HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-16 Special Town Meeting MinutesI',
NO
SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
Reading Memorial High School June 16, 1986
The meeting was called to order by the Moderator, Stephen J. O'Leary at 7:40 P.M.,
there being a quorum present.
The invocation, was given by Leslie H. York, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ARTICLE 1. Mr. Clifford D. Allen, Chairman of the School Committee presented the
Reading Exemplary Teacher Recognition Awards to the following teachers:
- Emery Debeck, Math Teacher of the Reading Memorial High School.
- David Williams, Grade Four Teacher of the Joshua Eaton School.
These awards are made each year through the generosity of Dorothy and Arnold
Berger.
ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by Clifford D. Allen, for the School
Committee, was accepted as a report of progress.
REPORT ON POSSIBLE MOVE OF SCHOOL DEPARTMENT'S CENTRAL OFFICE FROM
34 GOULD STREET IN RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTIONAL MOTION PASSED
BY TOWN MEETING ON MAY 1, 1986
Declining enrollment in the school system, and reuse of surplus space has been a
concern of the School Department for many years. Newer citizens in Town may not realize
that the Highland School, Pearl Street School, Lowell Street School and Prospect Street
School have all been closed because of declining enrollment in the past decade. The
department also withdrew from its former use the two building complex on the grounds of
St. Agnes Church; facilities that many of us sent our kids to as the Woburn Street School.
The concern of use of surplus space has been and remains a priority of the Reading School
Committee and Administration.
It is probably easy to fall into a trap believing that for every incremental drop in
student population, some equation results in an automatic drop in square footage needed to
effectively operate R.M.H.S. That is not the case, however. According to the National
Institute of Education, while speaking about high schools nationwide, "Declining enrollment
may be unevenly distributed over course and programs . . . Parental and community
expectations strongly favor a 'comprehensive' high school which offers many program
options for students with different intrests, goals, and needs ... The elementary school does
not have such diverse demands put upon it . differences between high school and
elementary schools imply that response to declining enrollment will have to be substantively
diff erent."
One local educator has written, "Essentially it comes down to this: student numbers
may go down, but we should offer the same kind of curriculum opportunities. Space,
therefore, may shrink, but the plant must still house the specialized departments."
In 1980 a townwide Declining Enrollment and School Reorganization Committee
(DESREC) studied the impact of declining enrollment on school space. The mathematical
projections (population) have been accurate. The enrollment at R.M.H.S. can be expected to
drop under 1,000 for the first time in the school year 1988 -1989.
Over the past 3 years there has been an ongoing R.M.H.S. Consolidation Committee
composed of department heads, teachers and administrators. Their research and suggestions
have been brought to the attention of the Central Office in timely fashion. The studies have
prompted Mr. Leonard D'Orlando to state recently, "... there would not be sufficient space
to house the Central Office staff until 1988 -1989 and that the educational process would be
seriously impaired if your offices moved to R.M.H.S. before then ... I don't believe there
should be classrooms in use in the same wing with Central Office. Just the passing of
students 7 times a day would be distracting to your operation. Our enrollment will not allow
space for a Central Office move for another 3 years."
During late 1984 and early 1985, the School Committee and Administration, in
planning sessions with Mr. Romeo Marquis of Management & Leadership Systems, attempted
to develope an action plan to address their concern for use of future surplus space at
R.M.H.S.
49
Special 'Town Meeting June 16, 1986
As a result of these sessions, a Statement of Mission was written in part as follows: it is the
mission of the Reading School Committee to develop strategies for effective use of excess
space at the high school. Specific strategies will reflect the following performance criteria:
1. The PRIMARY criterion is to consolidate program space without sacrificing
educational quality.
2. The second criterion, assuming maintenance of educational quality, is to reduce
operating expenses.
3. The third criterion, assuming maintenance of educational quality and reduction
of operating expenses, is to generate additional revenue.
Although these three criteria are interrelated rather than rigidly sequential, primary
consideration remains the maintenance of educational quality.
One of the possible strategies outlined in the summary of issues and steps discussed in
the planning sessions: consolidation of program space will occur on a year -by -year basis
until, by 1990, the older part of the high school will be vacant except for the Business
Education classes on the ground floor. "Core" programs will be housed in the multi -story
building at the rear.
Suffice to say, the Reading School Committee does have a concern about future use of
surplus space at R.M.H.S., however, the consensus of the Committee is that regarding a
possible move of its Central Office operation to R.M.H.S., sufficient preliminary study has
been given to the issue, and more specific details will be more appropriate within the next
several? years .. as enough space becomes available.
In closing, let me indicate the State mandated Designer Selection Process, in effect
when the total cost of the project being designed exceeds $10,000, would take from 8 -12
weeks, therefore, I have been told the Committee didn't have enough time between May 1,
when the instructional motion was made and tonight, to have a consultant's report ready.
The Committee also had no money budgeted for such a study. I can report that the cost of
moving the Central Office to the current Guidance area at R.M.H.S. was $116,100 in 1983.
We have no cost estimates to relocate the Guidance Department.
The cost estimated in March, 1983, by MacLaren Associates was $92,164 to move the
Central Office from Gould Street to the Pearl Street School. Some of us on the Committee
felt such a move would be temporary if the school had to be utilized once again, therefore,
it appeared financially irrational to spend $92,000 and then have to spend another $116,000+
to eventually move from Pearl Street to R.M.H.S. Within the next several years ample
opportunity remains to evaluate the space situation at R.M.H.S., and if deemed appropriate,
make the right move ONCE.
Today there is no way to move Guidance with an enrollment of about 1,300 without
dropping our Focus Program, or taking other drastic action that would curtail the programs
now being offered at the high school.
ARTICLE 1. The attached report of the John Street Task Force was presented by
John H. Russell. On motion of Carl H. Amon, Jr. it was voted that this report be accepted as
a report of progress until after action on Article 9 is completed.
ARTICLE 1. The following report presented by Philip B. Pacino for the Finance
Committee, was accepted as a report of progress.
Last September I approached this microphone and gave the Finance Committee report
on the impact that the decisions on the John Street area would have on the Town's budgetary
and financial processes.
In that report was a 300 year old quote by John Locke that could possibly best describe
those future processes. "Hell is the truth see too late." This quote implied that if we see
the truth now, then we could possibly avoid a future filled with uncertainty and problems.
The Finance Committee in that vain must report that we believe we have seen the
truth. The proposal set before us by the John Street Task Force seems to us to be the best
means by which to solve the Town's DPW Garage problem and will provide funds so that the
Town's future operations will be somewhat free from the limitations of Prop. 2%2.
50 Special Town Meeting June 16, 1986
Let us evaluate what the Town is facing in the future.
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
To Be Raised From Levy $18,146,000
$19,595,000
$20,827,000
$21,876,500
$23,043,090
Levy Limit 16,837,355
17,5582289
18,347,246
19,205,927
20,136,075
$(1,308,645) $(2,036,711) $(2,479,754) $(2,670,573) $(2,907,015)
Budget projections for the next five years as presented at the last Annual Town
Meeting indicate short falls at the present time from 1.3M for 1987 to 2.9M for 1992.
