate for this solution.
The use of reverse-angle parking (see Figure 82) in commercial districts has proven successful at
increasing on-street supply up to 40%, calming traffic speeds, increasing the ease of parking, and
improving safety for cyclists. Backing into a reverse angle space is easier than parallel parking and
safer than backing out of a traditional forward-angle space. The position of the parked car allows the
driver to see approaching cars and bicycles before exiting; the direction of opening doors protects
passengers (particularly children) from entering the street; and the trunk of the car is conveniently at
the curb.
Figure 82 Reverse Angle Parking
Reverse angle parking is still new in
the United States, though its use is
escalating dramatically due to its
_ safety benefits4. Installing the spaces
should be preceded by an outreach
^ and education campaign, complete
with posters, flyers, signs (Figure 83)
and variable message boards in the
r weeks before implementation.
t
a t mt,~ f,i
Figure 83 Reverse
Angle Parking Signing
%d+P 1
Figure 84 and Figure 85 illustrate how reverse angle parking
would look on High Street near the train station. It is
estimated that over 20 new spaces could be added on High I4~
Street, helping to alleviate some of the demand by
commuters to ark on residential streets. More significantly,
the treatment pan reduce vehicle speeds in this important
a Reverse angle parking is in use in Arlington VA, Birmingham AB, Charlc
Honolulu HI, Knoxville TN, Salt Lake City LIT, Vancouver WA, Kelowna F t, y «<<, ` .
Washington DC, Montreal QC, Portland OR, Pottstown PA, Salem OR, Indianapolis IN, New York City, Conshohocken PA,
Penticton BC, Emeryville CA, Knoxville TN, Bethlehem PA, Plattsburgh NY, Birmingham AL, Ventura CA, Burnaby Canada,
Olympia WA, Marquette MI, and Ketchum ID.
pedestrian area. Coupled with appropriate curb extensions, the pedestrian realm can be greatly
enhanced.
Figure 84 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking - Plan View
gyp-
t
L +.a~
I
J ~
J
L is t `k-k ~ll 1 MO
1 hl~ \ - ` f
sum ~ t
1 u 7t Fri f p
Figure 85 High Street Reverse-Angle Parking - Perspective View
~~ri j ~ J ~ ~ rr ~ •
i~~~1 a ~'~TT+ it"~ ~"°+I' +r~ ,1a~ ~
} ~r s
a M{J rb J1
}
x sf' ; IY gtjT Y`~
TDM Actions
9) Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
The traditional method of managing the supply of off-street parking in communities across the country
has been to set minimum standards that require a minimum number of spaces per unit, square foot of
building area, employee, etc. for each and every possible land use. Most minimum parking
requirements were adopted to "alleviate or. prevent traffic congestion and shortages of curbside
parking spaces." For half a century, virtually every modern city has had minimum parking
requirements, and yet not only has traffic congestion gotten worse, it is projected to steadily worsen.
History of Minimum Parking Requirements
The essential concept of minimum parking requirements was that if each destination provided ample
parking, with enough spaces available so that even when parking was free there would be plenty of
room, then there would be plenty of spaces at the curb. Motorists would no longer need to circle the
block looking for a space, and so traffic congestion would be lessened.
Minimum parking requirements, however, had unintended consequences for traffic. Communities set
minimum parking requirements that were simply high enough to satisfy the demand for parking even
when parking was given away for free. The predictable result was that roads.were overwhelmed with
excess traffic induced in large part by free parking.
However, if prices for curb parking are set correctly to ensure at least one or two vacancies per block,
off-street minimum parking requirements are not needed to prevent shortages of on-street parking.
Instead, they only act to worsen traffic, and to discourage developers, employers, residents and other
property owners from implementing strategies that reduce traffic and parking demand.
The communities with the strongest records of reducing vehicle trips and traffic congestion, such as
London, have eliminated minimum parking requirements entirely (in fact, nationwide). The great
majority of these communities instead now have maximum parking requirements (that is, they limit the
number of spaces allowed at each building). They now regard maximum parking requirements - the
opposite approach - as an essential tool for preventing traffic congestion.
Reading's Parking Requirements
Reading has taken a fairly progressive approach to minimum parking requirements in its downtown
with the mixed-use overlay district requirements. While Chapter 1 demonstrates that Reading's base
zoning requires far more parking per use than the highest demand modeled by the conservative ITE
approach, the mixed-use overlay district is generally in-line with or below ITE's requirements.
However, given true utilization data by use from throughout the northeast as well as the parking
utilization data collected in downtown Reading, the Town should lower these parking minimums much
further- especially if it intends to encourage investment in downtown and reduce traffic impacts:
• Residential requirements should not exceed 1 space per unit, regardless of the size of the unit.
Hundreds of parking spaces go unused in downtown Reading every night and weekend.
• Office requirements should not exceed 2 per 1000. The Town's employee permit program and
plenty of reserve on-street capacity can accommodate a couple hundred thousand square feet
of new office space.
o Retail requirements should be eliminated in the downtown. While shared parking incentives
(Recommendation 6) will enable most residences and offices to find minimum parking supplies
in the downtown, retailers operate on tight margins in this market area. With ample on- and off-
street parking for customers, retail should have no minimum parking requirement.
10) Establish an In-Lieu of Parking Payment
Parking in-lieu fees have been in place in dozens of communities throughout America for years. By
making a payment to the municipality, new developments can waive their minimum parking
requirements. The fee is usually utilized for transportation improvements, particularly shared public
parking facilities. An in-lieu fee has a number of advantages, as summarized by Donald Shoup'
1) Enables developers on constrained sites to build less parking.
2) Encourages development of shared parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees. A public parking
facility shared by many users requires fewer total spaces than multiple individual developments
due to the inherent overlap of peak demand times.
3) Shared public parking facilities financed by in-lieu fees can be placed strategically to serve many
while reducing the potential impact to pedestrian and bicycle movements. This also frees up
development parcels to create appropriate urban streetscapes without curb cuts and garage
entrances.
4) Eliminates the need for zoning variances, fairly leveling the playing field for all developers and
allowing planning boards to focus on design features as opposed to parking quantities.
5) Allows for historic preservation by enabling redevelopment of buildings without adding new
parking.
In-lieu fees can be an effective method for cost-effectively providing parking in remote locations out of
the control of individual land owners. By using fees to subsidize remote parking at locations with
cheaper construction or leasing costs, communities can facilitate development financing while
establishing a means to encourage appropriate development standards for participating developers.
When fees are set appropriately, more efficient and better quality designs can be enabled while
appropriate parking is provided off-site.
In more progressive communities, the success of in-lieu fees has evolved into the lowering of
minimum parking requirements. Dozens of communities in the United States have completely
removed minimum residential and commercial parking requirements in downtown districts, including
Eugene, OR; Fort Myers, FL; Fort Pierce, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Olympia, WA;
Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; and Stuart, FL.
Program Details
The majority of communities in America that employ in-lieu fees have a consistent standard for all new
projects. However, the motivation for specifying a rate varies considerably. In many communities with
excessive parking supplies, the fee is low to reduce the growth of parking. Other communities have a
moderate rate that is designed specifically to contribute to a shared parking facility. Several
communities have arbitrarily high fees that permit yet discourage the practice. In downtown Reading,
the primary goals of an in-lieu fee is to: 1) remove the cost and design complexity of building parking
in downtown, while also 2) enabling the development of cheaper remote parking or alternative
transportation systems through payments to the parking and transportation fund (Recommendation 2).
Therefore, it is important to give a cost savings to developers while having a fee high enough to
support a robust fund. Based on estimated garage construction prices of at least $20,000 per space, it
is estimated that an average fee of $10,000 per space be implemented - annualized as a payment to
the fund of approximately $800 per year for 35. years (the industry-standard lifespan of a parking
structure).
The specific fee for a particular project may vary in direct proportion to the number of required spaces.
