The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-11-14 Subsequent Town Meeting MinutesSUBSEQUENT TOWN MEETING Reading Memorial High School November 14, 1988 The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Paul C. Dustin, at 7:45 P.M., there being a.quorum present. The Invocation was given by Reverend E. Lewis MacLean of the Church of the Nazarene, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Paul C. Dustin said, "As Moderator it is my sad duty to an- nounce that two'Town Meeting members have passed away. The first was Cynthia Foulds in June of 1988. She resided at 9 Ide Street. "'Yesterday Philip White, Jr. also passed away. He served for many years on various Boards in Town. I'd like to read a few of them: Board of Appeals 1956 -1962 Board Secretary 1957, 1959 -1962 Reading Housing Authority 1963 - present Treasurer 1963 Member and Chairman 1971 -1979 Member 1980 - present Town Meeting Member 1959 - present "Please observe a moment of silence for these two previous Town Meeting members. (pause) Amen." The warrant was partially read by the Town Clerk, when on motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to dispense with further reading of the warrant, except the Officer's Return which was then read by the Town Clerk. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to take Article 1 from the table. ARTICLE 1. The 1988 Dorothy and Arnold Berger Award to Reading's Exemplary Teachers was presented by Richard H. "Coco of the Reading School Committee, as follows: Report to the Fall 1988 Town Meeting by the Reading School Committee Town Meeting members and Citizens of Reading: The Reading School Committee and the Townspeople of Reading are proud of the many fine teachers who worked to the educational welfare of the young people of Reading. All of us are proud of the accomplishments of our youth. The success of the young people is directly linked to the contribution of the profes- sionals in our classrooms from Kindergarten through Grade 12. The Reading School Committee calls attention to this con- tribution of the teachers and administrators in our system through its annual Exemplary Teacher Award Program. By singling out two* teachers we call attention to the professional service and dedication to the youth of Reading which so many teachers demonstrate. This year, the Selection Committee solicited nominations and considered the contributions of 30 outstanding teachers. All the nominees shared the key qualities which are the criteria for the rD q� T o 8� "� �• � � r c trJ � � c �' � � p � n C) M4 o S PL CD � oo � ,y, � ... � o gyp. a �• y t�1 � AA v0� M 00 A A. o H A x °, 04 o p �r �O z x a� xo � 00 `� 8 y b V r� d z c� W A ® aQ 14D o cn z g A xo � 00 `� 8 y b V r� d z c� o A � �• •i i1. g•• _ �•• M�p c�p A cC b7 A to sz N� � co � y � �°., � � � �' N `� �' bo A A �. re � o cam' �, cp � �q•• �Z• •• �O to 2$ to O y � ?��• _ c0 `�' O '+ y �pR tinn.•�' 00 � A. � ��r• � ��rr. � G�7 .�' � c��1., ..w A � A n. Rif � S' A � � � � � � m y � p•'' � �C i�„Appr e' to -3 '' c`° y � �+ •" io5 A . A v- O 09 to t0 � c� O � n •'Y• ' � � � .3" A '•� ,A .� � .+• wS• �' M Cn � .Z" cm ��- bb "� `{Cp iZ• •. `O� `� y n. A �' � �. f0 Ste• "3 op ^• y< `- ,° r� v '` �" ��A••• O, iii. f0 tRp FOB• • A 'A*• �j�`t�' �O Q O iii' tin, f"� '"' �'•p�' Q` tl�p . �'• A •L A A .% b' op `�T�. ?T ^ ^� .+ m ^ b y DVS Aar - o:�� x� CZ M ry � �-� o �.� o g ,�� ...�� a� o°o a A� ...$ � � -�^•'. x 'V oC H A Zi oo eF . a tA It 00 O R Vi �_ 14 �0 fp � O .� wT • ` a' � M A O Vi N a h' 14 10 oil ".. A w Revised 11-88 45 TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Years 1989 through 1991 (cost in 000's) Cost by year and source of funding Project # Project Description FY89* FY90 FY91 ,,FY92 FY93 FY94 FIN-1 Data Proc Equip Enhance 20.3A 17.45A 8.45A 1.5A FIN-2 Data Proc Equip Replace 30A 18A 15A 15A 20A 20A PS-F-1 New Fire Station 3,250D PS-F-2 Radio Equipment 10A PS-F-3 Replace Car 15.5A PS-F-4 Quint Truck 300D PS-F-5 Bucket Truck 30A PS-F-6 Pickup Truck 16A PS-F-7 Replace Pumper 160A PS-F-8 Replace Ambulance 75A PS-P-1 Mobile D.P. Term. 13A PS-P-2 Addition/Remodel 150G/A Station PS-P-3 School Zone Markings 35A PS-P-4 Signals - Square 40A 150G 150G PW-B-1 Asbestos Removal 10A PW-B-2 Library Parking Lot 42.4A PW-B-3 Renovation - T. Hall 1,000D PW-B-5 Roof - Library 42.4A 37G PW-B-6 Elder Serv.-Center 110G 285D PW-C-1 Laurel Hill Wall 12A PW-C-2 Forest Glen Devl. 25A 10S PW-C-3 Charles Lawn Devl. 5A 25C 25C 25C 25C PW-C-4 Forest Glen Wall 8A PW-C-5 Acquiring Land 1000D PW-C-6 Replace Backhoe 20C PW-C-7 Replace Mower 6C PW-E-1 Replace Backhoe/loader 120A 90A PW-E-2 Replace Roller 12A PW-E-3 Replace Dump Truck 45A PW-E-4 Replace Dump Truck 90A 90A PW-E-5 Replace Pickup Truck 10A PW-E-6 Replace Eng. Van 11A PW-E-7 Other Equip. Replcmt. 140A 100A 300A 300A 300A Revised 11-88 45 Revised 11 -88 46 TOWN OF READING MASSACHUSETTS SIX YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Years 1989 through 1991 (cost in 000's) Cost•by year and source of funding Project # Project Description FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 PW -P -1 Renovation of Pool -- 120A -- -- -- -- PW-P-2 Park Development -- -- 50A 50A -- -- PW-R-1 Street Overlay 74.812A 75A 75A 75A 75A 75A PW -R -2 St.Reconstruction 320A 100A 300A 100A 300A 100A PW -R -3 Drainage Improvements -0- 200A - 200A - 200A PW -R -4 St. Acceptances 12B 15B 15B 15B 15B 15B PW -R -5 Walkers Brook Drive Improvements 398.066G - - - - - 161.934B - - - - - PW -R -6 Chapt. 