The Town's presently proposed capital projects include the DPW Garage, for which
$4,982,000 is being asked for at this Town Meeting, a new fire station, which could cost
around 1.2M and renovations to the Town Hall Annex which could cost anywhere from
$7{^ 000 to 1.4M.
As can be seen from the preceding facts and as has been stated many times before by
the Finance Committee, the future seems to be full of "Doom and Gloom." The Finance
Committee has advised that this need not be if the Town is willing to sell certain prime'
locations and use the proceeds of sale and revenue earned therefrom to offset the budget
increases of the future.
The Finance Committe once again faced with this situation, determines that the
financial plan presented to this body by the Finance Committee previously is still in order.
The financial plan we advised Town Meeting to support consists of the following basic itemise::
1. That all the proceeds of sale of real estate be put in reserve for appropriation.
Such funds to be available to defray operational budget problems of the future
and /or special capital projects as determined by Town Meeting.
2. That all future capital projects be indirectly funded from the reserve for
appropriations and earnings thereon.
3. That all new tax and hotel excise revenue resulting from new development, be
used to fund the operational budget of the Town and not be used to fund capital
projects.
The Finance Committee believes that the proposal set forth by the Task Force fits
nicely into this plan and should be considered an integral part of the plan.
The sale of the John Street land fill site to Homart will produce minimum proceeds for
the Town of $6,250,000. This amount plus the interest earned thereon will be sufficient to
fund the complete costs of the debt service arising from the construction of a new DPW
Garage.
This situation additionally will be the keystone that allows two other equally im-ortant
situations to fall into place.
The first is that the proceeds of sale of other pieces of property which the Task Force
estimates could be around 5.7M will be freed up for other uses. That use should be to offset
the cost of a fire station and Town Hall Annex renovations.
Secondly, new property taxes and hotel excise taxes generated by returning Town
owned property to the tax rolls, and subsequent developments will go a long way toward
alleviating the future projected deficits. I refer you to the Task Force Committee Report
for greater detail.
By supporting the Finance Committee Financial Plan and the John Street Task? Force
Proposal, the Town of Reading and its Town Meeting will somewhat preserve the services of
the Town and allow them to go on reasonably unimpeded. The Financial Plan and the Task
Force Proposal would give Town Meeting breathing room and not force it to make all
decisions under the threat of 2y2.
The decisions that you make at this Special Town Meeting will decide the fate of Town
Government for years to come. It is our belief that by supporting the Finance Committee
Financial Plan and the Task Force Proposal, that we begin to set into place a set of facts
which will serve the Town well for many years to come.
In closing, the Finance Committee commends the Task Force for taking on a difficult
and touchie problem; in doing an outstanding job to solve it.
m
-
FINAL REPORT
*=film
JOHN STREET TASK FORCE
JUNE 16, 1986
TASK FORCE
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
PLANNING BOARD
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
FINANCE COMMITTEE LIAISONS
John H.RusseIl, Chairman
Russell T. Graham
Charles A. Darby
Douplass L. Barker
Robert P. Griffin
Anthony V. Fletcher
Camille V. Anthony
Charles T. Costello
Maureen Rich
Daniel A. Ensminqer
Donald C. Stroeble
Michael F. Slezak
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Donald C. Allen
Brian J. McMenamin
K-ALANG, MASSACHUSETTS QIF,67
MUNICIPAL
BUILDING
617.942-0500
ADJOURNED SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
October 3, 1985
ARTICLE 2. On motion of Elizabeth W. KleDeis as amended
by John W. Price, it was voted that Town Meeting instruct the
Board of Selectmen to establish a Task Force consisting of a
representative or representatives of the Board of Selectmen, Board
of Public Works, the Planninc, Board, the Conservation Commission,
the industrial Development Commission and the Representative of
the General Court. The Finance Committee shall appoint a liaison to
this Task Force. The Board of Selectmen shall Chair said Task Force
and each above-mentioned Board or Commission shall have one vote
(regardiess of the number of representatives serving). The Task
Force shall be 0
charged with reviewinc, the land-currently zoned for
0
industry located off Ash Street known as the Biggio property, and any
0
or all contiguous property for the purpose of establishing a site for
the Reading Board of Public Works facility. Said Task Force shall
report back its findings to the November Town tMeeting. This motion,
as amended, was voted, in the affirmative.
A true copy. Attest:
Lawrence Drew
Town Clerk
—1—
Q
Lawrence Dn
Town Cleric
APPRECIATION
The Task Force is very appreciative of the help, advice and suoport
qiven by many members of both daytime and niqhtime qovernmenT-, especially
the Superintendent of Public Works and now, in addition, the Interim
Executive Secretary, Tony Fletcher,
The Board of Assessors:
The Town Treasurer'
The Town Accountant:
William Locke
Robert Nordstrand
Michael Sullivan
Sebastian Tine
Beth Klepeis
Richard Foley
The Assistant Superintendent of Public Works for Enqineerino.
William Redford.
In addition, the minutes taken and typed by Joanne Carlick.
A special vote of thanks to John Aqnew and Geoff Beckwith. whose
efforts in qettinq State and County approval to cross the tracks was the
key to the Task Forces' recommendation.
FINAL REPORT OF THE JOHN STREET TASK FORCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT
DPW RELOCATION
DPW FACILITY
FINANCIAL BENEFIT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
ROADMAP FOR TOWN MEETING ARTICLES
INTRODUCTION
The John Street Task Force was established by Town Meetinq at the
-| Special Town Meeting of October 3, 198S with the task of evaluatinq the
/\ industrial zoned land located off Ash Street as a aotential site for the
--- DPW facility. In accordance with the motion, the Task Force was oroanized
as follows;
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
PLANNING BOARD
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
FINANCE COMMITTEE LIAISONS
- John W. Aqnew - [hairman
until his retirement on
June 1, 1986
- John H. Russell - Chairman
after June 1, 1986
- Paul C. Dustin until his
retirement on March 24, 1986
- Russell T. Graham after his
election on March 24, 1986
Douqlass L. Barker
Robert P. Griffin
Anthony V. Fletcher
Daniel A. Ensminocr
Donald C. Stroeble
Michael F. Slezak
Maureen Rich
Camille V. Anthony
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Donald C. Allen
Brian S. McMenamin
The Task Force met over 15 times as a body, with numerous
sub-committee meetinqs.
The basic tasks undertaken by the Task Force was to;
A. Solicit proposals from Land Developers for industrial development
—�-� of the landfill site, to provide financinq and other linkape to
aid the relocation of the DPW and Ionq nanqe tax base increasr- for
/ the Town.
B. Take all steps necessary to obtain State and County approval to
cross the B & M Railroad to open up the Ash Street industrial arec
without aqqravatinq the traffic problem on Ash Street.
C. Evaluate the land in the Ash Street industrial area for use as a
DPW facility site and select the best location.
D. Select the best landfill development and DPW site for
recommendation to this Special Town Meetino.
All these tasks have been accomplished and are discussed herein.