Smaller projects that only require a few spaces may not see much incentive to reduce parking at
$10,000 per space. A fee of only $2,500 may be appropriate. Larger projects with dozens of spaces
are likely to have more substantial financing that is prepared to build expensive underground parking
spaces that cost over $45,000. Such projects may see great benefit paying as much as $15000 per
space to avoid the complexity of structured parking. Therefore, the final in-lieu payment schedule
would be best expressed as a rate that increases with the number of total spaces required for a
project.
5 "In Lieu of Required Parking," Donald Shoup.
q~ ~9 N
11) Provide Zoning Relief for Parking Unbundling
Parking costs are generally subsumed into the sale or rental price of housing for the sake of simplicity,
and because that is the more traditional practice in real estate. But although the cost of parking is
often hidden in this way, parking is never free. The expected cost for each space in new residential
parking garage is over $20,000 per space. Given land values in the area, surface spaces will be at
least as valuable.
Looking at parking as a tool to achieve the Town's goals for more affordable housing and less traffic
requires some changes to status quo practices, since providing anything for free or at highly
subsidized rates encourages use and means that more parking spaces have to be provided to
achieve the same rate of availability.
For both rental units and condominiums, the full cost of parking should be unbundled from the cost of
the housing itself by creating a separate parking charge. This provides a financial reward to
households who decide to dispense with one of their cars and helps attract that niche market of
households who wish to live in a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood where it is possible to live
well with only one car (or even no car) per household. Unbundling parking costs changes parking from
a required purchase to an optional amenity, so that households can freely choose how many spaces
they wish to lease. Among households with below average vehicle ownership rates (e.g., low income
people, singles, single parents, seniors on fixed incomes, and college students), allowing this choice
can provide a substantial financial benefit.
It is important to note that construction costs for residential parking spaces can substantially increase
the sale/rental price of housing. This is because the space needs of residential parking spaces can
restrict how many housing units can be built within allowable zoning and building envelope. For
example, a study of Oakland's 1961 decision to require one parking space per apartment (where none
had been required before) found that construction cost increased 18% per unit, units per acre
decreased by 30% and land values fell 33%.6
As a result, bundled residential parking can significantly increase "per-unit housing costs" for
individual renters or buyers. Two studies of San Francisco housing found that units with off-street
parking bundled with the unit sell for 11% to 12% more than comparable units without included
parking.? One study of San Francisco housing found the increased affordability of units without off-
street parking on-site can increase their absorption rate and make home ownership a reality for more
people.' In that study, units without off-street parking:
• Sold on average 41 days faster than comparable units with off-street parking
• Allowed 20% more San Francisco households to afford a condominium (compared to units
with bundled off-street parking)
• Allowed 24 more San Francisco households to afford a single-family house (compared to units
with bundled off-street parking)
Charging separately for parking is also the' single most effective strategy to encourage households to
own fewer cars and rely more on walking, cycling and transit. According to one study, unbundling
residential parking can significantly reduce household vehicle ownership and parking demand.9 These
effects are presented in Figure 86.
6 Bertha, Brian. "Appendix A" in The Low-Rise Speculative Apartment by Wallace Smith UC Berkeley Center for Real Estate
and Urban Economics, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1964.
Wenyu Jia and Martin Wachs. "Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco."
University of California Transportation Center Paper No. 380,1998 and Amy Herman, "Study Findings Regarding
Condominium Parking Ratios," Sedway Group, 2001.
9 Ibid.
9 Litman, Todd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2004.
Figure 86 Reduced Vehicle Ownership with Unbundled Residential
Parking
Reduction in Vehicle Ownership from Unbundling Parking Costs
40%
35%
v 30%
2-25%
C d 20%
15%
O 10%
5%
0%
$25 $50 $75 $100 $125
Monthly Parking Fee
44 Elasticity ........0.7 Elasticity 1.0 Elasticity
Source: L.itmanjodd. "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability." Victoria Transport•Policy Institute, 2004.
Program Details
Instituting a parking unbundling program is a simple matter of requiring that any approved parking
within downtown Reading have its own lease or deed that is rented or purchased separate from the
cost of housing.
For rental units, unbundling parking costs is straightforward: the fees charged for the parking spaces
will cover the full cost of providing the parking spaces. Then rents for the housing can be reduced up
to an amount equal to the amount of parking revenue collected.
In the case of for-sale condominium units, the title to the property should give the owner the right to
lease at least one parking space (and these owners will have first priority for leasing parking spaces in
a garage). However, as with renters, owners would not be required to lease any parking spaces and
could rent as many or as few as they choose. The. resulting parking revenue should be used to reduce
the amount of the condominium owners' association dues that the owners would otherwise have to
pay.
It is critical that residents and tenants are made aware that rents, sale prices and lease fees are
reduced because parking is charged for separately. Rather than paying "extra" for parking, the cost is
simply separated out, allowing residents and businesses to choose how much parking they wish to
purchase. No tenant, resident, employer or employee should be required to lease any minimum
amount of parking.
12) Monitor Parking Utilization
An important part of maintaining the success of any of these recommendations will be monitoring
parking utilization on a regular basis. A recurring annual or biennial monitoring regime can allow the
Town to modify its time-limits, zoning requirements, shared-parking incentives and other key policies.
Based on the detailed utilization information collected for this study, a much smaller and targeted
utilization effort can be conducted (potentially in-house or with the use of students or volunteers) by
focusing on area of high demand and only casually observing other areas to confirm, the results of this /n
d"
effort. Where parking patterns appear to change, a more detailed utilization count would be
warranted.
13) Install Bicycle Racks
In all workshops held for this study, a large portion of residents within walking distance of downtown
Reading chose to walk into town versus driving. This is also demonstrated in the user survey data in
Chapter 3. These residents help reduce the burden on the parking supply while also eliminating
vehicle trips.
The same effect is possible for a much broader radius around downtown Reading by making bicycling
more convenient and accommodating in town. There are very few bicycle parking facilities in the
downtown today. The simple addition of inexpensive post and ring racks on Main, Haven and other
key downtown streets would greatly increase the attractiveness of bicycling to downtown. With the
cost of bicycles today, most riders want to be sure they can safely secure their investment. If coupled
with smart placement in areas that are shaded and/or sheltered, the Town can truly encourage
reduced parking and driving demand.
14) Install Bus Shelters
Reading is benefitted by two bus lines that operate on Woburn and High Streets in downtown,
providing regular service to and from Wakefield, Melrose and the MBTA's Orange Line. In commute
hours, these buses have a combined headway of only 15-minutes - a high level of service for a
suburb outside of 1-95. Unfortunately, this service is not very prominent in Reading - there are no
schedules posted and no bus shelters in the downtown. ,
These bus routes provide a great commute alternative for employees working in Reading that live in
nearby communities or almost anywhere on the MBTA's rapid transit system. The Town and the
Chamber of Commerce should work to promote this service, especially as it represents an opportunity
to reduce parking demand and vehicle trips in Reading.
While new bus shelters cost over $10,000 apiece, the MBTA offers many programs to share costs.
The Town should also explore opportunities with abutting private landowners to incorporate shelter
elements into existing building facades - a treatment that adds architectural appeal to many buildings
(see Figure 87).
4 ~ )-A "
Figure 87 Integrated Bus Shelter in Belmont
} r
J ~ ~ S i_~t f
R 1tN,c~ ,"_1 ' i
{
Medium Term
15) Initiate a New Commuter Permit Program
Reading has had a long history with commuter rail in its downtown. The impact of commuters parking
on downtown streets pushed the Town to begin constraining access to the station from outside
Reading many years ago. The development of the Anderson RTC station helped alleviate a lot of
commuter demand at.the Reading Depot, and non-resident commuter spaces at the Depot are few.
However, in-town commuters continue to flood available parking around the station today. The
utilization study revealed that commuter parking at the station and up several residential streets to the
west was fully utilized.
While an expansion of supply (such as Recommendation 8) will help alleviate some pressure on
residential streets in the short-term, the high demand for access to commuter rail service will continue
to fully utilize all available spaces. As a result of this high demand, choice spaces are available on a
first-come, first-served basis, with only the proof of a $25/year community access sticker. As a result,
commuters who do not go into work early are often faced with the difficulty of finding parking or a long
walk from an available space. An unknown number of would-be rail commuters are discouraged and
drive to their jobs.