90 Imprvmts. 60G 60G 60G 60G 60G 60G PW -S -1 Inflow /Infiltration 40.831(G) -- -- -- -- -- PW-S-2 Main Reconstruction -- 450G -- -- -- 50E PW -W -1 Water Meters 306.E 100E -- -- -- - 204.G 100G PW -W -2 Water Storage 1200E -- -- 1000D -- -- SD -1 Computer /Wd Proc Equip 35A 35A 20A -- -- -- SD -2 Roof Replacement 227D 230D 160A -- -- -- SD-3 Space Remodelling -Elem -- -- 21A 21A -- -- SD-4 Chp 504 - Lifts - Toilet Rem -- 28A -- 15A -- -- SD-5 Central Office Rel -- -- 175D -- -- -- SD-6 Energy Related Proj 15G 15A 15A 15A 15A -- SD-7 Vehicle Replacement 14A 12A 10A 12A 15A -- SD-8 Floor Tile Replacement 15A 15A 15A 10A 10A -- SD-9 Install Suspnded Ceiling -- -- -- -- 25A -- SD-10 Window Replacement -- -- 175D -- 30A -- SD -11 Refurbish Kitchen -- -- -- -- 50A -- SD-12 Rplce Clsrm /Cafe Furn. 15A 15A 15A 15A 15A -- SD-13 Gate /Zone Vlve Replcmt 10A 15A -- -- -- -- SD-14 Clock Replacement 3A -- -- -- -- -- SD-15 Repointing Brick Work 8A 8A -- -- -- -- SD-16 Painting Program 50A 25A 25A 25A 25A -- SD-17 Oil Tank Replacement -- -- 10A 10A 10A -- SD-18 Asbestos Abatement 25A 15A 15A 15A 15A -- SD-19 Transformer Replacement 242D -- -- -- -- -- Revised 11 -88 46 261 Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1988 time from the closing date and the. adoption of the PUD, Homart and Embassy Suites have been preparing the environmental impact reports that are required, the various development submissions and so forth. . The PUD was approved by the Community Planning and Develop- ment Commission on October 31, 1988. The MEPA comments which are the Environmental comments are due back no later than mid - November 1988. Late 1988 will be the submission of the design phase I for the project. Site preparation should begin very soon under license granted by the Board of Selectmen allowing stock piling of fill, at no risk to the Town. Subdivision recording and the Appeal period ending takes place in early December. We are anticipating a closing date of mid - January 1989 and that does appear to be on target. The other thing some of you may have in mind are the recent newspaper articles about Sears and their divestiture of some real estate. We have talked to Sears and Homart about that and found that they are planning to divest the Sears Tower in Chicago which is their large office building in Chicago. Not as a finan- cial move, but the time appears to be ripe to sell that par- ticular piece of real estate. They are also planning on selling off the Coldwell Banker Group of which Homart is a part. However before selling the Coldwell Banker Group, Homart will be spun out of that and put back in Sears where it originally started and will stay with Sears & Roebuck. Any concerns that Homart is being sold as part of the package Sears is working on is not fac- tual and is not an item of concern. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table. ARTICLE 2. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to table ARTICLE 3 until the end of Town Meeting. ARTICLE 4. On motion of Paul E. Landers, it was voted that the Town raise by borrowing as provided under Chapter 44 of the General Laws and any other enabling authority, and ap- propriate the sum of $2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for the purpose of constructing a new fire sta- tion and access thereto on land currently owned by the Town lo- cated primarily on the easterly side of Main Street and known as Parcels 21, 24 and 25 on Board of Assessors' Plat 87, including the cost of original furnishings and equipment, engineering and architectural fees, inspection fees, relocation costs, contin- gencies and related facilities incidental thereto and necessary in connection therewith, said sum to be spent by and under the direction of the Board of Selectmen; and that the Town authorizes the Board of Selectmen to file applications for a grant or grants to be used to defray all or any part of the cost of said fire station and related matters; and that the Town authorizes the Board of Selectmen to enter into all contracts and agreements as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this vote under this article. 130 voted in the affirmative 3 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required 262 Subsequent Town Meeting See Reports attached. November 14, 1988 Town Meeting member, John W. Price, Precinct 4, presented Petitions requesting that Town Meeting... "vote once and for all against the closing of the Woburn Street Fire Station and /or removal from active service fire apparatus from said station." and requested that the petitions be included as permanent record of the Town Meeting minutes. ARTICLE 4.' Thomas J. Ryan, moved to reconsider the motion of Paul E. Landers under Article 4 made at the Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1988 in accordance with Article 11 Section 4 of the By -Laws of the Town of Reading. This motion was voted in the negative. 