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT
THE RFP AND REVIEW PROCESS
In their Request for Proposals (RFP), the Task Force stated that it
-�-/ was seeking first-class office and hotel development on the landfill,
alonq with ancillary retail activities (e.o., restaurants, shops, anb
service establishments) to support the complex. The condition of linkaoe
to the DPW relocation effort was clearly stated in the RFF, namely. that
proposals must include specific provisions for sitino the Town of
Reading's Public Works Facility.
The Task Force had no way of knowinq in advance how many developers
would respond to their ads. Because of this, two rounds of proposals were
re�uested in the RFP. The first proposal, due March 17th, was desioneb to
allow the various developers to state their qualifications (includinq
track record and fiscal stability), give a conceptual description of their
development plans for the landfill, and briefly state their plans for
siting the DPW facility, either on or off-site. Once these initial
proposals were received by the Task Force and a workable number of
finalists& was chosen, a more detailed second-round proposal would be
requested. This second proposal would request detailed financial data
about the developer, year-by-year estimates of sale (or lease) and tax
revenues which the Town could expect over the next twenty yers, traffic,
water and sewcr impacts, and detailed architectural plans of the
development concept.
Initial
\
\ of whom are
\ some degree
'^ these firms
and linkape
finalists.
proposals were received from five development firms, several
among the most prestigious in the nation, and all of whom have
of experience in office park and/or hotel development. Each of
, in its own way, addressed the issues of landfill development
to the DPW relocation effort. All were therefore selected as
The Task Force received Phase II proposals from four of the five
developers on May 20, 1986. Included were submissions from the Fafard
Companies, Flatley Company, Schochet (rhymes with "pocket") Associates and
the Homart Development Company. A series of public meetinos was then held
to obtain further information from these developers and to review the
proposals, as follows;
In a meetinq on May 27, 1986, the Task Force reaffirmed the criteria
given in the RFP for review of developers' oroposals:
1. Willingness to provide for sitinp of the Public Works
facility, while maximizinq revenues from commercial
development of the landfill
1b) Maximization of lonq and short term revenues, and
creation of a "maqnet" development which will enhance
the quality of life in Readinq
2. Prior experience with landfill development and/or commercial
development similar to the type proposed
3. Financial ability to carry the project throuoh to completion
The Task Force then held a televised public meetino on May 29, 1986.
in the Readinq Memorial High School Lecture Hall. At this meetino all
four developers were invited to qive 20 minute presentations. followed by
questions From the Task Force and the qeneral audience. A number of
comments were raised by members of the Readinq business community
concerninq the negative effect on downtown businesses of a mall type
retail development on the landfill, such as the one proVosed by FAFARD.
Because of the developments of the previous evcninq reoardino the
availability of the Davis-Transitron land for DPW use, each developer was
invited to submit a supplementary proposal by June 2nd with a full-build
landfill development.
On June 2nd' the Board of Selectmen, Board of Public Works, industrial
Development Commission (IDC) and Conservation Commission met to review
these supplementary proposals. Followinq this review both the IDC and the
Conservation Commission voted unanimously to endorse HOMART and the
Transitron DPW site as their first choice. The Task Force, in a oubIic
meetina held on June 3rd, also voted unanimousIy to recommend HOMART and
the Transitron DPW site to Town Meetinq. On June 4th, the Task Force also
voted that if Town Meetinp opted to not choose HOMART. that the "poor
alternative, of the DPW on the landfill and SCHDCHET ASSOCIATES.'
shared-site development plan be named as the "fallback, oosition.
On June 6th, the Task Force met with the Finance Committee to seek
recommendation of its plan of action under Articles 4 throuoh 9. 11 -Y, a
unanimous 11|0|0 vote the Finance Committee endorsed the HOMART/TRANSITRDN
DPW plan.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS
The essential feature of the FAFARD proposal
and a future office or apartment buildinq on the
with the DPW facility alonoside as previously pli
dealership buildinq and parkinq, would occupy the
of the landfill. The initial offer by FAFARD to
landfill and build the DPW facility was modified
offer after Town Counsel ruled that such turnkey
iIleqal.
included a retail mall
front of the landfill.
anned. A multi-story auto
rear (elevated) portion
both purchase the
to a straioht purchase
arranoemcnts were
landfill as the centerpiece of their development plan. Two four-story
office buildings would be constructed on the front of the landfill in the
' late 1980's, with the additional office buildinqs added on the rear of the
landfill in the mid-1990's. FLATLEY proposed a lonq-term lease
arnanqemcnt for the land, while retaining owership of the buildinqs. This
would result in lease, property and hotel excise tax payments to the
` Town. Under Flatley/s plan, the DPW facility would be located on the
l—U Biqqio-Tnansitron land.
SCHOCHET ASSOCIATES proposed the construction, over a six year period,
of a major-name, 250-room hotel (probably a Ramada or a Raddison), an
abuttinc 120 room budget priced hotel (probably a Hampton (Holiday) Inn),
a fitness center, other retail activities such as a restaurant and bank,
and three office buildings. Under their concept, the DPW facility would
share the landfill site with these buildinqs. A 99 year lease would be
aqreed to by the Town and SCHOCHET, similar to the arnanpement oroposed by
FLATLEY.
Finally' THE HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY proposed a development plan
which included a major-name hotel alonp with a four-buildinp office park.
A minimum cash purchase offer was made for both the office and hotel land,
with the Town and HOMART sharinq in any excess profits realized from sale
of the hotel land. Additional cash incentives were also soecified which
would pay the Town for any additional development placed on the site in
excess of the amount specified in the base plan. Under the HOMART plan,
the DPW would be located off-site on the Biqqio-Transitron site.
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
It was the unanimous opinion of the Task Force that the HOMART
DEVELOPMENT plan with the DPW on the Davis-Transitron site Promised the
�-~ qreatest short-term and long-term qain to the Town, without destroyino the
fabric of Reading's downtown businesses and its ouality of life.
Lonq-term financial stability is a need constantly echoed by Town Meetino,
the Finance Committee, and the citizens of Reading: This need played a
major role in the Task Force's selection of the finalist. Further on this
report discusses the financial benefits of this choice and shows how the
recommended plan will help Readinq overcome the Ioominp $1 to $2 million
annual budget deficits beinq forecast by the FinCum. In the remainder of
this section, the HOMART plan will be described in oreater detail.
BACKGROUND ON HOMART
The HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
ColdwelI Banker Real Estate Croup, Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sears, Roebuck and Company. Sears had net income of $1.459
billion in 1984, and is projected to earn a similar amount in 1985. The
company had total assests of $57.1 billion at year-end 1984.
HOMART is uniquely qualified to develop the John Street Site. HOMART
has office and multi-use developments totalinq 1,230 acres and 33 million
square feet of space currently underway. These are primarily suburban,
multi-buildinq office projects similar to the proposed John Street
Project. Additionally, HOMART has developed many sites with difficult
site conditions. Four projects are noted below;
square foot office project built on a closed landfill site. A
300,000 square foot tower and 14000 car parape are under
construction.
2. PARK CENTRAL was industrially zoned land, down-zoned to office and
annexed into a town.