The Town has an opportunity to provide this park & ride privilege to more people while helping
improve the area around the Depot. By implementing a tiered pricing structure at more market-based
rates, the Town can allow more residents to have the opportunity to park at the station while
encouraging a better commuter profile in town as well as towards Boston. Higher prices would be
charged for the closest spaces with one or more tiers of lower priced permits for spaces further from
the station.
With the introduction of a limited quantity of higher-priced permits for prime station parking,
commuters will be affected in a number of positive ways:
• Spaces close to the station will become available all day long, allowing commuters who avoid
the area after the early part of the rush hour to catch a train, as opposed to driving in the more
congested mid-morning hours.
• Many existing commuters who pay so little to park will be encouraged to carpool, walk, bike or
take the bus to the Depot.
• Commuters who are happy to walk further from their parking space will be rewarded by paying
a reduced price to park.
qy
If the Town sets a fair rate that is comparable to the cost of parking at other commuter rail stations in
the area (which now charge at least $2 per day, or over $480 per year), it can use the revenues to
make improvements to the station area and especially the residential streets where many commuters
park today. In turn, if the Town clearly directs surplus revenues at these neighborhoods, these
residents will have an incentive to put their own cars off-street when possible, generating even more
revenue for their neighborhood.
16) Conduct a Paid Parking Pilot
As discussed in Recommendation 4, time-limited parking is a blunt instrument that only satisfies the
majority of parkers who happen to complain about time-limits - which is a very small percentage of
everyone who parks. Turnover data suggests a wide variety of durations are parked by travelers to
downtown Reading. No one time limit can work well.
Pricing through the use of meters or pay stations has been in use in the United States since 1936,
and many small communities like Reading use it today, including Needham, Framingham, and
Concord: However, meters have a very bad reputation in America, both for the difficulty of finding
change to put into them as well as the hassle of getting overtime tickets. Ironically, the concept of
paying money to park on-street is actually not as much of a complaint. A recent Redwood City staff
report summarizes the results found in downtown Burlingame, California:
In a recent "intercept" survey, shoppers in downtown Burlingame were asked which factor
made their parking experience less pleasant recently... The number one response was
"difficulty in finding a space" followed by "chance of getting a ticket." "Need to carry change"
was third, and the factor that least concerned the respondents was "cost of parking. " It is
interesting to note that Burlingame has the most expensive on-street parking on the [San
Francisco] Peninsula ($.75 per hour) and yet cost was the least troubling factor for most
people.
This is not an isolated result. Repeatedly, surveys of downtown shoppers have shown that the
availability of parking, rather than price, is of prime importance.
Always available, convenient, on-street customer parking is of primary importance for retail to
succeed. To create vacancies and rapid turnover in the best, most convenient, front door parking
spaces, the most effective mechanism is to have price incentives to persuade some drivers
especially employees to park in less convenient spaces in lots or on-street parking a block or two
away: higher prices for the best spots and cheap or free prices for the less convenient, currently
underused spaces.
Motorists can be thought of as falling into two primary categories: bargain hunters and convenience
seekers. Convenience seekers are more willing to pay for an available front door spot. Many shoppers
and diners are convenience seekers: they are typically less sensitive to parking charges because they
stay for relatively short periods of time, meaning that they will accumulate less of a fee than an
employee or other all-day visitor. By contrast, many long-stay parkers, such as employees, find it
more worthwhile to walk a block to save on eight hours worth of parking fees. With proper pricing, the
bargain hunters will choose currently underutilized locations, leaving the prime spots free for those
convenience seekers who are willing to spend a bit more.
After new time-limits, permits, and signing programs are in place, the Town should watch its parking
monitoring results in a year to 18-months - particularly on Main Street in front of CVS. If utilization
continues to be high and availability of spaces is a complaint of customers or businesses, the Town
should consider a pricing pilot for these prime spaces. Not only is this location in prime need of
availability for customers, its location is relatively confined - customers who seek the adjacent
destinations are not likely to go further down Main or up Woburn Street to find free parking.
49 ~a
What is the right price for on-street parking?
If prices are used to create vacancies and turnover in the prime parking spots, then what is the right
price? An ideal occupancy rate (on each and every block) is approximately 85% at even the busiest
hour, a rate which leaves about one out of every seven spaces available70. This provides enough
vacancies that visitors can easily find a spot near their destination when they first arrive. Ideally,
parking occupancy for each block of on-street spaces and each garage should be monitored carefully,
and prices adjusted regularly to keep enough spaces available. In short, prices should be set at
market rate, according to demand, so that just enough spaces. are always available. Professor Donald
Shoup of UCLA advocates setting prices for parking according to the "Goldilocks Principle":
The price is too high if many spaces are vacant, and too low if no spaces are vacant. Children
learn that porridge shouldn't be too hot or too cold, and that beds shouldn't be too soft or too
firm. Likewise, the price of curb parking shouldn't be too high or too low. When about 15
percent of curb spaces are vacant, the price is just right. What alternative price could be
better?"
If this principle is followed, then there need be no fear that pricing parking will drive customers away.
After all, when the front-door parking spots at the curb are entirely full, under-pricing parking cannot
create more curb parking spaces for customers, because it cannot create more spaces. And, if the
initial parking meter rate on a block is accidentally set too high, so that there are too many vacancies,
then a policy goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate will result in lowering the parking rate until the
parking is once again well used (including making parking free, if need be).
Remove Time Limits
Once a policy of market rate pricing is adopted, with the goal of achieving an 85% occupancy rate,
then time limits need not be instituted. With no time limits, much of the worry and "ticket anxiety" for
downtown customers disappears. In Redwood City California, where this policy was recently adopted,
Dan Zack describes the thinking behind the City's decision in this way:
Market-rate prices are the only known way to consistently create available parking spaces in
popular areas. If we institute market-rate prices, and adequate spaces are made available, then
what purpose do time limits serve? None, other than to inconvenience customers. If there is a
space or two available on all blocks, then who cares how long each individual car is there? The
reality is that it doesn't matter. .
17) Develop a Commuter Benefits Program
Many employers in downtown Reading provide free or reduced price parking for their employees as a
fringe benefit. This is a customary practice in most suburban workplaces. Unfortunately, it hides the
cost of providing parking, does nothing to reduce parking demand and gives no reward to those who
forgo a car in their commute. Therefore, many communities in American who are seeking to reduce
parking demand and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation have begun instituting a
"Parking Cash-Out" requirement. Under a parking cash-out requirement, employers can continue to
give away their parking to employees on the condition that they offer the cash value of the parking
subsidy to any employee who does not drive to work. The programs essentially require employers to
pay employees who do not drive. While at first take this sounds like an entirely unreasonable burden,
it has proven to be so cost-effective that major employers in America are now instituting these
programs of their own accord in order to reduce the cost of supplying parking.
The success of parking cash-out has saved large universities and corporations millions of dollars in
parking construction or leasing costs, and their employees are much happier because they are getting
10 This rate is a widely-accepted industry standard that provides a high level of convenience for parkers and largely
eliminates the circling for parking which contributes to increased driver frustration, traffic congestion and collisions.
" Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: Planners Press.
9
paid for their decision not to drive. The payment is typically less than the cost of leasing or maintaining
a parking space, but it is a substantial benefit to employees that is also a cost-saver for business.
Reading should consider working with its employers to offer this benefit to employees. The programs
are so successful that they are now in Federal Highway guidance and have become law in California
and Rhode Island.
Benefits of Parking Cash Out
The benefits of parking cash out are numerous, and include:
Provides an equal transportation subsidy to employees who ride transit, carpool, vanpool, walk
or bicycle to work. The benefit is particularly valuable to low-income employees, who are less
likely to drive to work alone.
Provides a love-cost fringe benefit that can help individual businesses recruit and retain
employees.