0 voted in the affirmative 133 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required ARTICLE 3. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, Article 3 was taken from the table. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted that PW -W -2 in the Capital Outlay Plan be amended to read: "PW -W -2 Water System Improvements - $1,200EP1 in the column FY89. ARTICLE 3. On motion of Eugene R. Nigro, it was voted to lay Article 3 on the table. ARTICLE 5. On motion of John H. Russell, it was voted that the Town appropriate from Water Surplus the amount of $650,000 (Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), and raise by borrowing as provided under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other ena- bling authority, the amount of $550,000 (Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars), and appropriate a total of $1,200,000 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars) for the purpose of making improvements to the Town's water system, including remodeling, reconstructing and making extraordinary repairs to the Water Treatment Plant and pumping station, the originally - equipping of same, the installation of pipes, fittings, other equipment and. related facilities, and including the costs of all engineering and architectural fees and inspection fees and contingencies therefor. 132 voted in the affirmative 3 voted in the negative 2/3 vote required ARTICLE 1. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg, Article 1 was taken from the table. ARTICLE 1. The attached report of the Municipal Space Building Committee by Gerald A. Fiore was accepted as a Report of Progress. ARTICLE 1. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg, it was voted to lay.Article 1 on the table. ARTICLE 6. On motion of Nils L. Nordberg, it was voted that the subject matter of Article 6 be indefinitely postponed. ARTICLE 7. On motion of George J. Shannon, it was voted that the subject matter of Article 7 be indefinitely postponed. INTRODUCTION -PAUL LANDERS-FOLLOWING MOTION The Town has recognized for at least ten years the need to re- place the Central Fire Station at Central and Parker Streets. In the early 1980's, a committee made a recommendation to Town Meet- ing to fund the replacement of this facility. In the Spring of 1987, the sum of $15,000 was appropriated by Town Meeting for the study of the Fire Department. The focus of this study was on the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Operational deficiencies if any in the Department Equipment needs if any Staffing needs if any Need for two stations or one station Location for a new station. A seven member Fire Facility Study Committee was appointed in the Spring of 1987 by the Board of Selectmen. The members include Paul Landers, Selectmen as Chair; Fire Chief Leonard Redfern; Firefighter Lieutenant William Campbell; Town Meeting Member Bill Brown; Community Planning and Development Commission Member Tom Stohlman; Finance Committee Member Liz Greene; and Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner. The Fire Facility Study Committee has met f requently over the last year and a half in public sessions, with a significant , ef - fort to solicit and encourage public involvement and comment. Following the creation of the study committee, George Paul Incor- porated was hired as the consultant, and the consultant's report was unanimously accepted by the committee in the Fall of 1987. The report recommended the following: (a) Minor operational improvements (b) Replacement of the foam truck and ladder truck with one new "quint" truck which is a combination pumper and ladder truck (c) Some additional administrative and firefighting staff (d) Consolidation of the existing two stations into a single central station (e) Location of the new Fire station near the intersection of Main Streets and Route 129. The study committee evaluated three publicly owned sites within the area identified by the consultant. These included the site of the existing Central Station, the Union Street park- ing lot, and the half acre lot on North Main Street North of the Gulf Station. Based on issues of loca- tion, site size, neighborhood impact, and presence of historical buildings, the committee unanimously en- dorsed the site on North Main Street. At the Fall 1987 Town Meeting, the findings of the George Paul Study were presented and Town Meeting voted the sum of $50,000 to prepare plans for the new station. During the Winter of 1987-1988, the firm of Hughes & McCarthy was selected to be the designers of the facility, and they began work immediately. They met with the Fire Facility Study Committee in a number of public sessions. It became immediately evident that the best design for the facility would include the acquisition of additional land. Therefore, at the Spring 1988 Town Meeting, the Fire Facility Study Committee presented two options for land ac- quisition, both of which were rejected. At the same time, con- cerns were raised about closing of the Woburn Street Station. After the Spring 1988 Town meeting, we went back to the drawing board and the architect was challenged to design a facility that would