U� 3. THE GATEWAY in South San Francisco is a 117 acre former steel milI
and toxic waste disposal area. Two office buildinos and two hotels
are now on this property.
4. TYSDNS II in suburban Washington, D.C. is a former quarry and
landfill. Initial construction is now underway.
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HOMART is proposinp to develop four office buildinps on the landfill,
each consisting of 160,000 square feet of interior space, over a oeriod of
9 years. A fopr-acre site will be reserved for a 260 room major-chain
hotel (Embassy Suites and Marriott are two hotel orqaoizations with whom
HOMART has previously done business). One of HOMART's key strengths is
its ability to operate counter-cyclically with respect to real estate
market conditions. Thus, it can commit in 1986 to a proqram to meet
future Route 128 high-tech office park demand at a time when developers
with "shallower" pockets are shyinq away from such commitments. A site
plan showing the proposed buildinq placement, traffic and parkino layouts,
and landscapino is shown in Exhibit A.
OFFER TO PURCHASE
HOMART is proposing the followinq financial structure:
$6.5 Million Cash at closinq for + or - 29 acre office site
$ .75 Million Guaranteed minimum purchase price for + or - 4 acre
hotel site (see below).
$6.25 Million Guaranteed minimum purchase price
Contingent ten year.future development rights payments are as follows:
$1.8 Million Potential future development rights on + or - 29 acre
office site.
$ .125 Million Potential additional hotel site proceeds at $5.000 per
room for a 250 room hotel.
$8.175 Million Possible total purchase proceeds.
......... .
JOHN STREET
Figure A.
51-:11",
t
ii
Figure A.
51-:11",
s, way ot iuriner expianazion, nun*x/ is otterino to ourcnace ine
aooroximately 29 acre office park area for 15.5 million, all cash on
closinq. HOMART will not take title to the aooroximatelv four acre hotel
site immediately. HOMART will seek to market the site on behalf of the
Town to qualified hotel developers. The Town will receive the first
$760,000 of the net of cost hotel sale proceeds, and HOMART will receive
the next $20,000 of the net of cost hotel proceeds. Any net of cost sale
proceeds in excess of $1 million will be shared equally by the Town and
-- HOMART. HOMART will quarantee the Town a purchase price of $704000 for
the hotel site and, if after two (2) years the hotel site remains
unpurchased, HOMART will purchase the hotel site from the Town for office,
retail, hotel' restaurant, or other commercial uses.
Secondly, if HOMART should, for a period of ten (1O) years, seek to
develop more than 600,000 square feet of office buildinq on the
approximately 29-acre, office park area, HOMART will pay the Town of
Readino $12.00 per square foot of buildinq area for buiIdinq any area in
excess of 600,000 square feet of office on the approximately 29—acre
office park area. Payment will be made at the time of buildino permit
issuance. This could result in up to $1.8 million of additional benefit
to the Town.
LONG-TERM REVENUES - The major factor to be considered is the lono-term
tax benefit to the Town from this proiect. Prooerty taxes on the hotel
and office buildinos and the 4% excise tax on hotel room receipts will,
conservatively, brinp in revenues of more than $23 million over the next
20 years. Additional information on how these revenues are calculated is
contained further on in this report. This fiqure could easily amount to
$50070 million if the hotel and office buildinos are assessed on the
basis of the rental income they produce, rather than on the basis of the
more convervative "buildino value" analysis assumed .
PROPOSED LINKAGE - In addition to offerinq $50 million in cash at
closinc, HOMART will assist the Town as a consultant, at no fee, in
nenotiatinp for and acouirino the TASC/0kM riphts-of-way and the
Transitron/Davis DPW site durinq the Summer of 1986. Durino this time,
the Town and HOMART will also enter into a development aqreement that will
specify all important points of the nine year landfill develooment proqram
and outline all Town and developer riqhts, responsibilities, and
obliqations. Further linkape, such as requirements for water system
improvements and traffic safety, will be discussed in these neootiations.
PROPOSED PLAN AND SCHEDULE - The followino is a summary of the expected
schedule for landfill development and DPW facility relocation. By late
summer of 1986, HOMART will have completed its environmental testino. and
execution of the Development and Purchase and Sale Aoreements with the
Town will take place. In addition. land takinqs for the new DPW facility
and the riohts-of-way should be substantially completed by then. The DPW
facility will be redesiqned and Put out to bid in the Summer of 1986.
Once the necessary landfill development approvals and permits are obtained
(anticipated date: early Sprinp 1987), HOMWRT and the Town will execute
the conveyance aqreement for the landfill and the $5.5 million will be
paid to the Town. Construction of the DPW facility will also beoin in
this same time frame, which should result in completion and occuoation of
We `dUzizLr ur ed,i, raii 170/. Uux=`ruQc!ux u. ".= 10""11^^
infrastructure (roads and utilities) will beoin in the 5orino of 1987 and
be completed by Sprinq 1988. The hotel land will have been sold at that
point, and construction of the hotel and the first office buildino should
also commence in Sprinp 1988. The other three office buiIdinqs will
follow at about two-year intervals.
HOMART has stated its belief that this schedule can be met, and
probably exceeded.
"POOR-ALTERNATIVE" OPTION
If Article 4 fails to qathcr the necessary two-thirds vote, the DPW
facility will remain on the landfill as previously voted by Town Mectino
and the Task Force will move that Schochet Associates be selected as the
developer under Article 6.
BACKGROUND ON SCHOCHET - SCHOCHET ASSOCIATES is a privately-owned real
estate development and manaqement company headquartered in Boston. The
firm has experience in construction and rehabilitation of properties for
housinq and office use, as well as the development of mixed-use
complexes. The company is currently pursuino developments or acouisitions
in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California. Georoia. and the
State of Washinqton.
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - The Schochet proposal creates a unified
cluster of buildinqs of varyino types. Five and six story buildinps are
qrouped around the perimeter of the elevated plateau of the landfill. Two
office buildinq elements are located adjacent to each other to define a
central space. A full-service hotel crowns the eastern edqe of the
plateau, givinq it maximum visibility from Route 126. It is linked to an
extensive fitness center, open to the public.
An economy hotel is located towards the lower portion of the site with
access to the fitness center. As third office buildino is located on the
lower plateau as well as commercial space which fronts John Street. The
western 8.32 acre trianole of the site has been reserved for the DPW.
It is worth notinq that the Task Force has calculated oarxaino soace
requirements for this development and found that the rear of the landfill
is over-crowded by a factor of about 38%. Thus a more realistic site plan
would have to drop one office buildino from the rear of the landfill.
This will have a proportional downward affect on the tax and lease
revenues from Schochet's plan. Also, the plan assumes that a 250-room
first quality hotel will be attracted to the site desoite the presence of
the DPW facility. This must be viewed as a risky assumotion. at best.
LEASE ARRANGEMENTS
SCHOCHET ASSOCIATES proposes to lease the John Street Landfill site
(except for the area occupied by the DPW facility) for a term of 99
years. The lease should be subordinate to financino and oavments would
commence with the start of construction of each develooment component.