Employers report that parking cash-out requirements are simple to administer and enforce,
typically requiring just one to two minutes per employee per month to administer.
In addition to these benefits, the primary benefit of parking cash-out programs is their proven effect on
reducing auto congestion and parking demand. Figure 88 illustrates the effect of parking cash-out at
seven different employers located in and around Los Angeles. It should be noted that most of the
case study employers are located in areas that do not have good access to transit service, so that a
large part of the reduced parking demand that occurred with these parking cash-out programs
resulted when former solo drivers began carpooling.
Figure 88 Effects of Parking Cash-Out on Parking Demand
Location
Scope of Study
Parking Fee
in $/Month
(2006$)
Decrease in
Parking
Demand
Grou A: Areas with little public transportation
Century City, CA'
3500 employees at 100+ firms
$107
15%
Cornell University, NYz
9000 faculty and staff
$45
26%
Warner Center, CA'
1 large employer (850 employees)
$49
30%
Bellevue, WA3
1 medium-size firm (430 em 1)
$72
39%
Costa Mesa, CA'
State Farm Insurance employees
$49
22%
Average
$64
Group B: Areas zoith air public transportation
Los Angeles Civic Center'
10,000+ employees, several firms
$166
36%
Mid-Wilshire Blvd, LA'
1 mid-sized firm
$119
38%
Washington DC suburbs'
5500 employees at 3 worksites
$90
26%
Downtown Los An elesb
5000 employees at 118 firms
$167
25%
Average
$135
31%
Group C: Areas with good public transportation
University of
Washington?
50,000 faculty, staff and students
$24
24%
Downtown Ottawa'
3500+ government staff
$95
18%
Average
$59
21%
Overall Average
$89
27%
Sources:
1 Willson, Richard W. and Donald C. Shoup. "Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessing the Evidence." Transportation, 1990, Vol. 17b, 141-157
(p145).
2 Cornell University Office of Transportation Services. "Summary of Transportation Demand Management Program." Unpublished, 1992.
3 United States Department of Transportation. 'Proceedings of the Commuter Parking Symposium," USDOT Report No. DOT-T-91-14,1990.
4 Employers Manage Transportation. State Farm Insurance Company and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1994.
5 Miller, Gerald K. "The Impacts of Parking Prices on Commuter Travel," Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1991.
5 Shoup, Donald and Richard W. Wilson. "Employer-paid Parking: The Problem and Proposed Solutions," Transportation Quarterly, 1992, Vol. 46, No.
2, pp169-192 (p189).
7 Williams, Michael E. and Kathleen L Petrait. "U-PASS: A Model Transportation Management Program That Works," Transportation Research Record,
1994, No.1404, p73-81.
In addition to promoting parking cash-out, the Town can work proactively with employers to promote
ridesharing, transit passes, bicycling, flexible work hours and guaranteed ride home programs.
Long Term
18) Implement Parking Maximums
Maximum parking requirements generally alleviate traffic congestion and reduce auto use through a
simple three step process:
1. Maximum parking requirements are set low enough to so that if parking at a location is given
away for free, there will be a shortage.
2. Parking at these locations is then provided to the people who use it for a price that covers at
least part of the cost to finance and operate the parking, so that the cost is revealed.
Alternately, employers and other parking providers find it cost effective to provide strong
subsidies for alternative transportation (such as free transit passes or a parking cash out
program), rather than incur the cost of building additional parking. Furthermore, providing
maximum choice to tenants and customers.
3. Removing parking subsidies (or providing equally strong subsidies for other modes) then
brings travel choices into balance, toward public transit, cycling and walking.
Maximum requirements must be complemented by the correct pricing for both on and off-street
parking that ensures a 15-percent vacancy rate in all parking facilities, in order to prevent parking
shortages (or surpluses).
19) Implement Demand-Responsive Pricing
Building upon the success of the parking pricing pilot, Reading should consider a full demand-
responsive on-street pricing program as its downtown builds out into its parking supply. Using pay
stations on every block, prices would be set at rates that create a 15% vacancy rate on each block
(with no time-limits). Ideal hourly parking rates vary according to the time of day. The first 20 minutes
may be free but every additional hour is priced according to the best value at that period of time in the
day. Morning hours are generally cheaper, lunch hours demand a higher fee, afternoon hours reduce
in price, and evening hours - especially on weekends - are likely to demand the highest rates. This
rate structure makes parking free or cheap for short-stay visitors (such as retail customers), makes all
day parking much more expensive, and creates availability during high demand dining and
entertainment hours. Employees and residents are discouraged from parking at the meter spaces that
are intended for customers, and are encouraged to purchase a monthly permit. Because of the
variable rates, monthly permits (intended for residents and employees) are less expensive than
parking all day at the meters.
After an initial trial period, occupancy rates for each block and each parking facility should be
reviewed and then adjusted down or up to achieve the 85% occupancy goal, as described earlier. For
each block and each parking lot in Reading, the right price is the price that will achieve this goal. This
9
means that pricing should not be uniform: the most desirable spaces need higher prices, while less
convenient spots are cheap or may even be free.
20) Expand Walking Network
Ultimately, the success of the best downtowns rides on the ability of visitors, workers and residents to
get around easily on foot. Reading already has a robust sidewalk network. in downtown. As the
downtown grows and progressive transportation and parking policies are implemented, the demand to
connect by foot into downtown from a wider and wider radius will grow. Reading should anticipate this
need and continue to program walking network expansions outward from downtown in the years to
come.
Board of Selectmen Meeting
October 6, 2009
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in
which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order
in which any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya,.Vice Chairman James
Bonazoli, Selectmen Stephen Goldy and Richard Schubert (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Town
Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director Bob LeLacheur,
Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Highway Director Mike deBrigard, Public Works
Business Administrator Jane Kinsella, Labor Counsel Nathan Kaitz, Office Manager Paula
Schena and the following list of interested parties: Tracy Sopchak, Jared Carpenter.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that he had
one visitor during Office Hours tonight.
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that he is trying to reach the Vocational School
regarding the Mattera Cabin.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that October 15th is the deadline for grant proposals to the
Cultural Council. The Council will be distributing $4,770 to qualified organizations. He also
noted that two volunteers were needed to do the Town Manager's evaluation, and Selectman
Stephen Goldy and Vice Chairman James Bonazoli have volunteered. He noted that he
attended the RCASA Annual Meeting, and the Photo Voice was very impressive.
Town Manamer/Assistant Town Manager's Report
The Town Manager gave the following report:
• If any member of the Board of Selectmen wants rid •nted copies of Town Bylaws, Charter,
General Bylaws or approved Selectmen's Policies, let me know. Otherwise, they are all
available online, and I have a single printed copy at every Board of Selectmen's Meeting.
• A letter has been sent to Representative Brad Jones re: double pole elimination. I have
already heard back from Verizon on this issue.
• The next Financial Forum is 10-14-09 at the Senior Center.
• Flu clinics are on hold pending shipment of flu vaccine.
• A flyer re: dogs in parks was mailed to approximately 1900 dog owners recently.
Unfortunately, some envelopes (estimate 50) were mistakenly mailed empty.
• The Board of Selectmen has scheduled discussion on the local option Meals Tax for
October 20, 2009 at 8:30 p.m.
• Town Meeting Warrant is on the website. The full Town Meeting report will be on the
website the last week in October
• The most recent YCC is now on the website.
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 6, 2009 - Page 2
The Volunteer Appointment Subcommittee conducted interviews last night. Chairman
Ben Tafoya indicated that it was a good process, and they interviewed candidates for
Council on Aging, Human Relations Advisory Committee, West Street Historic District
Commission and Mystic Valley Elder Services..
A motion by Goldy seconded by Bonazoli to accept the report of the Volunteer
Appointment Sub-Committee, and that the Board of Selectmen,makes the following
appointments to the following Boards, Committees and Commissions:
• Council on Aging - Gina L. Nelson - term expiring 6-30-2012
• human Relations Advisorv Committee - Associate - Margaret S.