accomplish the following: (1) Would fit on the existing site, with no land acquisi- tion. (2) Would minimize impact on the residential neighbors both those on Salem Street and those on North Main Street (3) Would address the safety issues relative to fire equip- ment backing into the site from Main Street (4) Could be built as a five bay station, or as a three bay station expandable to five bays in the future. The architect was able to accomplish these goals, and this is the design that is included in the report to Town Meeting. The Fire Facility Study Committee feels that the design presented is not necessarily the very best design available, but is the best design for the site without land acquisition, and certainly is an acceptable design. The designs and cost estimates were presented to the Board of Selectmen, and in September 1988 voted to support the committeels recommended five bay design. The plans and cost estimates were presented to the Finance Com- mittee, in the Fall of 1988 and additional information was requested. The information requested included the possible paring down of the size of the building, the cost analysis of the three bay and five bay options, and an analysis of where fire equipment would be located. This information will be presented later this evening. The Finance Committee voted to recommend the three bay expandable station to the Town Meeting. The Fire Facility Study Committee embarked on a public informa- tion program which included: (a) A ten page handout which was included in the Town Meet- ing packet and additional copies of which are available (b) A forty-five minute Cable TV program which was broad- cast four times in the past couple of weeks (c) TWO public forums, one at the Killam, School and one at the Barrows School. These were attended by a total of approximately twenty town meeting members. Based on all of the input, the Fire Facility Study committee met at the end of the forum at the Barrows School on November 10th, and voted to recommend to Town Meeting a three bay expandable station in the amount of $2.5 million dollars for the following reasons: (1) Financial concerns are obviously very real. The Finance Committee had expressed concern about funding a 3.25 million dollar project, when the analysis showed that the break even point for this project would be in excess of fifteen years. (2) The Fire Facility Study Committee has always felt, that the Central Station replacement is absolutely critical and is of the highest priority. This was sup- ported by comments from the public forums and in general discussion. The study committee was concerned that to continue to support only the five bay station in the face of a recommendation to the contrary by the Finance Committee, and concern by some west side resi- dents, might lead to no action and that would be the worst possible scenario. (3) The design of the three bay station allows for future expansion in the event that future Town Meetings deter- mine that there is a need to expand it. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager will present background and financial data. John Hughes from the firm of Hughes & McCarthy COST ANALYSIS - CENTRAL STATION VS. TWO STATIONS Central Plan 5 Plan 3 5 Bay Central Sta. 3 Bay Central & West Side I. Capital Costs (10 Years) - Principal 3,250,000 2,500,000 - Interest (6.75 %) 1,206,562 928,125 - Capital Expenses 100,000(2) - Sale of Central - 100,000(3) - 100,000(3) - Sale of West Side - 160,000(4)to - 250,000(5) Subtotal 4,106,562 to 4,196,562 3,428,125 II. Operating Costs /Savings- 10 years - General 307,150 (1) - Operational Efficiencies - 50,000 (6) - Subtotal 257,150 III._Offsetting Revenue (10 years) - Tax revenue - 122,000 Subtotal 122,000 IV._Capital Costs - /year $410,652 to $419,652/year V. Operating Costs /less offsetting Revenue /year $13,515 /year Notes 356,660 (1) -0- 356,660 - 47,000 47,000 342,813/year $30,966 /year (1) See attached operating cost est. from Hughes & McCarthy October 27, 1988. Plan 5 operating expenses noted as "D "; Plan 3 operating expenses noted as "B" plus "E" (2) This building is 30 years old and sometime before it is 40 years old, will need the following work: roof replacement 20,000 window replacement 30,000 improved mechanic bay 25,000 HVAC improvement 25,000 100,000 (3) Based on 4416 useable square feet of floor area (not basement) reused for 5 housing units at a sales price of $20,000 each. (4) Based on 7400 square feet of building reused for 8 housing units at a sales price of $20,000 each. (5) Alternatively, based on use of 3705 square feet for senior center x $6.75/s.f. /years which is the rent per square foot cur- rently being paid at the Pearl Street School (3705 s.f. x $6.75/s.f. x 10 years = 250,087) assumes no use of 2nd floor because of parking restrictions. (6) This is estimated as the minimum level of productivity improvement, but is not a dollar figure that can be reduced from budgets. EQUIPMENT/STAFF ASSIGNMENT CENTRAL PLAN 5 New Central Ambulance + spare 2 FF Engine + spare 3-4 FF Engine + spare 2-3 FF Ladder 2 FF 1 Dispatch 1 Mechanic 2 cars 2 Administrators Alarm Truck 0 Pick-up Truck 0 PLAN 3 New Central Ambulance + spare 