In B00illOn, bUHUGHtl HbbLJGIH1tb propoSeS TO pay CO IIIE: IQwn OT mee_QIWJ
annually an amount equal to 2 -1!2Z' of The qross collected rents for the
office space. If the full proaram of 37S.000 of first -class office so4;r_e
is realized, and annual rents were $20.50 per, square foot, this amount
would equal $192,000.
DATES
| \ Summer 1986
\/
Fall 1986
Spring 1987
Fall 1987
Spring 1988
Fall 1987
Spring 1988-
Fall 1989
'
Fall 1989-
Summer 1991.
Summer 1991-
Summer 1993
Summer 1993-
Summer 1995
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
LANDFILL
ACTIVITIES
Performance of 21E
tests (HOMART)
Negotiation of
Purchase & Sale
Agreements
Pre-development
planninq & design
HOMART obtains
all necessary
government approval
and permits
Conveyance agreement
is executed--Town
received $S.5M
Infrastructure
construction begins
Infrastructure
construction completed
Phase I Office Design
Construction and
Occupancy
Hotel Construction
and Occupancy-Town
receives $750,000
more in mid-1988
Phase II office
design, Construction
and Occupancy
Phase III office
design, Construction
and Occupancy
Phase IV office
design, Construction
and Occupancy
DPW FACILITY
ACTIVITIES
Acquisition of
DPW site and
riqhts-of-way
from Davis/B&M/TASC
DPW facility
redesign & bid
DPW construction
begins on Davis
property
DPW buildinus
completed & occupied
Grade crossinq
constructed; Ash
Street entrance to
Davis property closed
DPW RELOCATION
The Task Force did extensive review of the Biqoio and Transitron
| | Land including� borings, wetlands mappinq, topoqraDhic evulation and
\|
` access and utility pIanninq to insure cmnpatabil1ty with the required
DPW facility.
Based on these investiVations, it was concluded that the Biooio
property presented such extensive wet lands relocation problems that it
would make the chance of state approval of the site very unlikely, and
would require acquirino at least 4.5 acres of the neiqhborina. Transitron
property to qet enouqh buildable space.
It was also concluded that the Transitron property alone had
sufficient «qoodo land to site the DPW without invoIvinq the Bioqio
property. It was also important to realize the proposed crossino from
John Street was located completely on the Transitron Property.
ACCESS
Two principal access options were considered:
- an access road and qrade crossinq across the B & M tracks out
to John Street.
- an access road over the Lux-Ormes Industrial Prooerty to Ash
The preferred access was the "at qrade" crossinq of the B & M tracks
and access road out to John Street. Some of factors involved in that
decision included |
-the number of severly impacted land owners in the Lux-Drmes
alternative
-the potentially severe impact due to the increased traffic
on Asti Street
The key to this recommended access was the obtaininp of the required
permission from the County Commissioners and the State Department of
Public Utilities for the "at onade" crossino over the B & M tracks.
Throuqh some very fine work by Geoffrey Beckwith and John knew all
the necessary beaucratic hoops were jumped throuqh in a short period of
t1me.
Permission was received in writino in March from the County
Commissioners and the Department of Public Utilities for the necessary
crossinq.
/ne crossino musx oe oesioneu ano cun51ruLLEu U, "/t u a n Mvu u/t�
MBTA utilizinp Town funds. A prereouisite for this crossino is that this
access roadway must be a public way.
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED SITE AND ACCESS
Fioure B shows the recommended site, the crossino, the access roadway
and a conceptual buildino layout.
The access road from John Street to the B & M tracks is aoproximatelv
9SO feet lonq. The standard S0 foot oubIic roadway layout includes 3O
foot pavement, two S foot sidewalks and the necessary prasses, treelawn
areas. The track crossing is also SO feet wide and includes the full
sionalization, and rubberized surface.
The site which is approximately seven (7) acres presents minimal
environmental concerns, allows full access to the ramaininq Transitron
lands and will reult in the closure of the current access from Ash Street
throuph residential zoned land.
This sitinq of the DPW facility in Fiqure B is conceotual and final
positioninq will be determined by detailed enoinecrino evaluation and
desiqn.
The site is adequate to contain all the required current DPW functions
and functions envisioned for the forseeable future.
Due to the topooraphy of the site and the setback from Ash St. there
will be little or no impact on the existino residential areas.
-LDN OF
("L rlEN cr 1 * 1 I
x
I W I \ \
1
. ~.�( t
{ 01
I MUNICIPAL
> ' GARAGE ZI
_
'a f
o cr
w
UT.A.S.C.
po . Bc
� General Tire
ooa \•j { f
\ 90
✓, -�-.:: is-
a
- �C \
LAND/EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS
There are three land or easement acquisitions which are necessary to
implement the Task Force recommendations.
\—�
1. Approximately seven (7) acres of land formerly owned by
Transitron and now owned by Davis Development Corporation
as shown in figure B for the site of the DPW facility.
2. A right of way from the B & M for construction of the orade
crossinq over the B & M tracks;
3. A 60 foot wide 950 foot lono easement alonq the north side of the
TASC property for an access road from John Street to the orade
crossinq.
A. Davis Development
Preliminary discussions with Davis Development have indicated their
willinqness to sell the seven (7) acres to the Town at a price of
$950,000. No formal nepotiations have yet taken place. This land
represents about half of the Transitron land which is buildable.
The land presents no severe site preparation
serious wetlands or other conservation concerns.
after crossinq the tracks would service not only
also service the remaining Davis Industrial Land
with the access to John Street, to develop light
warehousinq facilities on the remaininp land.
problems, and oresents no
The entrance roadway
the DPW site, but would
It is Davis' intention
manufacturino or
The land is currently entered from Ash Street over, residential land by
virtue of a variance issued by the Board of Appeals. This variance is
currently beinq challenqed by the citizens of Ash Street and is now
scheduled for trial sometime this summer.
Purchase of the seven (7) acres by the Town, construction of a John
Street access and closing of the Ash Street access would not only provide
a site for the DPW, but would eliminate the industrial traffic on the
south end of Ash Street for the benefit of the neiqhborhood, and allow
Davis Development to fully develop the land (within the zoninq by-law
restrictions) and return more tax dollars to the Town. `
Due to the long time cycle anticioated for the construction of the
signalized crossinq, it is a necessity that temporary access be allowed
over the remaininq Davis property in order to construct the DPW site
within the same time span.
Me /ah^ ruL5 ,hLummExuO u/QL /uwo nYe`zou =uumz^= u/N c"=." ",
Selectmen to have the land independently aooraised, and based on these
appraisals neqotiate a fair price for purchase, or if necessary. the
takinq of the seven (7) acre site.
A cap of $950,000, the firm price indicated by Davis Development. is
recommended as the upset limit.
B. Grade Crossinq Riqht-of Way
The cost of the riqht-of-way for the qrade crossino is determined
under State law by a formula which takes into account the value of the
effected land with and without the crossino as determined by aooraisals.
The Town must pay for the aopraisals in addition to the resultant cost
of the riqht-of-way.