LeLacheur - term expiring 6-30-2010
• West Street Historic District Commission
o Virginia Adams - term expiring 6-30-2012
o Priscilla Poehler - term expiring 6-30-2012
o Richard Schubert - term expiring 6-30-2011
• _Board of Directors, Mystic Valley Elder Services, Inc. - Rheta C.
McKinley - term expiring 9-30-2012
The motion was approved by a vote of 3-0-0.
The Assistant Town Manager noted that the Governor has to balance the budget by October
15th, and there could be more State Aid cuts. The plan is to reduce the use of Free Cash
from $370,000 to $150,000.
Discussion/Action Items
FY 2010 Budget Discussion - Filling the Elder/Human Services Position Coordinator of
Volunteers; Plowing of Church Parking Lots - The Town Manager noted that as part of the
FY 2010 Budget discussion at Town Meeting, Town Meeting restored $19,000 to the budget
for the Elder/Human Services position of Coordinator of Volunteers. This position has not
been filled because of concerns about ongoing fiscal problems with the State and potential
affect on aid. He asked if the Board of Selectmen want him to fill this position at this time.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that Town Meeting thought it was important to fill this
position. He suggested continuing as is, and address Town Meeting in November.
The Town Manager noted that as part of the Selectmen's budget deliberation, the decision
was made not to plow church parking lots in the future. However, with the transition of
DPW Directors, we never communicated that information to the churches. My intent, unless
directed otherwise by the Board of Selectmen, is to inform all of the churches that beginning
with the Winter of 2010/2011, the Town will no longer plow their lots. This will give them
one year to plan for this change. To implement this change now could present a hardship on
the large number of churches in Reading.
A motion by Goldy seconded by Schubert that the Board of Selectmen:
• Agrees not to direct the Town Manager to proceed with the hiring of a ,
Coordinator of Volunteers; and
V"
Board of Selectmen Meeting- October 6, 2009 - Page 3
• Concurs With the Town Manager's -direction to snow plow church parking
lots for the 2009/2010 Winter season, and place the churches on notice that
beginning with the 2010/2011 snow plowing season that the Town will no
longer plow church parking lots.
The motion was approved by 'a vote of 4-0-0.
Acceptance of Conservation Restriction - 134 Fairchild Drive - The Town Manager noted
that this is for the Scarano property. The Conservation Commission has approved this and
now it needs the Selectmen's approval.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to accept the Conservation Restriction at 134
Fairchild Drive, as approved by the Conservation Commission, was approved by a vote
of 4-0-0.
Cities for Climate Protection Program Committee - Update - Cities for Climate Protection
Program Committee Chairman Tracy Sopchak, and RMLD Energy Efficiency Engineer
Jared Carpenter were present.
Ms. Sopchak reviewed the progress to date. She noted that they have teamed up with HEFT
to help make homes more energy efficient, and the Light Department has hired an Energy
Efficiency Engineer. She also noted that they are putting together kits for the Library that
will include a Kill-A-Watt meter for residents to use.
Mr. Carpenter noted that he was hired six months ago by the RMLD to work with customers
to look for energy saving opportunities. Selectman Richard Schubert asked how people are
responding, and Mr. Carpenter noted that the calls come in through customer service, and he
works with both residents and commercial customers.
Continued Hearing - Personnel Policies - The Town Manager noted that the hearing was
continued due to two major issues - adding the Selectmen's mission and values, and also the
language regarding the policies not being a contract.
Labor Counsel Nathan Kaitz noted that the issue is not whether the Town wants to follow
policy or not, the issue is whether the policy is a contract. This is to protect the Town from
breech of contract lawsuits.
Selectman Stephen Goldy asked if that wording is removed if the Town is still protected,
and Mr. Kaitz indicated that the wording adds additional strength to the argument.
Selectman Goldy noted that when policies are put in place, employees have to be taken into
account, and he is not comfortable with this language.
Selectman Richard Schubert noted that employees are being held to the language in a way
that the Town isn't. Mr. Kaitz indicated that this language protects the Town especially
from ex-employees.
~a3
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 6, 2009 - Page 4
Vice Chairman James Bonazoli noted that if the policies are not binding for the Town, then
they are not binding for the employee so why even bother looking at the policies. Mr. Kaitz
noted that the intent is to follow the policies, but it is not binding.
Selectman Richard Schubert asked what the recourse is for an employee who feels that the
policy is violated. Mr. Kaitz indicated that Article 11 is the complaint procedure where an
employee can go to their supervisor, the Department Head, the Town Manager, and then the
Board of Selectmen if the issue does not get resolved. Selectman Schubert also asked if an
employee is required to follow the complaint procedure, and Mr. Kaitz noted that if a
complaint goes to court, then the attorney will need to show the procedure was followed.
Selectman Stephen Goldy noted that he asked for the Code of Conduct to be included in the
policies. He feels that employees need to know what is expected and what happens if they
don't follow it. He also noted that the Town has a Code of Conduct for volunteers and we
need one for the staff.
Chairman Ben Tafoya directed Selectman Stephen Goldy to work with the Town Manager
to incorporate the Code of Conduct for the employees.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to close the hearing on amendments to the
Personnel Policies was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
_A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to approve the amendments to the Personnel
Policies was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
Request to Clear Sidewalks - Fox Run Lane - The Town Manager noted that the Town does
not plow sidewalks on Fox Run Lane. Monette Verner is the only homeowner on the street
that clears the sidewalk. Children are walking in the road and it is a safety issue. It was also
noted that plows clear snow onto the sidewalks.
Public Works Director Jeff Zager noted it makes sense to add this street to the list. Highway
Director Mike deBrigard noted that the Town maintains the drop off, and will plow the
sidewalks on one side of Fox Run Lane.
Selectman Richard Schubert noted that property owners need to ask the people who plow
them not to put the snow on the sidewalks.
The Town Manager noted that the sidewalks on the easterly side of Fox Run Lane will be
plowed by the Town and a note will be sent to the residents.
Report on Sidewalk Snow Plowing - Public Works Director Jeff Zager, Highway Director
Mike deBrigard and Public Works Business Administrator Jane Kinsella were present.
Jeff Zager noted that he drafted a policy for sidewalk snow plowing so there is a process in
place going forward.
504
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 6, 2009 - Page 5
The Town Manager noted that they reviewed the list and found that we were plowing
sidewalks that kids weren't using anymore. The list needs to be reviewed once a year.
Selectman Richard Schubert suggested that Public Works inform the residents up front
before changes are made.
Mike deBrigard noted that if equipment breaks down, then they fall back to another map to
do the highest priorities first.
Selectman Richard Schubert suggested that the sidewalk maps be put on the website with a
statement that if something happens, there is an alternative plan.
Review Roads Program - Public Works Director Jeff Zager and Highway Director Mike
deBrigard reviewed the status of the Roadway Capital Program.
Review DPW Study - Progress to Date - Jeff Zager noted that training and succession
planning is first on the list. In the area of equipment and vehicle maintenance, his intent is
to put a small lift in the third bay and that will help with efficiency. The garage area will be
cleaned up. Certain things can be done short-term, but long-term is a different story. He
also noted that nobody is doing regionalization, but he will investigate it. They have also
implemented a tracking system for projects.
The Board praised Mike deBrigard and his crew for their work on the Fall Street Faire. The
Board also indicated that they would like to meet with Jeff Zager on a quarterly basis.
Review of Bancroft and Hartshorn Intersections - The Town Manager noted that the Board
had a request for a multi-way stop at this intersection. As an alternative, the Town moved
the stop forward, put in a crosswalk and installed a high visible crosswalk sign. He asked if
the Board wanted to do anything more. The consensus of the Board was to leave it as is.
Review Solid Waste Grant and Process - Jeff Zager noted that the Town received a grant for
Solid Waste and Recycling Contract Assistance. This grant entitles us to 80 hours of hands-
on assistance by a Municipal Assistance Coordinator. The Coordinator will assist in the
preparation of a RFP/Bid for solid waste and recycling collection and then evaluate the
proposals.