2 FF Engine + spare 3-4 FF Ladder 2 FF 1 Dispatch 2 cars 2 Administrators Pick-up truck 0 West Side Engine + spare 2-3 FF 1 Mechanic Alarm Truck 0 SUMMARY 11 pieces of equipment 13-15 personnel Equipment Personnel/Shift CURRENT Central Ambulance 2 FF Engine + spare 3-4 FF 1 Dispatch Pick-up Truck 0 Car 0 West Side Engine + Spare 2-3 FF Ladder 2 FF Spare Ambulance 0 1 mechanic Car 2 Administrators Nike Base Alarm Truck 0 CENTRAL PLAN 5 New Central Ambulance + spare 2 FF Engine + spare 3-4 FF Engine + spare 2-3 FF Ladder 2 FF 1 Dispatch 1 Mechanic 2 cars 2 Administrators Alarm Truck 0 Pick-up Truck 0 PLAN 3 New Central Ambulance + spare 2 FF Engine + spare 3-4 FF Ladder 2 FF 1 Dispatch 2 cars 2 Administrators Pick-up truck 0 West Side Engine + spare 2-3 FF 1 Mechanic Alarm Truck 0 SUMMARY 11 pieces of equipment 13-15 personnel READING FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 10CAL1640 Post Office Box 426, Reading, Massachusetts 01867 Affiliated with International Association of Fire Fighters Associated Fire Fighters of Massachusetts The Reading Firefighters Association is in full agreement that the time has come to replace the central fire station. The concern that we have is for the safety and protection of all the citizens of the town. We feel the consolidation of the fire department under one roof could place the residents and businesses on the south and west sides of the railroad crossings in eminent danger. After careful and extensive studies regarding rail service to Reading, we feel the present service and planned future expansion could pose serious problems as an obstruction to the response of fire apparatus. We believe that the distribution of fire companies should be based on the ability to provide quick response of apparatus in an emergency to attack the seat of the fire quickly, to prevent its spread, perform rescue and search operations, to ensure the safety of the public, and to deliver emergency medical services swiftly, because time is our biggest enemy. The Woburn Street fire station is in sound structural condition and is well maintained. We believe that it is in the best interest of the town that this station remain open for the operation of at least one active engine company and any other departmental functions that the chief sees fit. In conclusion, the Firefighters Association endorses the Fire Facilities Study Committee and the Finance Committee's recommendation to build a three bay station with expansion capabilities on the Main Street site. For the members of the Reading Firefighters Association, Donald Wood Philip Boisvert James Stevenson FIRE PREVENTION PAYS OFR/ ,sJ9:INCORp0p! REPORT OF THE FIRE FACILITY. STUDY COMMITTEE Paul Landers, Selectman - Chairman Fire Chief Leonard Redfern Fire Lieutenant William. Campbell William Brown, Town Meeting Member Elizabeth Greene, Finance Committee Thomas Stohlman, Community Planning & Development Commission Peter Hechenblel-kner, Town Manager Summary This report, and the attached plans and elevations, constitute the report of the Fire Facility Study Committee. In addition to the summary, this report includes the history of the Fire Facility Study, the statement of the problems with the current fire facilities, a general description of the proposed project, and a minority report. History To respond to the need for a new fire facility in the Town of Reading to replace the current 1880 central fire station, Town Meeting funded $15,000 in the spring of 1987 to conduct a study of the fire department. The issues to be reviewed were: ® 1. Operational deficiencies, if any; ® 2. Equipment needs, if any; ® 3. Staffing needs, if any; ® 4. Location of the replacement for the central station; ® 5. An evaluation of the need for two stations or one fire station within the Town of Reading. Following the Spring Town Meeting, the Board of Selectmen established a seven -mem- ber Fire Facility Study Committee. This committee met frequently with George Paul, Inc., the consultant selected to do this review. A number of meetings were held; and were attended by study committee members, firefighters, neighbors, selectmen, and other interested parties. These were all open meetings, advertised and posted in ac- cordance with the open public meetings law. The Fire Facility Study Committee unan- F -1 imously accepted George Paul's report, and presented their findings to the Fall 1987 Town Meeting. The report recommended the following: s 1. Minor operational improvements to the department; • 2. Some additional and administrative and firefighting staff; ® 3. Trading two pieces of equipment -- the ladder truck and the foam truck -- for one new Quint truck, which is a combined ladder and pumper truck. • 4. Consolidation of the fire service into a single, central station located as near as possible to the intersection of Main Street (Route 28) and Route 129. The Fire Facility Study Committee evaluated three Town -owned sites and recommended the one -half acre site on Main Street approximately 300 feet north of Route 129 (Salem and Lowell Streets). Other sites considered were the site of the current station, and the Union Street park- ing lot. These were rejected because of