We are usino $100,000 as the railroad rioht-of-way cost which we
believe is very hiph, but is a conservative upset limit.
C. Roadway Easement From TASC
As part of the Purchase and Sale Aoreement concerninq their land
currently beino developed on John Street. TASC aoreed to neqotitate with
Transitron (the owner then of land across the tracks) a SO foot strip of
land on the north side of their land for an access roadway to the
Transitron land.
While no formal neqotiations have yet taken place. informal
discussions have taken place and TASC has indicated a willinoness to
neqotiate with the Town for this access roadway. For purooses of
evaluation and comparison of options, an uoset limit of $265,000 has been
established based on the sale of a similar 20 foot strip to Boston Stove a
year or so aqo. In spite of a much hiqher fioure beino released by TASC.
the Task Force feels that the $285,000 value for the fifty (50) foot strip
is realistic.
D. General items relative to Site and Access
It is planned to have all land and easement acouisitions
completed prior to executino a purchase and sale aoreement with Homart.
Homart aprees with this aporoach.
Lawfull betterments will be assessed.
Appraisals will be obtained for all land acouisitions. Based on these
appraisals, neqotiations will be initiated. If it aooears that a takino
by Emminant Domain would be beneficial to the Town, such takino will be
pursued.
' The Task Force Recommendation is based on the basic Gansoe
Facility presented at several previous Town Meetinos with the foIlowino
significant cost reductions.
1. No Administration Offices The Administration Offices will
| | remain in the Town Hall ComoIex
2. Reduced Foundation Costs Ground conditions~ based on
borinps, do not require piles.
extensive concrete footlnos, etc.
3. Reduced Maintenance Facility No 'Firetruck' maintenance will be
provided at this location
4~ Elimination of WeIdinq Bay
S. Reduced Landscapinq
6. Utilitarian Fascade
�
7. Elimination of Methane
Collection
This work will be contracted out as
necessary.
Due to more isolated location and
use of the existino topooraohy.
Due to its isolated transitional
Industrial location.
Due to the site conditions, based
on borina information.
The cost comparisons of buildinp the modified D.P.W. Caraqe on
the Task Force's recommended site versus buildinq on the B.32 acre site as
previously conceived is shown in the table below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| New D.P.W. Garaoe | Constructed on !Constructed on the |
|
Associated Construction
|
Transitron/Davis |
8.3 Acre Landfill |
|
Items
|
with access from }Site as oreviousIy |
|
_____________________________________________________________________________
It
John Street |
desioned w/Admin. |
_____________________________________________________________________________
|D.P.W. Garage Costs
|
|
|
|~
Rebidding/Redesign
|
65,000|
30,000|
|.
Borinqs & Soils Evaluations
|
10~000|
-O-|
|.
Sprinkler Syst. (req'd by law)!
68,0001
68,00011
|.
Site Preparation (reqradinq
+)|
156,000�
-O-i
|.
Caraqe Construction Cost
|
2,144,0001
bid = 2.989,SDO|
|.
Piles
|
-0-11
included in bid!
|.
Concrete Foundation
|
-0-11
included in bid|
|.
Methane Collection System
|
-0-|
included in bid!
|.
Administration Offices
|
-O-i
included in bid!
|.
Welding Shop
|
-O-|
included in bid!
|.
Equipment & Furnishinqs
|
501000|
SO,OOO|
|.
Add'l Site Work (Screenino,etc|
-O-|
I-S2,00011
|.
Testinq Fees �
|
7.S00|
7.5001
|.
Continpencies
|
100,000|
160.000|
|.
Inflation (6% per yeiDr)
|
150,O0011
16O,0001
|.
Movinq Costs
|
27,5001
27.500|
|.
Clerk of the Works
|
36,0001
_-S6.0001
(
|
---------|
---------|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
2,814,00011
3,500.500|
FINANCIAL IMPACT
\ ! The Homart Development proposal to the Town of Readino makes enormous
LJ
`- financial sense. The pun is intended because both the looic and the
dollars are evident when we project the impact of the proPosal into the
future. Doom and gloom have certainly dominated financial reports to Town
Meeting in the last several years. If the Homart Development plan is
approved, a much brighter scenario emerqes.
Homart's impact on the operations of the Town (i.e. its yearly
operating budget) begins in the fiscal year followino the sale of the old
dump site. $5,600,000 would be deposited into the Town's coffers the
first year and $760,000 no later than the third year, where it would earn
interest. At the same time, we would sell twenty year municipal bonds to
fund the construction of a new DPW facility plus related costs such as
land purchases, railroad rosssinq, and utilities. Interest earned on the
sale price of the land' plus a draw down of the principal of aporoximately
$500,000 per year would more than pay for the debt service on the bonds.
The first financial item, then, is that selling the dumosite will oav
for the DPW garage without diminishing tax dollars. There is further 000b
news. Under Proposition 2-1/2, cities and towns have had the right to
levy a hotel excise tax on the total dollars earned in room rentals.
Readinq has thus far had no opportunity to benefit from this tax. Under
Homart's plan; A 250 room luxury hotel would pay the Town an estimated
$258,000 in the first year, of operation. This is unearmarked money
available for any Town expenditure. The amount would grow with inflation,
and 1s certainly an outstandinq second financial item.
The third financial consideration is new prowth. With each year of
the project's growth, new values would be added to the tax rolls. This
new qrowth can be added to the amount of taxes allowable under proposition
2-1/2, thereby greatly easing the crunch on the ooeratino budget. Police,
Fire, BPW, and School Departments~ as well as all other Town services will
welcome this news. Homart plans first class office building as well as a
first class hotel. From 1989 to 1997, a projected total of $1,022,000 in
new growth would be available.
If considerations of these financial facts weren't enough, we have
then freed up other Sale of Real Estate money in similar ways. A list of
Reading's sale of Real Estate assets is as follows:
$1,6007000 Remaining from Sale of land to TASC and Depot sale
$1,100,000 Sale of Community Center
$3,000,000 Projected Bear Hill Sale
$5v700,000 Total
A Town Hall annex project and a new Fire Station could without a doubt
be funded by investing these monies and using a yearly oavdown. The new
prowth funds, as in the Homart new orowth wouId be available for the
operating budget.
Rea 11 has never been a Town known for wild spendino. It is not
intended that these financial projections be construed as a rush into
' uncontorlled spendinq. Instead, we wish to brinq a note of cautious
optimism for Readinq's financial security into the year 2000. It will be
a relief to be able to make financial decisions without the huoe spectre
of Proposition 2-1/2 drivinq these decisions. Homart/s proposal to the
| / Town makes prudent financial sense
\ \ .