Selectman Richard Schubert indicated that he would like feedback from communities who
changed to a one day a week pick up.
Review of Cedar Glen Purchase - The Town Manager noted that Cedar Glen affordable
housing expires in 2010. As long as the property is nonconforming, it must remain
affordable. The initial proposal is to keep affordable for the next 50 years. He will be
meeting with the new owner and report back to the Board.
5~5
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 6, 2009 - Page 6
Approval of Minutes
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to approve the Minutes of July 21, 2009 was
approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
A motion by Bonazoll seconded by Goldy to approve the Minutes of September 17,
2009 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy to approve the Minutes of September 29,
2009 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0.
A motion by Bonazoll seconded by Goldy to approve the Executive Session Minutes of
September 17, 2009, as written, was approved on a roll call vote with all four members
voting in the affirmative.
A motion by Bonazoli seconded by Schubert to adjourn the meeting of October 6, 2009
at 10:00 D.M. was annroved by a vote of 4-0-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Sad
Board of Selectmen Meeting
October 20, 2009
For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in
which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order
in which any item was taken up by the Board.
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Ben Tafoya, Vice Chairman James
Bonazoli, Secretary Camille Anthony, Selectmen Richard Schubert and Stephen
Goldy, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director
Bob LeLacheur, Recreation Administrator John Feudo, and the following list of interested
parties: Bill Brown, Angela Binda, Gabriel Dietz, Gina and Mark DiRocco, Kegan and
Sophie Lynch, Julia Jack, Emily Cronin, Natalie Bloom, Olivia Pavao, Olivia Blumenshine,
Debra Kenton, Ainsley Cohen, Nathan Stellato, Alexia Andrikopoulos, Ina Li, Talia
McNamara, Jillian Rhodes, George Hines, Michael Giacalorie, William Crowley, Karen
Fratto, Karen Dolan, Barry Berman.
Reports and Comments
Selectmen's Liaison Reports and Comments - Vice Chairman James Bonazoli indicated that
he had met with the Recreation Committee. There is a situation with one group being fined
for painting lines on one of the artificial turf fields.
Selectman Camille Anthony felt that we need to be clear with permits that are given for fees
and for penalties. She asked that a copy of the permit form be given to the Board of
Selectmen. She also asked for the ownership of the Birch Meadow area be placed on the
Warrant for the April Town Meeting. The Town Manager indicated that there is a lot of
engineering work involved, and he will check with the Engineers to see if this will be ready
for action at that time. Selectman Anthony noted that there is a bridge in one of the trails in
the woods that is in good condition, but the pathway leading up to it is in poor condition.
This may be something that the Trails Committee can undertake.
Selectman Richard Schubert noted that the West Street Historic District Commission has
three members, and they will be meeting next week.
Chairman Ben Tafoya noted that there was an article in the New York Times today on
communities adopting a zero waste disposal threshold.
Town Manager/Assistant Town Manager's Reports
The Town Manager gave the following report:
• Flu Clinics are on hold pending shipment of flu vaccine.
• Town Meeting Warrant is on the website. The full Town Meeting report will be on
the website the last week in October.
• The most recent YCC is now on the website.
Sam/
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 20, 2009 - Page 2
• Seven representatives from Reading attended the Mystic Emergency Planning
Committee Meeting - the primary focus was on flu.
• Fire Department Open House - October 17th
• Letter to MHD re: West Street
• Skim coat paving - Spring 2009 (sections of Van Norden Road, Wakefield Street
and South Street completed). Fall 2009 (Barrows Road, one side of Pilgrim Road
completed, and will be doing Tamarack Road on 10/21 and 10/22.
• Regional Salt Bids - 18% reduction. If we used the same amount this year as last
year, the savings would be $78,000.
• Downtown Project:
o Bike Racks
o Reviewed signal installation and operation
o Bicycle Stencils
o Salem Street left turn arrow
o Parking NB Main across from Ash
Dates and Events:
• Mass. Memories Road Show at Library on October 24, 2009, 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Halloween Parade - 11:45
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Wakefield High School, October 31, 2009,
8:30 to 12:30
• Tree Lighting - November 29th
• Shop the Block- December 3rd
Proclamations/Certificates of Appreciation
Proclamation _ Red Ribbon Week - On motion by Anthony seconded by Schubert, the
Board of Selectmen approved the Proclamation for Red Ribbon Week for October 24
through October 31, 2009 by a vote of 5-0-0.
Representatives of the Joshua Eaton School including Principal Patricia de Garavilla and the
Student Council were present to receive the Proclamation, and they talked about some of
their plans for Red Ribbon Week.
Discussion/Action Items
Review of Ipswich River Greenway Project - The Town Manager reviewed the overall
scope of the Ipswich River Greenway Project, and noted that progress has been made in the
following areas: Demolition of the Water Treatment Plant, fishing platform to be
constructed soon at the Lobs Pond Mill site, Mattera Cabin renovation, development of
handicap accessible trail starting at the Mattera Cabin site, completion of the viewing
platform in Bare Meadow, and approval of the grant to develop the trails system from the
viewing platform to Haverhill Street.
Selectman Camille Anthony asked for Engineering to be done for the boardwalks. She
asked who was going to head up the Ipswich River Project. Vice Chairman James Bonazoli
indicated that he thought that was the purpose of the Trails Committee. This will be
discussed further when the Trails Committee comes in before the Board at the Selectmen's
Meeting on December 1 st.
S-X 2,,
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 20, 2009 - Page 3
Washington Park Playground Plan - Recreation Administrator John Feudo presented the
plan for the Washington Park Playground. The neighborhood group has requested the
ability, under the ages of the Friends of Reading Recreation, to do fundraising by selling
bricks for a patio. Following much discussion, the Board approved the fundraising effort by
a vote of 5-0-0, and the details of how the bricks are to be used will depend on the number
of bricks sold. One option would be to have bricks lining a paved walkway connecting the
playground to the main walkway for the entrance to the park.
Selectman Camille Anthony suggested that we should have lighting in the park.
John Feudo talked about the fencing of the playground. There are a lot of other fences in the
area. The Town Manager expressed concerns about creating "alleyways" that would be hard
to maintain. Mr. Feudo will go back and look at utilization of existing fences for providing
the boundaries to the playground area.
Hearings- Birch Meadow Master Plan - The Town Manager reviewed the text and plan map
for the Birch Meadow Master Plan. Selectman Richard Schubert presented to the Board
some changes to the Master Plan that he had red lined. Some of these were typos and some
were clarifications. He also reviewed a six point action plan of items to be taken up.
On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy, the Board closed the hearing on the Birch
Meadow Master Plan by a vote of 5-0-0.
On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Goldy, the Board voted to approve the Master
Plan for Birch Meadow consisting of the text as amended, and the map of "Birch
Meadow Improvements" dated June 30, 2009 and revised October 16, 2009 by a vote of
5-0-0. The Board also agreed that the action plan although not part of the text of the
Master Plan would provide guidance to the Board for future actions.
Hearing - Recreation Fees - Recreation. Administrator John Feudo presented the proposed
amendments to the field fees which would increase the field fee per out of town user to
$100.00 from the current level of $10.00. The resident fees would stay the same. Questions
were raised by Karen Fratto and Barry Berman.
In response to a question by the Selectmen, Mr. Feudo noted that the proposed field fees
were recommended by the full Recreation Committee, he thought by a vote of 6-1-0. The
Board asked Mr. Feudo to develop data on what organizations have out of town users.
On motion by Anthony seconded by Goldy, the Board of Selectmen voted to close the
hearing by a vote of 5-0-0.
On motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli, the Board voted to approve the fees for
field use as detailed in the Field Safety Committee Report and Recommendation dated
10/20/09 by a vote of 5-0-0.
S~S .