size, neighborhood impact, location, and presence of historical buildings. At the Fall 1987 Town Meeting, $50,000 was appropriated for architectural design of the facility. The firm of Hughes & MacCarthy from Framingham, MA was selected, and that firm met with the Fire Facility Study Committee during the winter and spring of 1988. As a result of those discussion, the architect felt that the best design of a fire facility would require ac- quisition of additional adjacent land: At the Annual Town Meeting in the Spring of 1988, a presentation was made for the acquisi- tion of one of two pieces of land, one to the north of the site, and one to the south. Town Meet- ing declined to acquire any additional land, and the study committee went back to evaluate its options. Following Spring 1988 Town Meeting, the staff met extensively with the architect, and were able to develop a design which would permit a five bay station to be built within the confines of the existing site. Understanding that the debate in the Spring 1988 Town Meeting raised a concern about keeping the West Side Fire Station open, the architect was also directed to design a facility which could be phased with a new three -bay first phase, and later expansion to a five -bay station if needed. The Fire Facility Study Committee met during the Summer and Fall of. 1988, and recommended the five -bay station to be built initially. There was a minority on the committee who disagreed with this recommendation, and the attached minority report details his concerns. The Fire Facility Study Committee made a presentation and recommendation to the Board of Selectmen, and the Board of Selectmen voted four in favor and none opposed to recommend to Town Meeting the construction of the five -bay sta- tion on the site in question. The Finance Committee, has, at the time of printing of this report, not made a recommendation. They did, however, request that the size of the building be pared down as much as possible, and the material presented here reflects a down - sizing of the com- munications area, the administrative area, and miscellaneous area. In the view of the commit- F -2 tee and the architect, these reductions are the maximum that can be made while still creating a functional building. Problems As part of the process over the past two years, the Fire Facility Study Committee has iden- tified five problem areas that can be addressed through the construction of a new facility. These include: 1. The Central Fire Station is in deplorable condition. This facility was built in about 1880 as a combined Town Hall, Fire Station, and Police Station. It is in- adequate, both structurally and functionally for modern fire equipment. The building has been temporarily "shored up" to handle the load of modern fire equipment. The building is too small to house the ladder truck, and even the smaller equipment located here is too crowded. Dispatch conditions are deplorable. The alarm systems are covered with plastic sheeting to prevent water damage. 2. The Town has a divided firefighting force. The Central Station and West Side Station equally share the forty -five active firefighters, which means that of the maximum of eleven persons on duty at any time, a maximum of six are in each location. Minor calls, training, or other routine events may leave one or the other stations with as few as two firefighters. The Central Station currently houses the dispatch operation, the first line ambulance, one engine company with a spare engine, and approximately one -half of the firefighting force, or a maximum of six at any one time. Two of these firefighters are assigned to the ambulance, and on ambulance calls, another two must also respond to assist. The West Side Station was completed in 1957. It is located on Woburn Street between Prospect and Berkeley. This facility houses the administrative offices, training facility, one engine company with a spare engine, the ladder truck, the spare ambulance, and the mechanic's bay. In addition, the Town houses the fire alarm bucket truck and alarm equipment at a spare building at the Haverhill Street Nike Base, and this site is also used for training. 3. The wrong functions and the wrong equipment are in the wrong places. The administrative offices are in the West Side; the dispatchers are in the central station; the ladder truck is in the west side. 4. Two stations result in duplication of equipment, and a waste of staff time in traveling between the two stations with some frequency. 