TOTAL RECAP POSSIOLE
$ 1,600,000
- Sale of Real Estate Now
$ 5«500,000
- First Year Homart
$ 750,000
- Second Year
$ 1,1001000
- Community Center
$ 3,000"000
- Bear Hill
$11,950,000 - Total
An Additional $ 5,700,00O
possible in our fioures on
which new orowth and interest
would have to be considered
_
FY 88 $5,60OrO0O - CASH
FY 89
HOMART
385'000 - AT 7% INTEREST
500,000 - DRAW DOWN OF PRINCIPAL
$ 88S,O0O
(333,255) - DEBIT SERVICE
551.749
FY 86
DEBT SERVICE
$1r7O7,915
1'39O,8O0
(317,11S)
$ 3507000 - AT 7% INTEREST
600r000 - DRAW DOWN OF PRINCIPAL
850'O00 '
85,886 - NEW GROWTH
935,886 (398'990)
(672y942) - DEBT SERVICE
362,944
FY 90 + $75OrOOO - CASH FROM HOMART IN
INTEREST FIGURES BELOW
3677500
- INTEREST
SOO'ODO
- DRAW DOWN OF PRINCIPAL
867°S0O
72,965
- NEW GROWTH
9407465
556,28D
- DEBT SERVICE
1
HOMART
FY 91
332r600 - INTEREST
500,000 - DRAW DOWN ON PRINCIPAL
FY 92
FY 93
832,600
228,673 - NEW GROWTH
11061,073
5397617 - DEBT SERVICE
S21,456
2977500
S0O,OOO
797,50O
221,518
258,055
1.277,O73
(522,9S4)
7S4,119
INTEREST EARNED
DRAW DOWN ON PRINCIPAL
NEW GROWTH
HOTEL EXCISE
DEBT SERVICE
2627500 - INTEREST EARNED
5007000 - DRAW DOWN ON PRINCIPAL
762, OO
78,G87 - NEW GROWTH
270,830 - HOTEL EXCISE
1,111r917
(5O6,291)
605,626
2
FY 94
FY 95
HOMART
227,500 - INTEREST
5007000 - DRAW DOWN ON PRINCIPAL
727,5DO
80,S21 - NEW GROWTH
8O8,O21
281,05O - HOTEL EXCISE
1.089,071
(4897629) DEBT SERVICE
599,442
192,600 - INTEREST
500,O00 - DRAW DOWN ON PRINCIPAL
692.500
62,569 - NEW GROWTH
775,069
293,82S - HOTEL EXCISE
1,O68r894
(472,966) - DEBT SERVICE
595,928 '
3
W
H
H
U)
W
W
0
W
En
Ct:
O
W
tf)
z
H
H
U)
w�
Z
H
V
a
P.
vi
m O -4 N M d' u•1 I'D t- w m O 14 N M 'd' Lo 0
w m m m m m DL m DL m o O O o O O o O
wOWyy.. yy.. 4
W W [W W t-a W N W W P4 W 44 W W [+ it C+
I
t
II
n
t o o o o o O o o o O O O O 1
u
II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0
t[aa7]
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
u
0
O
n LD Ln L*i vi r.+ of Lb ri o 0 o ci o 0 0 0 0 l
o
H
II m w t— . i m N LD O N Efi Eft Efi- b9" Eft Efl- Eft 69- E+4- 1
M
1
II m ON LO to M to M to h i
D�
11
1
i
(s I
t'7
II to N N -Ii N O N d' i
r-1
I O
co t- N N `- C0 co CO
1
CO�J
x
n ft Eft N Ef• (ri Eft ff} Eft
O
H 1
� � 1
n
+
i
11 i
Eft
C11
I
u
1 I
vi
m O -4 N M d' u•1 I'D t- w m O 14 N M 'd' Lo 0
w m m m m m DL m DL m o O O o O O o O
wOWyy.. yy.. 4
W W [W W t-a W N W W P4 W 44 W W [+ it C+
I
A
t o o o o o O o o o O O O O 1
o
t[aa7]
H t/
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O . 0 0 0 1
O Iu I
1
H
t/i C7
I O O M Lo to to Lo Lo to m m m to I
Lo 11
1
V
1
i
(s I
t'7
[Z H
W
1 Lo O ID N t`N N t� N to N C• CV r-I I
I to ID M Ol lD C`L Q1 N N CD In r-! i
N it
lf1 it
CO�J
t*I M M
m
H 1
z
i
LYE 1
C11
H
1 I
Eft N it
rtiy 1
1
O I
o
I O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x
H
t
p4
1 O O o O O o O O O O o O o
1
"E"0000000000000
I
o o m to to m to to Lo m to to to
I
H
1 Ln o N r- r�l r, LV I` N r- N
1
W
1 to Lo to d' d' M M N N r-1 H
O
n
[Y. 1 r, W M O '-i N M d' Lo LD I` w m
H 1 m m m m H H rn rn m m H rn H
dl � 1 ri r•1 r•1 r-E r-i e-i •-i r1 .-t r•1 r-1 .-i ri
En 1 i i i
H I W W W W W W W W W W W W W
'
` IN SUMMARY - THE JOHN STREET TASK FORCE UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS
1. Authorizinq the Board of Selectmen to neootiate the sale of the
complete landfill to Homart Development Corporation for a minimum
of $S.5 million cash upon closinq, plus an additional $750,000
minimum within 2 years of closinq, for development of a first
class hotel (containing a minimum of 250 rooms) and a minimum of
600,000 square feet of Class A office spac6. ( Articles 4, 5 and
6). `
2. Authorizing the Selectmen to acouire by purchase, qift or takinq
by eminent domain:
A) a SO foot wide easement from The Analytic Science Corporation
for a public roadway from John Street to the railroad tracks
for a price to be established, based on anpraisaIs, but not to
exceed $285,000.
B) a 5O foot wide easement from the B & M Railroad for a prade
crossing for a price to be established, based on appraisals.
but not to exceed $100,000.
C) Approximately seven (7) acres of land from the Davis
Development Corporation for the site of a new DPW facility
for a price to be established, based on appraisals, but not
to exceed $950,000.
(These acquisitions are covered under Article 7).
3. Constructing a public roadway (includinq utilities) from John
Street to the railroad on the land taken from TASC, and
constructing a sipnalized grade crossinq across the B & M tracks
for a total cost not exceedinp $803,000 (Article 8).
4. Construcinq a DPW facility as described herein, on the seven (7)
acres of land taken from Davis Development Corporation for a cost
(includino redesiqn, rebidding, site preparation, construction,
and relocation) not exceedinq $2,814,000 (Article 9).
This action plan has the support of the Board of Selectmen, the
Industrial Development Commission, the Board of Public Works, the
Planninq Board and the Conservation Commission, each of which had one
(1) vote on the Task Force.
(This plan and the associated articles 4 throuah 9 have also been
unanimously approved by the Finance Committee).
The John Street Task Force unanimously recommends that this Town
Meetinp similarly endorse the plan and let the relocation of the DPW and
the development of a high quality industrial area on John Street bepin.
JHR/j
'
^ TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATION
Landfill Development Complete landfill
developed for
Hotel and Four
Office Buildina.s
Developer Homart Development Cora.
DPW Locations On «Transitron"
land with Grade
Crussinq
Art. 4 Transfer of 8.32
acres of landfill to
Selectmen for sale
Yes
Art. S Transfer of Remainder
of landfill to
Selectmen for sale
Yes
Art.6 Authorize Sale/Lease
sell all of
of all or part of
landfill for
Landfill
a minimum of
$6,2,50.000
Art.7 Takinq of Land for
to be neootiated
Roadway, crossing
(or taken) based
& site
on appraisers
/ TASC easement
$28SK max.