Board of Selectmen Meeting - October 20, 2009 - Page 4
Public Input - Local Option Meals Tax - Chairman Ben Tafoya opened a discussion on
potential for the Town of Reading adopting a $35 meals tax. This is on the Warrant at the
Subsequent Town Meeting. The Board of Selectmen has not taken a position on it other
than discussion at the Financial Forum that the community through Town Meeting should
discuss this item. The Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager reviewed the key
elements of the meals tax including the fact that by State Statute, it cannot be appealed for a
period of three years.
Bill Crowley spoke and indicated that the Chamber of Commerce opposes the meals tax.
Bill Brown asked if street vendors would be subject to the meals tax at events like the Fall
Street Faire. He noted that there is land across the street from the High School that could be
sold, and he doesn't feel that the Town should ask for more money when it has this resource.
Karen. Fratto noted that the Economic Development Committee glossed over this issue
recently.
Michael Giacalone spoke for the Chamber of Commerce opposition to the meals tax.
Karen Dolan also spoke on the meals tax.
The Board of Selectmen did not take any action at this time. On their November 3rd
meeting, they have an action item to review the Warrant and take action on the Articles they
will be recommending.
Close the Warrant - Special Town Meeting - The Town Manager reviewed a proposed five
Article Warrant for a Special Town Meeting. The main purpose of the Special Town
Meeting is to consider the 40R Smart Growth zoning amendments for the Downtown. The
Town Manager also recommended that an Article be included as Article 4 to amend the
budget if that should be needed at that time.
On motion by Goldy seconded by Anthony, the Board of Selectmen voted to close the
Warrant for a Special Town Meeting consisting of five Articles, the meeting to be held
at the Readin1l Memorial High School Auditorium, 62 Oakland Road on November 30,
2009. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Approval of Minuntes
On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthony, the Board of Selectmen voted to approve
the Minutes of September 22, 2009 by a vote of 5-0-0.
On motion by Anthony seconded by Bonazoli, the Board of Selectmen voted to adiourn
the meeting of October 20, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. by a vote of 5-0-0. .
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
October 26, 2009
Board of Selectmen
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Re: Channel Changes
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board:
N
8
110
0
e.~
co
c~
In keeping with our ongoing efforts to provide regular updates regarding our service, I would
like to infonn you of an upcoming change to our channel line-up within your community.
As of December 1, 2009, WWDP (ShopNBC) on Basic Service channel 72 will be replaced
by WWDP-DT on channel 72 and will require a digital QAM tuner TV, CableCARD or
digital cable box in order to view. WWDP on Basic Service channel 95 will no longer be avail
We will be communicating this change to our customers through a bill message. Should
residents contact you with questions regarding these changes, please do not hesitate to direct
them to our toll free customer service number: 1-800-COMCAST. Our Customer Account
Executives are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to answer any questions they may
have regarding Coimcast products, services and prices. If you have any questions about this or
any other issue, please feel free to contact me directly at 978-927-5700, ext. 4409.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyman
Senior Manager of Government & Community Relations
S~'I'
Page 1 of 1
Li. l o bi
Hechenblelkner, Peter
From: Diana Rhudick [drhudick@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:51 AM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: Delios, Jean
Subject: 40R rezoning
Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen and Town Planner:
I am a Reading resident writing to oppose the 40R rezoning as currently written. I believe that smaller-
scale buildings are in the best interests of this town. If the 40R goes forward without changes, it will
mean a loss of town character, undesirable and costly parking garages, and an overall urbanization and
impersonalization of a downtown area that was just renovated to capture more of a charming village
feel.
There are many ways for the BOS and CPDC to change this proposed zoning to allow the MF Charles
renovation to proceed, while keeping any new buildings to the three-story scale established by the MF
Charles Building more than 100 years ago and recently echoed in the Two Haven building.
There is still enormous room for growth with those general limits in mind. Surely a tripling of density at
the Atlantic site is enough.
At all of the public hearings, many people have expressed opposition to such large buildings. But no
changes whatsoever have been made to the underlying zoning formulas. There is still adequate time for
our elected and appointed bodies to listen to this community input.
Sincerely,
Diana Rhudick
dE.hu-dkk@.c.onn cast, net
10/27/2009
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Delios, Jean
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:27 AM
To: Joe Barletta
Subject: RE: Neighbor
Thank you for your comments. I would be happy to discuss in more detail. There is a lot of
information available on the website, in case you haven't already been there.
The 40R zoning being proposed encourages mixed use, compact development, but with one
caveat - there are design standards that will be applied to reinforce the goals of the community
and the need to make sure new developments are shaped appropriately for the community.
Also, any proposed developments (new construction or rehab) would require site plan review
by the planning commission which is a very detailed design review of a project that takes into
account parking, density, fagade, and other elements of a proposal.
Best,
Jean
Jean J. Delios
',-;vI,-m.a i)i e(Jor-"fown Planner
'T'own of Reading
,16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 0:1867-2685
Tel 781-942-6612
Far 781-9=12-9071
1(.}i~it:4~p?CI.r'(:`~iCla11}.1]].%l,l.l;i
From: Joe Barletta [mailto:jbarletta@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:16 PM
To: Delios, Jean; Reading - Selectmen; Feeley, Paul
Subject: Neighbor
To whom it may concern,
I received an email complaining about a four story building being discussed for the MF Charles building and I
would like to know what type of business would go into it, or if it would be residential. I have absolutely no
problem with a four story building and parking garages. I live across from the proposed site and it would be in
my direct view, but I would still be in favor of a bigger building for many reasons. To list a few: more work for
tradesmen who aren't working very much right now, more tax dollars for the town (hopefully to continue fixing
the streets), it will generally spur investment in the area which is totally desolate now that Atlantic is gone.
Bigger doesn't have to mean overcrowded if it is done right. More information would be greatly appreciated,
Joe Barletta
1 Fulton Street
Reading Ma
10/2.7/2009 t
Page 1 of 2
Hechenbleikner, Peter
~f C, f
From: Dino [fl4re@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:49 PM
To: Cormier, Jim
Cc: Stamatis, Dave; Peter Garchinsky; Robbins, Richard; Lee, Michael; Hechenbleikner, Peter;
Zambouras, George; Zager, Jeff
Subject: Re: Stop sign at Forest and Grove
Chief Cormier,
Thank you for the attention to this matter. I have noticed the police presence at the intersection and
happened to be going by when one violator was being pulled over.
best regards,
Dino Cuscuna
On Thu, 10/22/09, Cormier, Jim <jcormier@ci.readiug.ma.us> wrote:
From: Cormier, Jim <jcormier@ci.reading.ma.us>
Subject: Stop sign at Forest and Grove
To: fl4re@yahoo.com
Cc: "Stamatis, Dave" <dstamatis@ci.reading.ma.us>, "Peter Garchinsky"
<pgarchinslcy@ci.reading.ma.us>, "Robbins, Richard" <rrobbins@ci.reading.ma.us>, "Lee,
Michael" <mlee@ci.reading.ma.us>, "Hechenbleiluier, Peter"
<phechenbleilcner@ci.reading.ma.us>, "Zambouras, George" <gzambouras@ci.reading.ma:us>,
"Zager, Jeff' <jzager@ci.reading.ma.us>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009, 4:52 PM
Mr. Cuscuna,
I am replying to your email dated Oct. 12, 2009. We have increased attention to the area at Forest and
Grove. We are also reviewing the intersection to ensure that the signs are clearly visible and adequate
notice prior to the intersection is in place.
Thank you for bringing your observations forward and giving us an opportunity to address them. I
understand the officers who have been working the intersection have been successful in observing, and
taking action on, some violators. We will continue to monitor the intersection for enforcement action.
Regards,
10/27/2009
Page 2 of 2
Chief James W. Cormier
Reading Police Department
15 Union St.
Reading, MA 01867
781-944-1212
781-944-2893 Fax
JCorm,ie,r@ci.,_readin.g..maus.
NA-233
When writing or responding, please remember that the secretary of State's Office has
determined that email is a public record. This communication may contain privileged or other
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received
this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use
the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error,
and delete the copy you received.
10/27/2009
~~v
Page 1 of 2
L / 6 C/
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:09 PM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Delios, Jean
Subject: FW: do you want 4 story bldgs downtown? If not write a letter or attend by Nov 2 mtg.