5. Both existing sites are overcrowded without adequate staff and public park- ing, and without any outdoor training facilities. F -3 Description The proposed fire headquarters will advance the functions and efficiency of the department. The increased centralization will permit greater emphasis on training, building inspection, fire prevention, and a concentrated first response. The Main Street apron will provide for a turn around location for returning apparatus so that there will be minimum interruption of traffic on Main Street. It also accommodates on -site training programs. The facility has been designed to be sensitive to adjacent residential properties, and the site access from Salem Street has been limited to employee parking with shift changes taking place twice daily. In ad- dition, the plan has attempted to preserve trees on site to buffer the neighbor's properties. The headquarters building will define the northern edge of the Town Center. Its brick exterior mirrors Reading's other civic buildings. Similarly, architectural details including arched ap- paratus openings reflect the current Central Station, former Library, and Town Hall building. The circular windows echo the clock tower of the Old South Church. The brick exterior, and proposed interior finishes reflect the committee's concern about fu- ture maintenance cost. The following diagrams outlined as floor plans 5a and elevations 5b show the committee's recommended course of action which is the construction of a single, five -bay central fire sta- tion for the Town. Floor plans and elevations 3a and 3b reflect an alternative which is the con- struction of a three -bay station replacing the current central station, and capable of future expansion to a five -bay station. This alternative would assume the continued use of the West Side Station in a somewhat different manner from its current use. If the three -bay station is built, all of the central administrative functions would be housed in the new station, and the West Side Station would be used for maintenance, a single engine company, and fire alarm purposes. Minority Report As a member of the Fire Facility Study Committee and a professional firefighter, I want it un- derstood that I am not opposed to the building of a new central fire station, but rather, that I am opposed to the closing of the Woburn Street Station in conjunction with any new construc- tion. My qualifications for serving on this Study Committee are 18 years experience as a profes- sional firefighter (more than four years as an officer), and an Associate's Degree in Fire Protection Technology. The Town of Reading first and foremost needs a new fire station to replace the Pleasant Street Station, but after evaluating all the studies and reports, I feel that it is equally important to maintain the Woburn Street Station. The station is only 31 years old and continues to be very cost effective in terms of maintenance. Firefighters on duty handle routine painting, cleaning, etc., with the roof replacement in 1979 and the emergency generator in 1986 being the only major repairs required. I_ F -4 With the ever - changing traffic situation on the south and west sides of Town, (think of West (� Street during commuting hours) it is essential that the emergency services for the Town not i be cutoff by the railroad crossings, The Woburn Street Station was constructed for just that reason: Reading is bisected by a railroad track. In the 1950's, freight traffic on the railroad was a major problem, but in the 1980's, commuter trains have replaced freight trains, and the MBTA is currently investigating plans to increase commuter rail service through Reading to the northern suburbs. By maintaining the Woburn Street Station, we would assure the fastest response time possible, regardless of the train schedule and the resulting traffic bottleneck at the Woburn Street crossing. A number of our calls concern medical emergencies, and in the case of cardiac arrest or severe bleeding, even a "minor delay" can be life- threatening. Most of those needing emergency medical assistance would rather not hear the FMT's say "Sorry, we would have been here sooner, but the train was going through the crossing and we had to take an alternate route:" At the Annual Town Meeting in the Spring of 1988, construction of a single, five -bay station was presented as an option to Town Meeting members. Until the time of this presentation to Town Meeting, many residents apparently were not aware that this new construction meant closing the Woburn Street Station. On only a few days notice, petitions opposing the closing of the Woburn Street Station were circulated in many sections of the Town, and over 500 sig- natures were gathered. The voters who signed these petitions were located in all geographic areas of the Town, not just the areas most directly affected. Town Meeting then requested further study and design alternatives, and working through the Summer of 1988, the Fire Facility Study Committee has complied with this request. After carefully evaluating both the single, five -bay station alternative and the construction of the three -bay station which would keep open the Woburn Street Station, I strongly recom- mend the three -bay station proposal. My recommendation would be to keep one fire engine at the Woburn Street Station, but to utilize this Station for department maintenance facilities (already located here), storage of records and reserve apparatus, and for the fire alarm main- tenance division which currently operates from the Haverhill Street Nike Site. Constructing an efficient three -bay station just north of the square and maintaining the Woburn Street Station as outlined above, in my opinion, is a cost effective option, and the best possible planning for the future of the Town and its Fire Department. Minority Report Submitted by Fire Lieutenant William F. Campbell October 22, 1988 F -5 . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... W 0 9 LL O 0 FC-1 Q Q w w cc M g 0 M 0 4w m C 0 0 LU 0 U) .1 CC i U. I- y IL 0 U. IL I U) LL UQQ 0 2 z tu 2 w U) 4 m -C In U 92 LLI GD 0 F-7 uj W tc tc 0 z LU Q7 is El .......... O W uj m U) z ,J� ham. }' � w 2j LU m m va oa 19 0 z 0 2 N F-8 LU w cc cc Ir 12 41 0 . UA .j 2 O F ca LL, cc la t 0 Lu 0 I= 0 IL IL U. W W 0 O z LU -C m 0 a I" I i a••' e yi J�•i'I • � � J•t �' �/ ^r (® ,(/may is LL IY ' ,nil, �« ' 7 EB ON ® ■0 G^ : ~ r. (JI { rr •'® EG MEN A .,, ® ■ ■!ice r Idl mom, '.r . ............. ®®OH •' �' W r� a t„ O i a••' e yi J�•i'I • � � J•t �' �/ ^r (® ,(/may is LL IY ' ,nil, �« ' 7 e r� { (® ,(/may is LL LLJ •' �' W r� a t„ N z F -9 rME E" m Fe I Reading Fire Headquarter ;s Program Area Summary 10 -18 -88 Plan 5 Plan 3 A. Communications 430 s.f. 430 s.f. B. Apparatus Area 6,310 " 3,520 " ' C. Administration Area 960- " 960 " D. Officers 3,080' " 2,700 " E. Miscellaneous 700 " 700 " F. Total Net Area ------------------- 11,480 s.f. - - - - -- 8,310 s.f. j G. Circulation & Walls 2,820 " _ 2,090 " H. Gross Building Area 14,300 s.f. 10,400 s.f. I. Covered Parking Area 7,400 s.f. 5,200 s.f. Preliminary Project Cost Plan 5 Plan 3 A. Construction Cost 42,450,000 41,830,000 B. Furnishings and Equipment 160,000 150,000 C. Development Costs 300,000 250,000 D.' Sub -total 42,910,000 42,230,000 E. Contingency - 340,000 270,000 F. Project Cost Estimate'' 43,250,000 42,500,000 Deduct 4350,000 if parking is not located under building which will thereby require additional land for future expansion to Plan 5. F -10 HUGHES & MAC CARTHY / ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS / 20 SPEEN STREET / FRAMINGHAM / MASSACHUSETTS REFORT • PROGRESS - MUNICIPAL SPACE BUIT-DING CCMMITTEE Our committee has reviewed three options to increase the space available for Town government; Two Pearl Street School options and the previously presented Town Hall complex. A comparison of cost, square feet, and cost per square foot for these three options appear on the attached schedule. • Pearl Street - Scheme One is the most costly and includes refurbishing the assembly hall and relocating the entrance. This would provide for the greatest square feet (38,733). • Pearl Street - Scheme One A is basically the same as One, but without the assembly hall reconstruction and a scaled down entry area. 0 Town Hall Complex on the "hill" is the third option. This plan was presented at a previous Town Meeting and the estimate has been updated to reflect today's prices. Our cannittee has reviewed all three of these options and, although all are excellent plans and will solve our space needs, we have decided not to proceed with any one of them because of the following reasons: 1. The FinCamn's financial outlook is "very bleak". We must be realistic in our ability to pay for this construction. We simply cannot afford it at this time. 2. No money has been received from the Hcmart sale as of this date. 3. These projects have a definite lack of priority: a) On town government needs; i.e. fire station (public safety) and water pressure (storage ability). b) At the recent all day planning session, 4 out of 6 department heads admitted they were content with the space they had. � Q ( 2 1 m 0 w r o O tO y -4 0 w .h• o - y 4A V ro n jj� w tij 000 k 00 WO r' v to cn •� w Vi Hy JM ( 1 m o w -4 0 w .h• o - y 00 0� � w N N N hj 0 N Co � cn w H 0 r 0) 0 00 N Subsequent Town Meeting November 14, 1988 ARTICLE 8. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was voted that the Town appropriate from certified free cash to Fire Department Non - Personal Expense the sum of $4,000 (Four Thousand Dollars) in order to fund the purchase of C.P.R. equipment and materials. ARTICLE 9. On motion of Elizabeth W. Klepeis, it was voted that the Town appropriate from certified free cash to Treasurer /Collector Non - Personal Expenses the sum' of $7,150 (Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars) in order to fund the issuing costs of general obligation bonds. ARTICLE 10. . On motion of Mary S. Ziegler, it was voted to lay Article 10 on the table. ARTICLE 11 On motion of Elizabeth W..Klepeis', it was voted that the Town appropriate from Sewer Surplus to Sewer -Debt Serv- ice the sum of $6,320 (Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Dollars) in order to fund debt service for sewer work. ARTICLE 12. On motion of John W. Russell, it was voted to table Article 12 to the next adjourned session. ARTICLE 13. On motion of Carl M. Amon, it was voted that the Town appropriate from Sale of Cemetery Lots to Cemetery Repurchase of Lots the sum of $2,500 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) in order to fund the repurchase of unwanted grave spaces. On motion of John R. Rivers, it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to meet at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, November 17, 1988, in the Reading Memorial High School Auditorium. 60 voted in the affirmative 38 voted in the negative Meeting adjourned 10:06 P.M. 110 Town Meeting members were present. A true copy. Attest: 0" �1 - laz" �Cc Doris M. Fantasia Town Clerk