B & M easement
$100K max.
Transitron Site
$960K max.
Appraisals
$ 30
$1,36SK
Art.8 Construction of
Roadway, and $203K
Grade Crossinq (inc. Util.
Crossing & Signals $600K
$8O3K
Art.9 Construction of
DPW Facility
Add'l Desiqn/borinqs $ 75K
Site Prep $156K
Facility $2583K
$28141.1%
_
TOTAL $4,982K
\__
Iz
Special Town Meeting June 16, 1986
ARTICLE 1. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was voted to lay Article 1 on the table.
ARTICLE 2. On motion of Paul E. Landers it was voted to lay Article 2 on the table.
ARTICLE 3. On motion of Randolph R. Harrison, Jr. it was voted that the Capital
Outlay Plan as provided for in Article III, Section 11 of the By -Laws of the Town, as adopted
at the Subsequent Town Meeting of November, 1985 and amended at the Annual Town
Meeting of April, 1986, be amended as follows:
FY 1986 Change
Public Works Garage $3,700.00 to $4,982.00
ARTICLE 4. On motion of John H. Russell it was voted that the Town transfer the
care, custody, management and control of the following described land, or portions thereof,
which land contains 8.32 acres more or less and constitutes a portion of what is commonly
known as the Town of Reading landfill, from the Board of Public Works and /or Board of
Selectmen, which land had previously been designated as the site for the Department of
Public Works garage and related facilities, to the Board of Selectmen of the Town of
Reading, for any other municipal purpose including the possible sale or lease thereof.
Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly sideline of John Street;
Thence North 43 degrees 26' 00" West, a distance of 531.10 feet, along the
Northeasterly sideline of John Street, to a point, said point being a point of curvature; -
Thence by a curved line to the right, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, a distance of
269.78 feet to a point, said point being a point of tangency;
Thence North 70 degrees 52' 40" East, a distance of 88.14 feet to a point;
Thence North 84 degrees 55' 30" East, a distance of 263.67 feet to a point;
Thence South 81 degrees 01' 00" East, a distance of 628.05 feet to a point;
Thence South 43 degrees 26' 00" East, a distance of 100.00 feet to a point;
Thence South 46 degrees 34' 00" West, a distance of 706.31 feet to a point, said point
being the point of beginning of said description.
Being the land shown on Town of Reading Board of Assessors' January 1, 1985, Plat 57,
as all of Lot 21, and portions of Lots 20, 22, 23 and 26.
Where applicable, all references herein to the Board or Department of Public Works,
shall also apply to and include whatever board or officer succeeds to the Board or the
Department of Public Works powers and duties under the Town Charter.
118 voted in the affirmative
17 voted in the negative
2/3 vote required
ARTICLE 4. George J. Shannon moved to restrict the transfer or sale until such time
as clear title and /or agreement has been obtained for the Right of Way railroad crossing and
site for the Department of Public Works. This motion was voted in the Negative.
ARTICLE 5. On motion of John H. Russell it was voted that the Town transfer the
care, custody, management and control of the following described land, or portions thereof,
which constitutes a portion of what is commonly known as the Town of Reading landfill,
from the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Public Works, the Board of Health and from any
and all other officials and boards of the Town of Reading having any jurisdiction thereover,
to the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, for any other municipal purpose
including the possible sale or lease thereof.
The land shown on Town of Reading Board of Assessors' January 1, 1985, Plat 57, as all
of Lots 24 and 25 and portions of Lots 20, 22, 23 and 26 and the land shown on Town of
Reading Board of Assessors' January 1, 1978, Plat 68, as all of Lots 7 and 8. The land being
bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly side of John Street, said point located 323.92 feet
Northwesterly of the Reading - Wakefield town line;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 332.90 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 706.31 feet to a point;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 100.00 feet to a point;
Thence Northerly a distance of 458.6 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 280.00 feet to a point;
Thence Southeasterly a distance of 384.0 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 80.0 feet to a point;
Thence Southeasterly a distance of 670.8 + feet to a point;
52 Special Town Meeting
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 789. + feet to a point;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 60.0t7feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 211.53 feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 182.93 feet to a point;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 175.84 feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 274.26 feet to the
description.
June 16, 1986
point of beginning of said
Where applicable all references herein to the Board or Department of Public Works
shall also apply to and include whatever board or officer succeeds to the Board or
Department of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter.
116 voted in the affirmative
6 voted in the negative
2/3 vote required
ARTICLE 6. The following motion was presented by John H. Russell:
Move that the Town hereby vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen of the Town of
Reading to convey all or any part of the following described property with the buildings
thereon, presently commonly known as the Town of Reading landfill, to Homart
Development Company of Chicago, Illinois, and that the minimum amount to be paid for the
conveyance of all or any part of said property is Six Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($6,250,000.00) and that the Board of Selectmen are authorized to convey all or any
part of said property for such amount or a larger amount and upon such other terms and
conditions as the Board of Selectmen shall consider proper and to deliver a deed or deeds
therefor to said Homart Development Comany, provided, however, that the Board of
Selectmen shall neither execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with, nor make a
conveyance to, Homart Development Company regarding said land, until such time as all
land or easements necessary for the relocation of the Department of Public Works Garage
and related facilities and access thereto have been acquired by the Town, or written
agreements for such acquisitions have been executed by the Board of Selectmen.
The land shown on Town of Reading Board of Assessors' January 1, 1985, Plat 57, as
Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, and the land shown on Town of Reading Board of
Assessors' January 1, 1978, Plat 68, as Lots 7 and 8 being bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Easterly side of John Street, said point located 323.92 feet
Northwesterly of the Reading - Wakefield town line;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 864 + feet to a point;
Thence in a Northwesterly direction by a curved line to the right, having a radius of
1,100 feet, a distance of 280 + feet to a point, said point being a point of tangency;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 88.14 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 263.67 feet to a point;
Thence Easterly a distance of 628.05 feet to a point;
Thence Northerly a distance of 458.6 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 280.00 feet to a point;
Thence Southeasterly a distance of 384.0 feet to a point;
Thence Northeasterly a distance of 80.0 feet to a point;
Thence Southeasterly a distance of 670.8 + feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 789. +-f eet to a point;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 60.00 feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 211.53 feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 182.93 feet to a point;
Thence Northwesterly a distance of 175.84 feet to a point;
Thence Southwesterly a distance of 274.26 feet to the point of beginning.
Where applicable all references herein to the Board or Department of Public. Works
shall also apply to and include whatever board or officer succeeds to the Board or
Department of Public Works powers and duties under the new Town Charter.
Action under this motion was continued until the next adjourned session of this Town
Meeting scheduled for June 19, 1986.
On motion of Michael M. Guenther it was voted that this meeting stand adjourned to
meet at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, June 19, 1986, in the Reading Memorial High School
auditorium.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. j
147 Town Meeting members were present. ,!
A true copy. Attest: - "--------� -�_-- ---
E erp rew