FYI
Bob LeLacheur
Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director
Tomm of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
(P) 781-942-6636
(F) 781-942-9037
(E), finance@ci. reading. nta. tts
From: Jody Avtges [mailto:jodyavtges@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:24 PM
To: javtges@hhsi.us
Subject: do you want 4 story bldgs downtown? If not write a letter or attend by Nov 2 mtg.
Dear Neighbors: It turns out the development for Atlantic and MF Charles building could be (likely if
we don't act) a 4 story building, instead of 3 which is the highest we have in town now. I walked down
to Atlantic site and it seems a building similiar in height to the Two Haven would fit best, but there is
mote at issue. There will be a meeting on this next Mon, Nov 2 at 7:30 PM at the Senior Center and put
to the Town Meeting on Nov 30. There is more at stake as explained below in italics. If you are
concerned, please send your opinion by next Monday, and/or attend on Nov 2. There is a sample letter
below but the key message is the current version needs to be scaled back. There are plenty of ways for
CPDC or the Board of Selectmen (or Town Meeting, if it comes to that) to make such changes. But the
first step is for the neighborhood and the wider community to actually state what it wants and doesn't
want.
Please send your written comments to:
Town Planner Jean Delios jdeliosaci.readma.ma.us
and the Board of Selectmen Selectnlerl~.reacl l_g mau -s. and/or letters to editor at: "Reading
Chronicle" <readi gchro 1igle0a corncast.net>, <reading c0cnc.corn>,
Concerns/Issues:
If nothing changes, what you are going to get are four-story buildings, underground parking lots, and-=in
the long term---parking garages behind Atlantic and CVS. That's where this is headed. Although 4
stories is just a bit of the nuance of the issue here. The way they are getting to 4 stories is not just with a
height rule change (though it would go up a bit) but more significantly through indirect means:
decreasing oiisite parking requirements, putting into effect a generous allowable "floor area
ratio" (amount of floor space as a function of lot size) removal of setbacks (the space behind or between
buildings), and increase in maximum lot coverage to 100 percent in some circumstances. These
variables are, by far, the more important zoning changes allowing such massive buildings.
10/27/2009
J_~,
Page 2 of 2
Here is a draft of a letter-best to put in your own words of course:
Dear Members of the Board of Selectmen and CPDC:
I live on TKTK street and we already face (TKTK) pressures. I write to oppose the 40R rezoning as its
currently written. I believe that smaller-scale buildings are in the best interests of the community. If
this 40R goes forward without changes, it will mean increases in traffic on my street, a loss of village
character, undesirable and costly parking-garages, and an overall urbanization of the downtown.
There are many ways for the BOS and CPDC to change this proposed zoning to allow the MF Charles
renovation to proceed, while keeping any new buildings to the scale---three stories---long established by
the MF Charles Building more than 100 years ago and echoed in the Two Haven building recently.
There is still enormous room for growth with those general limits in mind. Surely a tripling of density at
the Atlantic site is enough we don't need to go to a quadrupling. Larger buildings belong on Main
Street, if anywhere.
At all of the public hearings, numerous people have expressed opposition to such large buildings. But no
changes whatsoever have been made to the underlying zoning formulas. There is still adequate time for
our elected- and appointed bodies to respond to this community input.
Sincerely,
TKTK
Jody James Avtges
781-942-5756-home or
781-985-0559-cell
10/27/2009
9 ~;v
Communities get state grants to regionalize 911 dispatch systems - The Boston Globe Page 1 of 2
Burns, Greg
From: Bongiorno, Richard [rbongiorno@stoneham-ma.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:07 PM
To: Morad, Dianne; Scribner, Andrew; Blatus, Michael; WBuckley@sdm.state.ma.us; James
Dipaola; Lt. Bob Thistle; chief@wakefieldpd.org; miyle@cityofinelrose.org; Cormier, Jim;
jobrien@cityofineirose.org; Burns, Greg; Rolli, Joe; Ragucci, David ; Luciano, David; Griffin,
John; McCarthy, Richard; Chief Michael Sullivan (Wakefield FD)
Subject: FW: Emailing: Communities get state grants to regionalize 911 dispatch systems - The Boston
Globe
Importance: High
boston,,Corn THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Communities to regionalize 911 systeiit,~.',o~raatccot~c
By Matt Carroll, Globe Staff ] September 10, 2009
Two groups of communities south of Boston are receiving nearly $3.9 million from the state to regionalize their
emergency 911 dispatch systems, encouraged to find more ways to save money in a dire financial climate and
to improve public safety.
Cohasset, Hingham, Hull, and Norwell are getting $2.1 million for equipment, which is in addition to $1 million
the group got about a year ago for construction of a regional communications center.
A second group, led by the Plymouth County Sheriffs Department, is in line for $1.7 million for materials,
labor, construction, and equipment, according to the state. It will build a second regional dispatch center to
serve Brockton, Carver, Halifax, Kingston, Middleborough, Plympton, and Scituate.
Both centers will coordinate calls for police, fire, and ambulance services in the member communities.
William R. Griffin, Cohasset town manager, said it's uncertain how much money will be saved by coordinating
services with Hingham, Hull, and Norwell. But the four towns now have up to seven dispatchers on duty at any
one time; consolidating might knock that down to four or five, he said.
Hingham Town Administrator Kevin Paicos said it isn't clear yet whether any layoffs will be necessary.
Officials stressed they expected to see a more efficient, more flexible system. For instance, one dispatcher on
duty might have trouble giving medical advice and at the same time handle other emergency calls. But the
regional center will have more dispatchers to spread out the work.
The member communities are expected to gain in other ways as well. Towns now get state money annually for
911 systems. But the amount is increased if the towns regionalize their network. For instance, Cohasset,
Hingham, Hull, and Norwell, which now get a total of roughly $150,000, will get about $450,000, said local
officials.
Also, the centers will have new equipment. Cohasset had been expecting to spend $150,000 on equipment, a
cost that will now be avoided, said Griffin.
"Regionalization creates a broad base for a more efficient public safety network," said Hingham Police Chief
Taylor Mills.
10/27/2009
Communities get state grants to regionalize 911 dispatch systems - The Boston Globe Page 2 of 2
He gave a possible scenario: A man is found wandering in a Hingham neighborhood at 3 a.m., claiming he is
lost. But a call to the regional dispatch system would have alerted officers to a report that the man was
stopped in Cohasset a week earlier at the same time, claiming he was lost then, too.
The regional center will be built in the Hingham Town Hall complex. Griffin said the center could also expand
to serve other towns, as other communities have already made inquiries about joining.
If all goes well, the center should be up and running by July 2010 - although officials agreed that was a very
optimistic date. "That's very ambitious, but I'm very confident," said Paicos.
More work needs to be done before construction starts. The group is looking for an architect. The communities
must sign agreements about how the center will be operated. With four town managers and eight police and
fire chiefs, plus other town officials, a lot needs to be ironed out.
The plan is to run the center through a board of directors, which would probably include all the town
managers, said Griffin. A manager to handle the day-to-day decisions will probably also be hired.
As for the second regional center, Jim Muscato, director of field services for the Plymouth County Sheriff's
Department, said it would be located in the sheriffs facility in Plymouth. While seven communities have signed
up, several others have expressed interest, he said, enticed by the idea of better service and saving money.
The money from the state is for building the center. Other grants will need to be won in the future for
equipment.
"We're very much in our infancy," said Muscato, and no completion date has been set.
The state last week handed out nearly $8 million in total, funding 12 projects across the Commonwealth. All
the projects are designed to enhance 911 and emergency dispatch communications centers, improve public
safety, and save taxpayers money, said Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray in a statement.
Money will be spent on building the new facilities, buying and installing equipment, improving infrastructure of
existing regional 911 departments, and studying the regionalization of emergency communications services.
The grants are being distributed by the State 911 Department and the Executive Office of Public Safety and
Security.
10/27/2009